Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen's Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points Grayal Earle Farr
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
A REEVALUATION OF BULLEN’S TYPOLOGY FOR PRECERAMIC PROJECTILE POINTS
By
GRAYAL EARLE FARR
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2006 The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Grayal Earle Farr defended on March 15th, 2006.
Rochelle A. Marrinan Professor Directing Thesis
Glenn H. Doran Committee Member
J. Anthony Paredes Committee Member
Approved:
Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii This Thesis is dedicated to Helen M. Light, without whose love, encouragement, art work (the projectile point key outlines are her work) -- and computer tutoring --it would not have been completed.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Rochelle Marrinan’s patience, encouragement, and sound counsel from prior to my application for my first undergraduate Archaeology course, were absolutely essential to every step on the way to completing a graduate degree. Glen Doran and Anthony Paredes, the other members of my committee, were also patient and encouraging over more than a decade. All three were also challenging and inspiring teachers. Jerald Milanich, Curator of Florida Archaeology, and Donna Ruhl, Florida Archaeology Collections Manager, at the Florida Museum of Natural History made the Ripley Bullen Type Collection and Aucilla River Prehistory Project materials available for my study and documentation. They provided me with Bullen’s notes, as well as photographic equipment and other resources that enabled me to take full advantage of the collections. The Florida Department of State, to include the Archives, the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research collections, the Florida Master Site Files, and the records of the discontinued Florida Isolated Finds Program provided invaluable assistance. The staff members who assisted me were too numerous to list here, but Dave Dickel, and Jim Dunbar, and Roy Lett were especially helpful. Jim Dunbar, in particular, was always ready with an insightful suggestion or a reference. Brinnen Carter of the U. S. Park Service’s Southeastern Archaeological Center (SEAC) in Tallahassee and David Anderson, formerly of SEAC and now with the University of Tennessee, gave unstintingly of their time, and checked my conclusions against their very up-to-date concepts of Paleoindian technology. Tom Stafford’s “Grayal, common sense can set in at any time,” delivered in a twelve-foot backhoe trench at the Topper Site in South Carolina, put my doubts about the validity of my own insights in proper perspective. His counsel at various points of this work was invariably germane, humorous, and straight to the point. Barbara Purdy, pioneer Florida lithic specialist was kind enough to include me on a week-long tour of old Florida sites she had arranged for Tom Stafford. The week spent
iv with those two enormously experienced professionals was a great learning experience, and a great pleasure. Noel Justice, whose cluster concept so many archaeologists are finding the most useful organizing concept for understanding lithic typologies, encouraged me in my intent to adapt his approach to this thesis. Any error or misconceptions in regard to his concept that may exist in this thesis are the result of my own misunderstanding. Private collectors, in spite of growing resentment towards state policies, went to great lengths to insure that I could study and document their artifacts. Their insights, honed by decades of finding artifacts in the field, were also valuable. They were: Alvin Hendrix, retired pharmacist and advisor to Bullen; taxidermist Tony Gilyard; reconstructive surgeon Dr. Lou Hill; brothers Ryan and Harley Means, respectively a biologist and a geologist; and Texas archaeologist Lou Ensor.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures ...... x Abstract ...... xv
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Purpose and Intent of Thesis ...... 3 Research Methods, Material, and Scope ...... 3 Ripley P. Bullen Biographical Background and Education ...... 4 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points ...... 5 Organization of Thesis Chapters ...... 9
2. RIPLEY BULLEN AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HIS ERA...... 11
The Two Radiocarbon Revolutions ...... 11 Seriation ...... 14 Lithic Analysis and Experimental Archaeology ...... 18
3. PROJECTILE POINT GUIDES AND THESIS ORGANIZATION ...... 21
Florida and Regional Projectile Point Guides, 1962-2002 ...... 21 Morphological Type Cluster Concept...... 24 Thesis Treatment of Specific Bullen Temporal and Cultural Placements ...... 25
4. FLUTED LANCEOLATE CLUSTER ...... 28
Cllovis ...... 30 Clovis Fluted ...... 32 Clovis Waisted ...... 33 Redstone ...... 34
5. UNFLUTED LANCEOLATE CLUSTERS ...... 36
Simpson ...... 38 Suwannee ...... 40 Suwannee Waisted...... 40
vi Lake Jackson Lanceolate ...... 42 Page-Ladson Lanceolate ...... 43 Beaver Lake ...... 44
6. DALTON CLUSTER ...... 46
Dalton ...... 47 Greenbriar Dalton...... 50 Gilchrist ...... 51 Chipola ...... 52
7. TRANSITIONAL SIDE-NOTCHED CLUSTER ...... 58
Suwannee, Greenbriar-like ...... 59 Union Side-notched ...... 60 Greenbriar ...... 61 Hardaway Side-notched...... 61
8. EARLY ARCHAIC NOTCHED CLUSTER ...... 63
Bolen ...... 64 Kirk Corner-notched ...... 66 Lost Lake ...... 68 Hardin ...... 68 Wacissa ...... 70 Norden ...... 72
9. ARCHAIC STEMMED CLUSTER ...... 76
Kirk Stemmed ...... 76 Florida Stemmed Archaic ...... 80 Arredondo ...... 86 Hamilton ...... 87 Sumter ...... 88 Thonotosassa ...... 90
10. NEWNAN ...... 92
Newnan ...... 93 Hillsborough ...... 93
vii 11. MISTAKES, MISPLACEMENTS, AND MYSTERIES ...... 96
Culbreath ...... 96 Savannah River ...... 97 Morrow Mountain ...... 99 Westo ...... 100 Florida Spike ...... 101 Stanfield ...... 102 Moustache Simpson ...... 103 Ghost Orchid Bolen ...... 104
12. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 106
Proposed Revisions to Bullen’s 1975 Temporal Placements ...... 106 Suggested Clustering of Florida Projectile Point Types, 2006 ...... 108 Private Collectors, Private Collections, and Florida State Policies...... 110
REFERENCES ...... 115
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 136
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Preceramic Timelines for Florida and the Southeastern United States ...... 7
Table 2: Preceramic Florida Projectile Points and Culture Periods According to Bullen...... 26
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Ripley P. Bullen in the Field, 1953 ...... 5
Figure 2.1 Bolen Point Manufacturing, Resharpening, and Use-alteration Sequence ...... 20
Figure 4.1 Clovis Points from Florida ...... 31
Figure 4.2 Outré passé, or Overshot Flaking Pattern and Debitage Typical, and Diagnostic, of Clovis Artifacts and Sites ...... 31
Figure 4.3 Fluted Clovis Points from Florida ...... 32
Figure 4.4 Clovis Waisted Point from the Aucilla River, Florida ...... 33
Figure 4.5 Redstone Point from Florida ...... 34
Figure 5.1 Ambiguity among Fluted Lanceolate Forms...... 38
Figure 5.2 Simpson Point from Florida ...... 39
Figure 5.3 Suwannee Straight-sided and Excurvate Forms from Florida ...... 40
Figure 5.4 Suwannee Waisted Points from Florida ...... 41
Figure 5.5 Lake Jackson Lanceolate Points from Florida ...... 43
Figure 5.6 Page-Ladson Points from Florida...... 44
Figure 5.7 Beaver Lake Points Traced for the Guide ...... 45
Figure 6.1 Dalton Points from Southwest Georgia ...... 47
Figure 6.2 Probable Terminal Utilization Dalton Drill Forms from Florida ...... 48
Figure 6.3 Bullen-designated Marianna Points from Alachua and Bradford Counties, Florida ...... 48
x Figure 6.4 Dalton Points from Florida...... 50
Figure 6.5 Greenbriar Dalton from Florida ...... 51
Figure 6.6 Gilchrist Points from Marion and Alachua Counties, Florida...... 52
Figure 6.7 Chipola Points from Econfina Creek, Florida ...... 53
Figure 6.8 San Patrice Points from Texas...... 53
Figure 6.9 Nuckolls and Colbert Dalton Points from Florida ...... 53
Figure 6.10 Santa Fe Points from Florida ...... 55
Figure 6.11 Tallahassee Points from Apalachicola and Wacissa Rivers, Florida ...... 56
Figure 6.12 Tallahassee Points from Clay and Marion Counties, Florida ...... 57
Figure 7.1 Dalton, Union, Greenbriar, Norden, and Bolen Points from Florida ...... 58
Figure 7.2 Left to Right, Two Eared or Greenbriar-like Suwannee Points, a Union Point, Two Greenbriar Points, and above, Two Hardaway Side-notched Points ...... 60
Figure 7.3 Hardaway Side-notched Point from Florida ...... 62
Figure 8.1 Bolen Archaic Notched Points from Florida ...... 65
Figure 8.2 Bolen Points from Points ...... 65
Figure 8.3 Kirk Corner-notched Points from Gilchrist and Jackson Counties, Florida...... 66
Figure 8.4 Kirk Corner-notched Points from the Apalachicola River, Florida ...... 67
Figure 8.5 Lost Lake Points from Florida ...... 68
xi Figure 8.6 Hardin Points from the Apalachicola and Wacissa Rivers, Florida ...... 69
Figure 8.7 Wacissa Points from Florida ...... 70
Figure 8.8 Wacissa Points and Abbey from Florida ...... 72
Figure 8.9 Proposed Norden Type-specimen from Santa Fe River, Florida ...... 73
Figure 8.10 Norden Points from Waccasassa River, Florida ………………….. 74
Figure 8.11 Clay/Lafayette Points from Florida...... 75
Figure 9.1 Kirk Stemmed Points from Jackson and Gilchrist Counties, Florida ...... 77
Figure 9.2 Kirk Stemmed Points from Alachua County, Florida ...... 78
Figure 9.3 Serrated Kirk Point from Leon County, Florida ...... 80
Figure 9.4 Alachua Subtype Stemmed Archaic Points from Bradford, Jefferson, and Holmes Counties, Florida...... 81
Figure 9.5 Levy Subtype Stemmed Archaic Points from Washington and Leon Counties, Florida ...... 82
Figure 9.6 Putnam Subtype Stemmed Archaic Points from Jefferson And Leon Counties, Florida ...... 82
Figure 9.7 Marion Subtype Stemmed Archaic Points from Citrus and Pasco Counties, Florida ...... 83
Figure 9.8 Stemmed Archaic Points from the Windover Site, Brevard County, Florida ...... 84
Figure 9.9 Savannah/Hamilton/Stemmed Archaic Points from Taylor County, Florida ...... 84
Figure 9.10 Hardee Beveled Point from Gadsden County, Florida ...... 85
xii Figure 9.11 Arredondo Points from Alachua, Dixie, and Gilchrist, Counties, Florida ...... 86
Figure 9.12 Hamilton Points from Alachua and Columbia Counties, Florida...... 87
Figure 9.13 Sumter Points from Volusia, Hillsborough, and Columbia Counties, Florida ...... 89
Figure 9.14 Thonotosassa Points from Hillsborough County, Florida ...... 90
Figure 10.1 Newnan Points from Alachua and Hillsborough Counties, Florida ...... 93
Figure 10.2 Newnan-Hillsborough Points from Alachua, Marion, Suwannee, and Volusia Counties, Florida ...... 94
Figure 10.3 Newnan or Marion Outline Point from the Apalachicola River, Florida ...... 95
Figure 11.1 Culbreath Points from Alachua, Gilchrist, Pasco, Pinellas, and Volusia Counties, Florida ...... 97
Figure 11.2 Savannah Points from Alachua County, Florida ...... 98
Figure 11.3 “Morrow Mountain” Points from Alachua and Dixie Counties, Florida ...... 99
Figure 11.4 “Westo” Points from Citrus County, Florida ...... 100
Figure 11.5 Florida Spike Points from Alachua and Levy, Counties, Florida ...... 101
Figure 11.6 “Stanfield” Point from Alachua County, Florida ...... 102
Figure 11.7 Moustache Simpson from Florida ...... 104
Figure 11.8 Ghost Orchid Bolen from Florida ...... 105
Figure 12.1 Comparison of Bullen’s versus Contemporary Temporal Placements ...... 107
xiii Figure 12.2 Projectile Point Cluster Key ...... 111
xiv ABSTRACT
Ripley P. Bullen’s A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points, remains the most important reference on Florida projectile points. The Guide was published in 1969 and revised in 1975. Since 1975 several works of similar content and expanded scope have been published. All still rely heavily upon and frequently reference the Guide. This thesis considers Florida and regional research bearing on the preceramic lithic bifacial types proposed by Bullen. Utilizing calibrated radiocarbon dates a modern temporal placement is suggested for Bullen’s as well as newly recognized or proposed Florida types. Typologically, preceramic Florida types believed to share developmental relationships are grouped into seven type-clusters.
xv CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Orientation
Both academic and Cultural Resource Management (CRM) archaeologists depend on standard references to insure that their observations and conclusions are made in a context of shared understanding. If accurate, and used correctly, references have the potential to facilitate common understanding of the temporal and spatial distribution of artifactual materials. Some references are, as near as possible, absolute and applicable in any archaeological context (e.g., the ubiquitous Munsell Soil Color Charts). Others depend on fixed scientific principles, such as the half-life of Carbon 14, but must nevertheless be interpreted in light of depositional circumstances and calibration by unrelated means, such as dendrochronology. Consequently a number of researchers and institutions have created electronic references to assist in calibration of radiocarbon dates (Damon 1974; Klein et al. 1982; Stuiver et al. 1998). Some references concern themselves with identification of a variety of artifacts from specific social and geographic contexts over a historically defined temporal range. Kathleen Deagan’s (1987) familiar reference, Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads , is an example of the latter. Others define taxonomic relationships through space and time between members of the same general classes of artifact, such as metals, glass, ceramics, or lithics. Ripley P. Bullen’s (1975) A Guide to th e Identification of Florida Projectile Pointsis one of the latter sort. So is Noel D. Justice’s (1987) Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. The usefulness of any reference is a function of the state of archaeological knowledge at the time of its publication. If it remains in use, but the knowledge base changes, the utility of the reference decreases. Such is the case with the standard reference on Florida lithic artifacts, Ripley P. Bullen’s A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Bullen’s Guide was published in 1968 and revised in 1975. Much archaeological investigation has been conducted in
1 the state since 1975, but in Florida “Bullen” occupies a place on every academic archaeologist’s bookshelf and in every excavator’s field box. Although everyone has reservations about it, however the Guide remains the common point of departure for analyzing the significance of stone tools in Florida. When queried on the subject in 1999, Jerald Milanich summed up (personal communication 7/21/99) what seems a common opinion: “Bullen’s Guide is horribly out of date and should be redone.” It is far from the only such reference in need of reconsideration. The Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part 1, Point Types, by James W. Cambron and David C. Hulse (1964), is more detailed than “Bullen” but it represents essentially the same state of knowledge. It was published just four years before the Guide, and was revised in 1975, the same year the Guide was revised. An avocational archaeologist, Lloyd E. Schroeder (2002), has made a more recent attempt to update our understanding of prehistoric Florida lithic technology with his The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades. All four works will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, as will a regional guide by John Powell (1990) and Noel D. Justice’ (1987) standard-setting work on lithics of the midcontinental and eastern states. Various aspects of Bullen’s work have been questioned, particularly typologies. In part, this is an outgrowth of archaeology’s recognition of, and frustration with, the confusing regional nomenclatures that have been created to describe artifacts without reference to extremely similar, even indistinguishable, stone tools. For instance, the common Florida Early Archaic projectile point or knife called Bolen in Florida is identified as Taylor in South Carolina and Big Sandy elsewhere. Another example is the confusion surrounding unfluted lanceolate points. David G. Anderson (Anderson et al. 1996:11) wryly observes that, “Unambiguously sorting waisted fluted and unfluted lanceolate points with broad blades and faint-to-pronounced ears similar to the Florida Suwannee and Simpson types is difficult, since the type descriptions and illustrated specimens for these forms exhibit considerable technological overlap.” In other words, even experienced archaeologists have a hard time telling “types” apart. Justice (1994:60-71) rationally clusters Bolens and Taylors and Big Sandys and over a dozen other named types, as the Large Side Notched Cluster. Such association allows comparison of similar lithic types without precluding recognition of regional variation. As useful as such a work would be for the southeastern states, no author has yet come forward to replicate Justice’s approach in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, which are on the periphery of his coverage.
2 To some extent this thesis addresses archaeologists’ increased realization that technologically similar artifacts often are in fact closely related, despite confusingly conflicted regional nomenclatures, across extensive geographical areas. Besides defining Florida projectile point types, Bullen made temporal attributions. As dating techniques have improved, Bullen's temporal attributions have proven to be even more seriously and consistently flawed than his typological ones.
Purpose and Intent of Thesis
My intent in this thesis is twofold. The first is to update the temporal attributions of all preceramic lithic types identified in Bullen’s Guide. The second is to rearrange, where appropriate, Bullen’s type categorizations in the context of our contemporary conceptions utilizing Justice’s concept of the sort of technological “clusters” which facilitate regional understanding of technological similarities.
Research Method, Material, and Scope
My research was based on Bullen’s Guide itself, and its sources. Of particular importance was The Ripley P. Bullen Type Collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) in Gainesville, Florida. Although Bullen used selected artifacts from collectors to illustrate the Guide, most of the actual artifacts he traced are still available for study in the Type Collection. I also made extensive use of the collections of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) in Tallahassee, insights of FBAR staff members, and the FBAR-maintained archives of the now-terminated Florida Isolated Finds Program (IFP). The Forida Master Site File (FMSF) and its associated site forms and reports were also invaluable, as was the complete set of copies of The Florida Anthropologist available in the Florida State Library, also in Tallahassee. Also valuable, if often confusing, were the state and regional guides contemporary with Bullen’s and those published -- all of them by avocational archaeologists – since 1975. I was also given access to a number of extensive private collections. Although rarely rigorously provenienced, collections possess superb diagnostic examples of types, and so proved
3 invaluable in a study that focused on typologies. I was able to visit Alvin Hendrix, a dedicated artifact collector who collaborated with Bullen and provided artifacts traced by him for the Guide. Alvin Hendrix’s valuable and extensive collection has been recently donated to the Silver River Museum in Marion County, Florida. Others made their collections available to me. One person provided the single artifact found in his garden in Gadsden County, which proved to be a perfect example of one of Bullen’s baffling misconceptions. Others provided me with hours of their time and access to breathtaking, museum-quality mounted and displayed assemblages of hundreds of perfect artifacts. All who were willing to be recognized are mentioned with gratitude in my Acknowledgements and in figure captions where their artifacts are utilized. I conclude this thesis with an even greater belief in the value of lithic typological studies. In the course of it, I have become equally profoundly convinced of the role that private collections must play in such studies.
Ripley P. Bullen Biographical Background and Education
Who was Ripley Pierce Bullen, how was he trained, and what were significant archaeological concepts and priorities that influenced him, especially insofar as concern the Guide? Born in 1902, Bullen was educated as an engineer, receiving a Master’s degree in that field from Cornell in 1925. He subsequently worked as an engineer at General Electric for fifteen years, eventually leaving the field to pursue a lifelong interest in archaeology. In 1940 he joined the staff of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology at Harvard. In 1941, he attended the University of New Mexico archaeological field school at Chaco Canyon. He subsequently pursued graduate work at Harvard and served as a teaching fellow there from 1943 through 1945. He accepted a position as Assistant Archaeologist at the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials in Gainesville in 1948. When the Parks Board discontinued its archaeological program in 1952 its collections, and Ripley Bullen, became part of the Florida State Museum, now the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH). Made curator of the newly created Department of Social Sciences at the museum, he remained there for the rest of his career, retiring in 1969 (unpublished bibliography with biographical preface by S. Jeffery K. Wilkerson, ca. 1978).
4
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 1.1 Ripley P. Bullen in the field, 1953. Photograph originally appeared in Jerald T. Milanich's "Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida", University Press of Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History FLMNH.
A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points
The Guide was first published in 1968. Though revised in 1975, its temporal attributions remained essentially unchanged. In fact, Bullen’s own discussion of temporal placement is less concerned with absolute chronometric dating than in “helping students to order their projectile points and…to seriate preceramic sites [emphasis added].” He fully realized that he was at the
5 mercy of Florida conditions: stratigraphic information for relative dating was limited and correlation between radiocarbon dated materials and projectile points was scarce. As he explained, his attributions were based on “clues” (Bullen 1975:2) or “hints from fields and rivers” (Bullen 1968:33) in Florida. In 1968, and to a slightly lesser extent in 1975, he had little choice. In 1999 Jerald Milanich (personal communication) noted that Bullen’s failure to utilize dated contexts from Florida was understandable: “There simply weren’t any such contexts at the time.” Bullen’s conclusions were supported and informed by work done elsewhere at sites with good stratigraphic integrity and related radiocarbon dates. Most calendrical dates cited in the Guide are from the Stanfield-Worley rock shelter in Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962), the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1968), and North Carolina sites reported by Joffre L. Coe (1964). The weaknesses of the Guide as a contemporary reference have been noted. What were the sources of Ripley Bullen’s misconceptions about preceramic Florida lithics? They were threefold. While the dates he cited from sites such as Stanfield-Worley remain accurate today, they are radiocarbon dates, usually expressed in archaeological literature today as RCYBP, or “radiocarbon years before present.” Science has increasingly come to recognize an inherent inaccuracy in simple radiocarbon dates. That inaccuracy stems from our understanding of the importance of the fact that deposition of carbon in living tissue does not take place at a fixed rate, but varies over time. As a result, radiocarbon ages do not correspond to calendar ages. To do so, or more nearly do so, they must be calibrated against phenomena that do accumulate at a fixed rate over long periods (Damon 1974; Feidel 1999, 2004; Klein et al. 1982; Ralph et al.1973; Renfrew 1979; Stuiver, et al. 1966; Stuiver et. al 1998; Suess 1961, 1965, 1967, 1970). In 1968, Bullen had not grasped those facts. In fairness, few archaeologists had. Lack of understanding led Bullen to accept available RCYBP as absolute within the age brackets determined by testing labs. Because this paper discusses only Paleoindian through Middle Archaic projectile points, the difference between radiocarbon dates attributed by Bullen and calibrated radiocarbon dates is sufficient to create margins of error which effectively relocate our placement of many stone tools’ cultural associations by whole periods, as depicted in Table 1.
6 7 Florida is heavily vegetated and rainy; its soils are highly acidic. Under most circumstances of deposition, Florida conditions do not favor preservation of organic materials. There are few terrestrial features such as the rock shelters and caves that have preserved deeply stratified sites elsewhere. Even today the state presents few stratified preceramic archaeological contexts with associated radiocarbon dates. There are, as Milanich observed in 1999 (personal communications), however, more of them than there were in Bullen’s time. The first and most pervasive of the multiple sources of error in Bullen’s Guide was his failure to recognize the significance of, and incorporate, insofar as possible, calibrated radiocarbon dates. Increasingly, and especially as our conceptual time frame for the peopling of the western hemisphere expands, archaeologists have come to recognize the significance of calibrated radiocarbon dates (CALYBP). A leader in, and advocate of, utilizing calibrated dates has been Stuart J. Fiedel (1999, 2004). He sums up the rationale succinctly, “I advocate the use of real time in discussing the terminal-Pleistocene archaeological record because correlating that record with paleoclimatic and environmental data, as well as with human colonization and divergence models proposed by linguists and geneticists, requires a standard chronology,” (Fiedel 2004:73). He was not the first (Taylor 1996) to use this approach, and increasingly less ancient contexts are being evaluated in the light of calibrated time frames (Anderson 2004, Doran 2002, Little 2002, Prentiss et al. 2003, Saunders et al. 2005, Sherwood et al. 2004). The recent tendency to reexamine concepts previously based uncritically upon uncalibrated radiocarbon dates has come about in large part in the last five or six years by virtue of advances in calibration science allowing standard deviations to be shrunk to as little as twenty-five years (personal communications, Thomas Stafford, 2006). This has led to significant conceptual breakthroughs. For instance, the fluorescence of projectile point types between 10,800-10,000 RCYBP has long puzzled archaeologists (Anderson 2004:124-126). It was an illusion, as recent work, notably by Feidel (1999), has shown. In fact, a significant radiocarbon plateau occurred in that time interval and its discovery revealed that the puzzlingly compressed technological changes had actually occurred over 1500 years, including most of the Younger Dryas stadial (Anderson 2004; Feidel 1999). This thesis will employ calibrated dates, or CALYBP. All dates hereafter not specified otherwise will be expressed in real time/calendar/calibrated years before present, or B. P.; the
8 acronym CALYBP will not be further utilized. Uniform use of real time will facilitate two things: 1) an accurate understanding of the calendar ages of preceramic Florida lithics, yielding a better understanding of the cultural periods with which the tools are associated and of which they can then become reliably diagnostic and 2) an assurance, based on temporal simultaneity, that apparent close taxonomic resemblances of lithic artifacts across the southeastern United States region are real and not confusing instances of convergent technological evolution. The possibility of technological convergence raises the issue of the second source of erroneous conclusions in Bullen’s Guide that this thesis proposes to correct. These are errors, usually caused by the sort of convergent technological evolution discussed above, which arise from attempts to accurately seriate lithic tools for which the stratigraphic contexts are unknown or poorly understood. A third source of error derives from a lack of understanding of the lithic manufacturing process itself, and the trajectory of use-wear and modification that stone tools undergo.
Organization of Thesis Chapters
Each of the Florida preceramic lithic types identified by Bullen will be discussed in this thesis, though some may be mentioned only in concluding comments summarizing suggested changes to Bullen’s attributions. Each type, as well as some Florida types unknown or incompletely understood by Bullen, will be placed in the context of current research as a member of a regional lithic tool cluster and the confusion of regionally conflicting names thereby avoided as far as possible. Dates will be sought from both regional and Florida sites, thus allowing the tools to be accurately placed, both “absolutely” and relatively, in relation to each other and to currently understood regional culture periods. Culture periods are conceived somewhat differently by individual researchers over time, as Table 1 indicates. For the purposes of a this thesis, the chronology of Southeastern culture periods as postulated by the most recent calculations (Anderson 2004:120) and depicted in Table 1 will be accepted as a baseline for contemporary understanding.
9 The following chapter will elaborate upon the sources of error in Bullen’s attributions identified above. The first section will examine Bullen’s enthusiastic acceptance of the first radiocarbon revolution and his failure to grasp the implications of the second and apply them to his work on Florida materials. The second section will explain the origins and nature of Bullen’s dependence upon seriation to chronologically order Florida stone tools. The last section will discuss the growth of practical replication—flintknapping—and its implications for understanding the lithic record as we find it in archaeological contexts. Chapter 3 will review the forty year history of published projectile point guides from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the southeastern coastal plain. It will provide a more detailed discussion of the guidebook organizational concept developed by Noel Justice. Chapter 3 will conclude by presenting the sequence and rationale of subsequent chapters of this thesis, each devoted to a “cluster” of lithic types and its “morphological correlates.” Chapters 4-10 will describe a new proposed cluster organization of Florida projectile point types from ca 5,000 B.P. or older. Chapter 11 will discuss any changed attributions to the 1975 Guide not covered in the context of previous chapters. Chapter 12 will recapitulate and summarize suggested changes to Bullen’s 1975 concept of Florida projectile point types, both temporal and typological. It will include remarks about the status of official Florida archaeology’s relationship with its private collectors and recommendations for improvements in those relationships.
10 CHAPTER 2
RIPLEY BULLEN AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HIS ERA
The Two Radiocarbon Revolutions
In my introduction, I asserted that the first of two major sources of error in Ripley Bullen’s temporal attributions of preceramic lithic types was his failure to calibrate the radiocarbon dates upon which he based so many of his conclusions. As it is commonly held (Wilkerson 1976) that Bullen was the first Florida archaeologist to employ radiocarbon dating, the failure to do so seemed baffling. My initial conclusion was that the so-called “second radiocarbon revolution” (Libby’s initial work [1949] having been the first) had not occurred before Bullen revised his guide in 1975. Such was not the case. It is clear that, whether he was the very first or not, (an assertion I have been unable to verify), Bullen immediately recognized the enormous archaeological potential of radiocarbon dating, began to employ it at every opportunity, and to publicize results in the professional literature (Bullen 1956, 1958a). It is not surprising. Bullen was initially educated and employed as an engineer. Most Americanist archaeology of his era was rooted in the direct historical approach and cultural anthropology. Bullen, with his technical training and experience, was better prepared than most to embrace a wholly new dating technology, one based not on seriation and stratigraphy, but on chemistry and physics. Bullen was by no means typical in regard to his early grasp of the possibilities created by radiocarbon dating and his eagerness to employ the new tool in Florida archaeology. Almost as soon as the possibility of the new technology was grasped, a number of laboratories rushed to provide radiocarbon dating services. The rapid increase in samples being processed soon spawned enough highly questionable results to bolster the reservations of archaeologists schooled in less technically sophisticated methods (Taylor 1985:317). Alarmed by this backlash, and writing to clarify the issue in American Antiquity, W. S. Broecker and J. L. Kulp (1956:1- 11) observed, “A few scientists feel that radiocarbon dates contradict archaeological or
11 geological theories which they regard as well-founded and have suggested that because of this the method is invalid….Because of the great importance and widespread use of radiocarbon dating in archaeology, it is imperative that the historical scientists be aware of the basis as well as the limitations of the method.” During his research for the 1968 edition of the Guide, Bullen was frustrated by the lack of data from Florida sites. Few, if any known Florida sites contained a secure stratigraphic record of significant time depth to allow relative dating of preceramic lithic types. Bullen diligently mined regional research at well-stratified sites, dates that apparently had relevance for Florida projectile point chronology. As earlier noted, he relied heavily on reports from deeply stratified sites with multiple radiocarbon dates from Alabama, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Elsewhere in the southeast a few sites, such as Stanfield-Worley in northern Alabama, had not only much stratigraphically-derived relative dating but were able to anchor relative positions calendrically with a high degree of confidence using radiocarbon dates. The Stanfield-Worley Rock Shelter was investigated by David L. DeJarnette, Edward Kurjack and James L. Cambron and published in 1962 in the Journal of Alabama Archaeology. Much of their work was incorporated into the Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I, Point Types (Cambron and Hulse 1964), published four years before the 1968 Guide and heavily cited in it. Like Bullen’s Guide, the Handbook of Alabama Archaeology remains its state’s principal reference on aboriginal lithic tools. Both guides were revised in 1975. Neither incorporated calibration of radiocarbon dates. In that both erred, fostering misconceptions about the archaeological record that persist to this writing. Since at least the early 1970s, it has become increasingly apparent that a failure to grasp the implications of calibrated radiocarbon dates has the potential to induce serious flaws into our site interpretations; flaws of a magnitude sufficient to alter the attribution of artifacts by factors of whole culture periods. As mentioned and cited above, utilization of calibrated dates is increasingly the norm in professional publications. In texts and guides time-frames for culture periods are still often expressed in radiocarbon years, without making that fact explicit. Time frames for the artifacts that define cultures and culture periods should be unambiguously expressed in a common terminology, especially, as Feidel (2004:73-80) observes, all of the supporting new methods of analysis express their results in calendrical terms.
12 What remains unclear is why Bullen, and for that matter, Cambron and Hulse did not mention, let alone utilize calibrated data. My first assumption was that the so-called second radiocarbon revolution, so-called by Colin Renfrew (1979) in Problems of European Prehistory, took place after Bullen and co-regionalists Cambron and Hulse published their guidebooks. Not so. Dendrochronology, pioneered by A. E. Douglas (1919, 1928, 1936) in the American southwest, predated Libby’s Nobel Prize winning discovery by decades. Douglas’ dendrochronological dating of pine timbers had already allowed absolute dating of structures to be pushed back hundreds of years in the American southwest. The material being utilized, wood, was obviously suitable material for radiocarbon testing. The potential to utilize an available, simple, confirmed, technology to test the validity and accuracy of a new, highly technical, and revolutionary new one was recognized quite early. By the mid-1960s Bristlecone Pine calibration of radiocarbon dates had been pushed back to 6100 B. P. (Suess 1967), by 1970 to 7200 B. P. (Suess 1970), and in the mid-1970s an active scientific dialogue was taking place about the technique, its implications, and future (Ralph et al. 1973; Damon et al. 1974). Actual tables of calibrated dates (Damon, et al. 1973) were already available for reevaluation of earlier conclusions and calendric dating of prehistoric artifact sequences. Ripley P. Bullen, of all people, should have been aware of these advances. What happened? Why was Bullen, among the forefront of archaeologists in embracing radiocarbon dating, unwilling or unable to incorporate a further refinement of it as well? There is no mention of radiocarbon calibration anywhere in Bullen’s bibliography and the topic is perhaps most notably absent from one of his last publications, Some Thoughts on Florida Projectile Points (1976f), published just nine months before his death. In it, his last word on Florida lithic types and the status of the Guide, he explored instead the possibility of projectile points as possible markers of regional diffusion, not simply of technologies, but of cultures. This turning back at the end of his life to the themes and concepts of his early archaeological education is understandable. Nevertheless, we are left with a work unequivocally in need of extensive revision.
13 Seriation
In Chapter 1, I identified three major sources of error in Ripley Bullen’s understanding of the absolute and relative placement of Florida lithic types. One source of error was his attempt to seriate types not adequately known from good stratigraphic contexts. His own ambivalence about his results is clear. In 1976, he remarked that his 1975 revision of the Guide had only “brought more-or-less up to date” the understanding of Florida lithic types (Bullen 1976:33). In the same Florida Anthropologist article, he admitted that his temporal and cultural attributions were “based more on typological than on stratigraphic data” (Bullen 1976:33). Lacking, as he did, stratigraphic evidence, how did he arrive at his conclusions about ages of Florida lithic types? The answer lies in methods developed by Americanist archaeology in his lifetime. The most prominent Americanists were Alfred Vincent Kidder (1885-1963) and Alfred Louis Kroeber (1876-1960). Perhaps more than anyone else, Kidder is credited with making American archaeology a scientific discipline. He stressed the integration of stratigraphic analysis and seriation. Seriation is defined as the ordering of a group of objects into a sequence based on physical attributes (Whitehouse 1983: 457). The technique may be used either to assist in perceiving or suggesting evolutionary trends, or derive relative chronologies. Whitehouse (1983:457) warns: “Its application to archaeology, particularly as a DATING method, involves far-reaching assumptions and should be approached with care.” Capitalization is Whitehouse’s and uncharacteristic in her definitions. Seriation has played an important role in the analysis and understanding of the archaeological record in the past and its usefulness continues in the present. When Bullen was being educated, seriation was a dominant concept. In prehistoric contexts, before radiocarbon dating, seriation and stratigraphy offered the only way to understand how artifacts were related and how they reflected the passage of time and culture change. Kidder and a few others applied the technique known as the direct historical approach in southwestern archaeology and used it to develop regional culture histories. It is the genesis of our familiar framework of regional culture periods. Its value was readily recognized and applied by other researchers in other regions (Ford 1938, McKern 1939). James A. Ford (1938:260), writing in American Antiquity, noted, “Before the work of [Nils] Nelson and Kidder in the Southwest, the archaeology of that area was in about the same condition as that which exists today in the Southeastern states.” That said, he
14 proceeded to help remedy the situation in the Southeast by creating the region’s own chronologies. Prophetically for the challenges Bullen faced in Florida thirty years later, Ford noted in 1938 that, lacking the deeply stratified refuse deposits associated with Southwestern sites, the Southeast presented unique challenges. Ford (1938) succinctly outlined the basis of “A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast,” a method relied that upon pottery, just as Kidder had in the Southwest. Kidder’s and Ford’s ideas about seriation, and the development of regional typologies were the cutting edge of archaeological methodology when Ripley Bullen was being educated Culture history may be accurately said to have three dimensions: temporal, spatial, and form of culture (Spaulding 1960). Seriation seeks to define the temporal aspect of cultural change from analysis of artifact types. There are various ways of doing it. One is applicable to seriation in terms of changes within a single tradition, in our case, manufacture of chipped stone tools. Rouse (1967) makes the related point, also made by others recently reviewing the issue (Lyman and O’Brien 1999, 2000), that seriation is most effective in conjunction with stratigraphy. In Florida, in Bullen’s day, there was very little stratigraphic evidence to support older lithic traditions. Furthermore, in the 1940s and 1950s many archaeologists, overreacting to the trend to create culture historical areas by defining and seriating regional artifact collections, thoroughly confused the issue by naming identical points differently (O’Brien and Lyman 1999). That legacy of confusion persists today. Just as different assemblages of artifacts or features require different categories of seriation, so there are various techniques of seriation. Some involve fundamentally statistical relationships, relationships of presence or absence, called occurrence seriation or frequency seriation. Both techniques would have been familiar to Bullen. Frequency seriation was pioneered by Phillips, Ford, and Griffin (1951) in their work on Mississippi Valley sites. Occurrence seriation was developed somewhat later (Dempsey and Baumhof 1963). Bullen makes no mention of either. Once forced to attempt seriations back past the advent of fiber- tempered ceramics, what Bullen employed (1968, 1975) was the original form of seriation. This form, phyletic seriation (O’Brian and Lyman 62-108) is directly analogous to that used by biologists to establish evolutionary relationships between species in the era before DNA analysis. The resemblance to biological evolution was recognized as the concept of seriation was refined and elaborated in the 1950s and 1960s (Rouse 1955: 718-720, 1967: 188). Contemporary
15 archaeologists still see the value of biological evolutionary models. Kent Flannery recognized the potential explanatory value of evolutionary thought in archaeological contexts, quoting the great evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr in his (1986: 511-519) whimsical A Visit to the Master. Flannery’s “Master” was an imaginary sage who believed that explanation in evolution relied on “historical narratives” (Mayr 1982: 58) with “explanatory value because earlier events in a historical sequence usually make a contribution to later events (Mayr 1982: 72).” This biological evolutionary concept dovetails perfectly with the anthropological concept of culture as an extra- somatic mechanism for environmental adaptation (White 1949). As in biology, phyletic seriation relies on the recognition of homologies or characteristics inherited from a common ancestor, and synapormorphies, traits that are both shared and derived from a common ancestor. There are pitfalls in utilizing phyletic seriation, as there are with other methods, and, as we have already seen (Whitehouse 1983:457), they have long been recognized. In biology, long before DNA analysis, apparent relationships between species were tested and evaluated by other criteria, such as behavior among goat-antelopes (Caprinae) or song among frogs (Hylidae). But among deep prehistoric lithic artifact types, such tests are rare, and were rarer still in Bullen’s day. As Rouse (1967:192) noted, “an inevitable sequence from one type to another is rare.” As we will see, appearances of such “inevitable” sequences can be profoundly seductive, and just as profoundly deceiving. Seriation models are testable, or at least archaeologists have created criteria and models for their testing. O’Brien and Lyman (1999:125-130) postulate a seriation-testing model that appears to build on and amplify earlier discussions (Rouse 1967) of the problem. They suggest that all collections be of comparable duration and the shorter the better. Long-duration assemblages are apt to contain “types from rather different vertical positions in the seriation,” which violates multiple principles of the model, and are undesirable. The lithic traditions of the Archaic Period persist for almost seven thousand years. Those of the preceding Paleoindian Period are fairly securely defined only at its terminus; the end of the Younger Dryas stadial, at about 11,500 B. P. The Paleoindian period’s origins are unknown, but seem to be receding towards a point inconceivably distant to an archaeologist of Bullen’s era. The second of O’Brian and Lyman’s tests of phyletic seriations is that collections should come from a local area -- the smaller the better. Bullen worked with the entire state of Florida and he recognized technological homologies with similar types from West Virginia, northern
16 Alabama, and North Carolina (Bullen 1975: 2). He cited Clovis points, which even in his day were known from much of the United States. The problem of what constitutes a “local area” is being taken up by current researchers (Nieman 1995; Lipo et al. 1997) but it is clear that the notion does not support seriation on the regional scale attempted by Bullen. The third test of a seriation is that all assemblages come from the same cultural tradition. Yet even today bitter academic controversies rage over possible cultural relationships despite new analytical tools such as radiocarbon dating, linguistic analysis, and analysis of sophisticated genetic markers, none of which was available in Bullen’s day. Recently an exceptionally old skeleton, that of “Kennewick Man,” has been judicially determined to be unprotected under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) precisely because cultural patrimony could not be determined (Robinson Bonnichsen, C. Loring Brace et al. vs. United States of America et al., Case NO. 0235970, 02-35994, 02-35996) Not one of the three conditions suggested by O’Brian and Lyman as necessary preconditions for meaningful tests of phyletic seriation is effectively applicable to Bullen’s work on preceramic Florida lithics. We are left with the impression that Bullen was attempting the impossible. That he got so much right is remarkable. Insofar as his lithic chronologies are concerned, he has been little challenged on conclusions tied through the direct historical approach to pottery seriations. With some caveats to be discussed elsewhere, his seriation of lithics from European contact to approximately 4000 B. P. appears to be fairly secure. He also got much wrong. Where he went far afield was in his attempts to seriate stone tools earlier than the introduction of ceramics. Ironically, the projectile points discussed in the body of this text will be organized chronologically and technologically according to a system akin to the phyletic seriation approach that failed Bullen. Noel Justice’s (1987:6-8, 2002:3-8) system of describing relationships between projectile points based upon technological attributes, geographic distribution, and temporal occurrence, is distinctly taxonomic. By defining degrees of relationship among and between lithic types, Justice avoids the pitfalls of splitting typologies but accommodates the real geographical, temporal or -- dare we suggest -- personal anomalies found within the archaeological records. A further and more detailed discussion of Justice’s pioneering concept will introduce Chapter 3.
17 This apparent return to the very methodology that failed Bullen has been made possible by the intervening third of a century of inter-disciplinary archaeology. Seductive though it was, and still can be, phyletic (or to use the humorous colloquialism, “table top”) seriation was doomed to frequent failure when it stood alone. Today, a very similar approach, tied rigorously to a large and increasing body of mutually supporting stratigraphic, radiocarbon, climatic, botanical and faunal data, informed by processual thinking and experimental techniques, seriation today offers excellent chances of success and valid insights (Binford 1978, 1980, 1983; Bordaz 1959: Bradley 1982; Crabtree 1972).
Lithic Analysis and Experimental Archaeology
A contemporary archaeologist unfamiliar with A Guide to Florida Projectile Points (Bullen 1975) may well find himself/herself bemused by the fact that Bullen lists two types of the common Early Archaic projectile point known in Florida as Bolen, in South Carolina as Taylor, and in other parts of the south as Big Sandy. Bullen lists Bolen Plain and Bolen Beveled as separate types. Today every Florida archaeologist realizes that the beveled form was not, as Bullen seems to have conceived, the desired end state, or finished artifact, but rather the result of resharpening, pressure-flaking having rendered the original lens-shaped cross section into a rhomboidal one. The 1968 edition of the Guide included a similar error. In that edition, Bullen calls them Bolen and Payne, respectively, although his description of the two types overlaps considerably, suggesting types actually even less discrete than the portrayal of the plain versus beveled Bolen forms in the 1975 edition. Just as clearly, Hardee Beveled points are simply resharpened forms of the common Florida Archaic Stemmed type. Bullen was not completely unaware of the possibility of use and resharpening altering a lithic tool out of recognition. He speculated that perhaps, “for example, a point might first be made as a Santa Fe, be resharpened by serration to be a Tallahassee, and by continued resharpening be turned into what we might call a … Dalton” (Bullen 1975: 1). He stressed the forms of projectile point bases (still the most diagnostic attributed of stone artifacts) in his classifications, but also suspected “that something significant is going on with beveling and serration (1975: 1).”
18 Indeed, something was going on; something still is. Analysis of chipped stone tools and even debitage has progressed in ways that even pioneers like Crabtree and Bordes probably never envisioned (Andrefsky 1998, 2001; Binford 2002: Bleed1986; Keely 1980; O’Dell 2003; Purdy 1981; Schick and Toth 1993). But Bullen missed entirely the fundamental concept of lithic technology -- it is relentlessly reductionist. That is, it is impossible to create a stone tool by adding material, but its form and function are constantly being defined and redefined by the removal of material in a manner far beyond Bullen’s own concept of altering diagnostic point types. Figure 2.1 depicts this process by showing the “life cycle” of Bolen projectile points. Artifact A is a preform, perhaps intended for completion as a Bolen, or perhaps not, but nevertheless found in association with diagnostic Bolen artifacts. Artifact B is a finished Bolen, still lens-shaped in cross section. C shows the beveling of both edges, leading to the rhomboid shape so typical of resharpened Bolens. D is a much resharpened point, so reduced by repeated removal of retouch flakes as to suggest actual use as a hafted drill. Finally, E and F are two examples of much used and broken-bladed side-notched points reshaped as hafted end scrapers. This lack of understanding is a third source of errors in A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. It seems the most defensible. Schick and Toth (1993: 19-23) note that it has only been about three decades since scientists, as opposed to a handful of skillful forgers, have learned the art of flintknapping to better understand stone age technology and undertake experimental replications of prehistoric activities, such as hunting and butchering. The pioneers in scientific flint knapping were Francois Bordes in France and Don Crabtree in the United States. All of their publications post-date the era of Ripley Bullen’s formal education and, though Bordes and Crabtree established a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and techniques beginning in the 1960s, Bordes published mainly in Europe. Crabtree’s work, published in English, appeared for the most part in the late 1960s only in Tebiwa, the journal of the Idaho State University Museum. Bullen may have been unaware of either of them, or the implications of their work. Certainly I find no mention of either Bordes or Crabtree in any Bullen discussion of lithic artifacts. However, Barbara Purdy, who had completed Crabtree’s field school, was working in the Florida Museum of Natural History while completing on her dissertation on the thermal alteration of chert in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
19
B
A
D C
F
E
Figure 2.1 Bolen point manufacturing, resharpening, and use-alteration sequence. All artifacts are from Florida sites and curated in the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) collections, Tallahassee.
It is important to understand that Crabtree and Bordes pioneered a new approach to lithic analysis. As Andrefsky (1998:4) observes, their “controlled replication of stone tool forms helped develop the related techniques of reduction sequence analysis and tool refitting.” And an understanding of reduction sequence analysis was what Bullen lacked. That stone tools inevitably change both form and function by virtue of the very nature of lithic technology was made explicit in North American archaeology with the work of archaeologists such as George Frison (1968) in the west and Albert Goodyear (1974) in the east. One need not be a knapper oneself (Frison is, Goodyear is not) to grasp the implications of reduction sequence analysis. One needs only the concept itself and a representative collection from a securely stratified site. With those two things, the differing forms of artifacts with identical diagnostic bases cannot (or so it seems today) but suggest that the artifacts (as in Figure 2.1), are the same type stone artifacts in different stages of a reduction sequence. Bullen lacked both the concept and experience with deep prehistoric sites. Those shortfalls are reflected in the Guide.
20 CHAPTER 3
PROJECTILE POINT GUIDES AND THESIS ORGANIZATION
Florida and Regional Projectile Point Guides, 1962-2002
The content and arrangement of projectile point guides has evolved. Bullen’s 1968 edition of the Guide was the first publication to systematically collect and present what was known about Florida lithic typologies. Bullen provides no acknowledgements, but the Guide appears to have drawn heavily upon the Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part 1, Point Types, by James W. Cambron and David C. Hulse (1964). Common usage through the decades has reduced that title to “Cambron and Hulse.” Originally published four years earlier than the Guide, Cambron and Hulse were generous and specific with their acknowledgements. In particular, they note that “Mrs. T. M. N. (Madeline Kneberg) Lewis is responsible for the basic methods of procedure in classification of these point types…” and that “This study has drawn heavily upon A Survey of Paleo-Indian Sites and Artifacts in the Tennessee River Valley” (Cambron and Hulse 1964: Acknowledgements). Madeline Kneberg trained as an opera singer, then as nurse, and in 1931 had enrolled at the University of Chicago to become to become a physician when her interest in anthropology, particularly physical anthropology, side-tracked her into a different career altogether (Sullivan 1999:61-64). Clearly, at some point in her scientific training she became familiar with botanical reference keys. Cambron and Hulse include a four page morphological glossary and supporting illustrations that are clear analogues to those that have long been included in botany textbooks. As far as I have been able to determine, it was the first such reference to do so. And very useful such keys are, for botany or archaeology. Cambron and Hulse devoted one page to each point type. Each type was represented by one hand-drawn black and white illustration. The type was discussed in terms of General Description, Measurements, Form, Flaking, and Comments. The Comments sub-heading
21 included references, type sites, dates, distribution, and cultural affiliations as available. Cambron and Hulse was indexed and arranged alphabetically, not chronologically, by point type name. A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Point Types appears to have evolved from a less comprehensive and apparently never published compilation of Florida types that Bullen created in 1967. A copy was obtained from the Bullen file in the library of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) in Tallahassee in 1997. Also in the file was a copy of a letter of transmittal from Bullen to Ross Morrell, then the Florida State Archaeologist, upon submission of a draft of the 1968 Guide for Mr. Morrell’s consideration. Bullen solicited Morrell’s comments on any aspects of the draft. I found no references to any reply by Morrell; the draft and the 1968 Guide are identical. Bullen’s glossary is less comprehensive than Cambron and Hulse’s. The Guide also allocates one page per type. Each is illustrated by crude line tracings, supplemented by cross section drawings and, sometimes a few extra lines to indicate fluting or other basal treatments. Crude though the illustrations are, Bullen often included more than one example to indicate type and size variation. Like Cambron and Hulse, Bullen included sections to address references, metrics, distribution and, to a more explicit degree, similar types. Unlike Cambron and Hulse, Bullen’s Guide was indexed alphabetically, but arranged chronologically, most recent to oldest. Bullen also included a reference key that located types in terms of the relevant culture period as they were then understood. The 1968 Guide included 39 named types. The 1975 edition included 50, although all the changes were not the result of additions. Some earlier proposed types were removed from the later edition. The culture period organization became more fine-grained, increasing from eight culture periods to the eleven defined in 1975. In 1990, John Powell published Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain. His guide incorporated a number of useful advances in archaeologists, understanding of lithic technology. He defined a set of diagnostic attributes that went well beyond those of earlier guides, which typically stressed hafting method, basal and lateral grinding, and outline. Powell added lateral rejuvenation, thermal alteration, preform configuration, and flaking characteristics. His pen and ink illustrations clearly depicted, for the first time in a southeastern guide, the flaking characteristics he described. His split-screen depictions of
22 finished and resharpened forms of the same artifact are excellent illustrations of morphological changes within discrete types, and highlight one means by which “split” types are falsely generated. Little explicit attention is paid to metrics, but, as with Bullen and Cambron and Hulse, all illustrations are 1:1 scale. Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain is arranged, not just chronologically, but by Powell’s understanding of placement within a ten- period cultural chronology. Periods are discussed with succinct and useful descriptions of distinctive technological traits typical of each period, such as the common practice of thermally altering lithic materials prevalent in the Middle Archaic. In 2002 two more regional guides were published: An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools, by John S. Whatley and The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades, by Lloyd E. Schroder. The strengths of Whatley’s guide are its inclusion of numerous photographs, providing a good representation of variation within the point types. It devotes considerable space to metric tables, which I question the value of, especially given the range of lithic materials available in Georgia. An Overview… is also arranged alphabetically, as was Cambron and Hulse in 1964, a distinctly unhelpful attribute. Schroder seeks, as his title suggests, to relate lithic types more closely than other guides to the social and environmental developments we are increasingly able to see in the Florida archaeological record. Schroder’s illustrations, his own, are pen and ink drawings incorporating common archaeological illustrative conventions for the first time in a deep southeastern guidebook (Addington 1986; Griffiths and Jenner 1990). The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades suffers from a continued reliance upon Bullen, particularly in the matter of chronologies. For instance, Schroder (2002:27) postulates “The Dalton Transitional Period; 10,000 to 8,500 Years Ago.” This is still Bullen’s 1975 attribution and uncalibrated chronology. It ignores later temporal arrangements such as Milanich’s from 1994 and still later regional chronologies developed as the importance of calibrated dates became increasingly apparent at the end of the 1990s (Adams 1997, Anderson 2001, Fiedel 1999). Schroder’s Dalton Transitional, for example, is off 2,500 years from our current understanding of just when Daltons were developed and utilized, which is from 12,500 to between 11,500-11,000 B. P. (Anderson 2004). Where Schroder does provide a valuable service is to document, to a very helpful extent, each type found in excavated Florida archaeological contexts, few of which existed in Bullen’s day.
23 In 1987 Noel D. Justice, Curator of Collections at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, published Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. It was lavishly illustrated, both with Justice’s own professional caliber drawings and with color photographs. It included distribution maps, and it was organized chronologically. In a very fundamental way, however, it is organized like nothing that has come before it. Justice reconciled the tensions between splitting and lumping.
Morphological Type Cluster Concept
Justice’s concept was to create clusters of point types. While earlier work had utilized such a concept (Ensor 1981; Faulkner and McCullough 1973; Futato 1983), Justice carried it to fruition in his ongoing series of regional guides (Justice 1987, 2001, 2002) and made it the methodological standard for contemporary lithic taxonomies.Within clusters, types are identified by the same attributes (e.g., shape, flaking patterns, and hafting technology) as had been employed to one degree or another in all previous guides. But all previous guides had struggled with the conflict between those who would define types rigidly, thus creating an unmanageable profusion of types, or less rigid definitions, which risked overlooking significant differences. The same quandary exists in biology. Justice’s solution was to distinguish a series of shared traits that persisted in a type or set of types in spite of varying material constraints, use-life modifications, regional variations, and individual knapper’s skill and personal traits. Such persistent traits define clusters. Clustering types in this manner avoids the confusion of multiple designated sub-types, a problem with Bullen’s Guide (1975:48-52); Schroder 2002 throughout). It also avoids the confusion of collector-nominated types, often reflecting either anomalies within types common to collectors’ own area or a lack of understanding of use/remanufacturing effects on known types. A cluster may be named for a common type within it, for geographic features of the region within which is found, for the key morphological characteristics which define it, for temporal considerations, or for an apparent shared developmental heritage. Florida clusters proposed in this thesis are named in all of these ways.
24 Justice stressed the crucial role that is played by stratigraphic and in situ cultural contexts in the formulation of clusters. Bullen, as we have seen, was forced to attempt to infer technological relationships without such aids. With many more in situ contexts, Justice (2002: 5) notes, it may be possible to recognize “an evolutionary sequence of technological change from one closely related form to another.” In this thesis, Chapter 7: Transitional Side- notched Cluster, suggests such an evolutionary sequence. In this way, I return to and explicitly utilize, where possible, the phylogenetic seriation technique that, lacking provenience data, failed Bullen. Splitting sometimes does reflect real variations within types. Likewise, there are instances where use-life changes within a type have resulted in enshrined type names reflecting nothing more than repeated resharpening. And there are also examples of identical types known in adjoining areas by different names. Points named for such reasons are dealt with by Justice by designating them as morphological correlates within named clusters. Thus both splitters and lumpers are accommodated. It is an effective means of arranging related types by recognizing main shared traits, but without denying the real differences often marked by different names beloved of splitters in general and local collectors in particular. There is a taxonomic feel to Justice’s concept that is pleasing, effective, and very much in keeping with my self-consciously phylogenetic organizational concept and I adopt it insofar as I correctly understand it as the organizing concept of this thesis.
Thesis Treatment of Specific Bullen Temporal and Cultural Placements
Table 2 recapitulates Bullen’s conception of preceramic Florida projectile point types. Lafayette and Clay are now recognized as a single Late Archaic type associated with ceramics. Their distinctive corner notching suggests a caution; it closely resembles notching in some Early Archaic forms such as Kirk Corner-notched and Lost Lake. Culbreath and Savannah River are also Late Archaic types associated, at least at the terminus of their temporal ranges, with ceramics. Morrow Mountain is suggested as not being a valid Florida type. It is noted that Westo is actually Morrow Mountain type, familiar to Carolina archaeologists, but not to Neill (1966), who excavated a Carolina site and gave the artifacts excavated there a new name, subsequently ascribed to enigmatic Florida artifacts. Bolen
25 Table 2. Preceramic Florida projectile points and culture periods according to Bullen [Reproduced from Bullen (1975:6), with footnotes added by the author. Bullen's dates are uncalibrated radiocarbon dates extrapolated from those obtained at regional sites such as Stanfield• Worley Bluff Shelter, Alabama.]
Culture period Projectile point types Lafayette1 Clay1 Late Preceramic Archaic Culbreath1 3000-2000 B. C. Westo1 Florida Archaic Stemmed (not well made) Florida Archaic Stemmed Hillsborough Middle Preceramic Archaic Kirk Serrated 5000-3000 B. C. Newnan Savannah River1 Florida Morrow Mountain 1 Hardee Beveled 1 Kirk Serrated Hamilton Early Preceramic Archaic Arredondo 6000-5000 B. C. Sumter Thonotosassa Florida Spike 1 Stanfield1 Stanfield1 Wacissa Dalton Late · Tallahassee1 7000-6000 B. C. Dalton Santa Fe1 Beaver Lake Marianna1 Gilchrist Bolen Plain Dalton Early Bolen Beveled1 8000-7000 B. C. Hardaway Side-notched Greenbriar Union2 Santa Fe1 Late Paleo-Indian Suwannee 9000-8000 B. C. Simpson Early Paleo-Indian Clovis Fluted 10000-9000 B. C. Clovis Unfluted 1 Types suggested as problematic by virtue of temporal placement, close morphological resemblance to earlier forms, or type validity. See discussion in text. 2 Described in Bullen's text (1975:54), but not included in his table.
26 Beveled and Hardee Beveled are not separate types, simply resharpened forms of Bolen and Florida Stemmed Archaic points. Stanfield is not a type, but a preform. Marianna is not a type either, but a late-stage Dalton artifact. Florida Spike, Santa Fe, and Tallahassee are all Woodland types. Santa Fe and particularly Tallahassee do resemble Dalton points, and pose cautions as culture period indicators if used injudiciously without supporting stratigraphic evidence. Types mentioned above as “cautions” will be discussed as a category not included in Justice’s organization of type cluster discussions. Rather, because they pose the possibility of creating grave site misinterpretations, they are discussed and illustrated as “Cautions” in the context of discussion of the types with which they might be confused. Tallahassee, Marianna, and Santa Fe will be discussed along with the Dalton Cluster. Clay/Lafayette points bear significant resemblances to some Early Side-notched Cluster types, and so will be discussed at the conclusion of the Early Side-notched Cluster chapter. All types not previously dealt with in conjunction with possible misidentifications, will be discussed in the final chapter Even in the years before Bullen published his first Guide, collectors were suggesting new types and new type names. For the most part, such names will be dealt with as morphological correlates, though, because of my narrower geographic focus -- types that occur in Florida, even if only locally -- there will be far fewer morphological correlates than encountered with types than span much of the continent. However, some types have been found in sufficient numbers and are distinctive enough in form to merit proposal of acceptance as new types for Florida. These include the Chipola, apparently a Dalton type. Also included are the Hardin, and Lost Lake, both Early Notched types with limited distribution in North Central and Western Florida; and finally, a type, and type site, Norden, is proposed for a distinctive point, suggested to be an Early Archaic form.
27
CHAPTER 4
FLUTED LANCEOLATE CLUSTER
The very title of this chapter would probably be questioned by leading American archaeologists specializing in Paleoindian questions. They might assert that, though there is considerable regional variation, any unambiguously fluted lanceolate point that is not a Folsom is by definition a Clovis. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution, an unabashed “lumper” said as much while addressing the Clovis in the Southeast Conference on the 28th of October, 2005. He has speculated since at least 1991 that variations within Clovis are mostly attributable to “idiosyncratic behavior, differences in materials, and artifact rejuvenation as well as chronological differences” (Stanford 1991: 2). A distinctive fluted Paleoindian point, famous for having been the first type in the Western Hemisphere found with the remains of extinct fauna, Folsom is easily recognizable. No Folsom points have been recorded from any Florida context, indeed none from any location other than what we may infer as having been prairie Bos bison antiquus habitat (Anderson 1989:77; Justice 1987, Map 7; PIDBA 2005), it might then follow that a more accurate and descriptive cluster name would be simply Clovis Cluster. Noel Justice (1987, 2001, 2002) follows that convention is his regional guides. The theories for explaining the remarkable Clovis variability, if indeed all non-Folsom fluted lanceolates are Clovis, are many. More remarkable, and at least as difficult to explain, is the astonishing geographic range of the type. Stanford (2005) believes that uniformity is accounted for in large measure by “production grammar,” a close analogue of language acquisition, and that technologies may evolve by the same process that new languages are
28 generated among splintering groups. Flenniken (1984: 198-199) makes the same observation, and like Stanford, formed his opinions using ethnographic observation among aboriginal people. If a single production grammar accounted for the homogeneity of the type, perhaps Clovis actually does represent a Western Hemisphere ur, or original culture, and its technological variations may be studied as a reflection of cultural diversification much as historical linguists reconstruct linguistic relationships. Such theories and speculations, compelling though they may be, are far beyond the scope of this thesis. They are mentioned here to call attention to the uses that can be made of properly understood lithic typologies and their related technologies. The aim of this thesis is synchronic rather than diachronic, i.e., it is about the “is” of technology and types, not the “how they got that way.” What we call things structures how we think about them. So I accept, instead of Stanford’s self-proclaimed lumping, Michael Collins’ assessment of the significance of variability within fluted lanceolate types. Collins (2005) asserts that “Things that look like Clovis may have come about at the hands of people who were not practicing Clovis technology.” He further asserts that Clovis is more readily recognizable from late-stage preforms, perhaps even from debitage collections, than from final forms (Collins 2005). If Clovis does represent a continent-wide ur culture it seems appropriate to take care to identify it in its “pure” form, its technological Sanskrit, so to speak, to better distinguish subsequent developments and variations, and seek to understand their significance. Hence, “Fluted Lanceolate Cluster” instead of “Clovis Cluster.” Furthermore, as the Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley (Stanford and Bradley 2002: 255-271; Stanford 2005) “Out of Iberia, not Siberia” hypothesis of Solutrean ancestry for Clovis technology continues to be one of the most hotly debated issues in American archaeology, “true” Clovis technology versus related fluted lanceolates has the potential to become even more valuable as a technological marker and well documented temporal waypoint for evaluating evidence for possible earlier cultures. Such a distinction may, for the present, and for my purposes, be somewhat precious, there being arguably only three fluted lanceolate forms identified thus far in Florida (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004, Goodyear 2005) -- two more than Bullen recognized (1975: 57). There are to date no Clovis manufacturing sites identified in Florida, though Silver Spring (8MR92) may be revisited with an eye to identifying such an area in the near future.
29 Neill’s (1958; 42-47 and Pl. 3) excavations and collections there apparently recovered a Clovis point as well as Suwannee forms and another type of unfluted lanceolate characterized by Dunbar and Hemmings (2004: 65-72) as a Lake Jackson Lanceolate. The Silver Spring artifacts seem to have been lost (personal communications, Jim Dunbar, David Thulman, 2005). We have only the poorly reproduced black-and-white photographs in The Florida Anthropologist (Neill 1958) and Neill’s descriptions of them. But if Dunbar and Hemmings’ possible interpretations of them are correct, the site held, and possibly still holds, the key to understanding the relationship of fluted and unfluted point types in Florida. Future work at Silver Springs, conducted with a modern sensibility for the value of debitage analysis may tell us more. As it is, the report from that site contains no mention of blade technology or outré-passé flaking, two consistent indicators of Clovis manufacturing techniques (Collins 1999).
Clovis (Sellards, 1938, 1952)
Clovis (Figure 4.1) was famously first recognized at Blackwater Draw, New Mexico as a fluted point type distinct from the paradigm-shattering Folsom points. It is my consistent sense that unambiguously Clovis points are more widely distributed than any other diagnostic, being found in every one of the United States and the eastern Canadian provinces (Justice 1987, Map 1, 2002, Map 1, PIDBA 2005). Their size is as variable as their distribution is wide, ranging from “diminutive” 25 mm points, often of crystal quartz (Haynes 2002:82; Justice 2002:56) to the stunning obsidian and chalcedony examples from Washington, most of which exceed 220 mm (Gramly 1993) . They share a generally lanceolate outline, which may be either parallel-sided or excurvate, with concave bases. They are manufactured using a distinctive thinning technique Bruce Bradley (1982:207-208) calls “alternating opposed biface thinning.” The most readily recognizable marker of this thinning technique in archaeological sites is a strong signature of large outré-passé, or overpass flakes, which travel completely across the bifaces, often removing part of the opposite edge. Such flakes are found in small numbers in many archaeological contexts, but evidence of controlled and regular employment of the technique is a Clovis telltale. Clovis points are laterally and basally ground, presumably to prevent the point from cutting the sinews which lashed it securely for use. And of course, Clovis points are fluted. That is, a flake, or flakes, are removed from the concave base, running between a third and two thirds
30 the length of the base. The flutes may occur on only one face and they are presumed to facilitate hafting.
B
A C
Figure 4.1. Clovis points from Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers A-160, 18794, 97124. Large point in center is one of those Bullen traced.
B A C
Figure 4.2 Outre-passe, or overshot flaking pattern and debitage typical, and diagnostic, of Clovis artifacts and sites. Drawing by George Weymouth.
31 James Dunbar and Andrew Hemmings (2004: 66-68), Florida archaeologists and specialists in Paleoindian issues, have concluded that there are actually two distinct forms of Clovis in Florida. Their suggestions are accepted for the purposes of this thesis as the best analysis available at writing.
Clovis Fluted (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004)
This is the classic straight-sided Clovis form described above (Figure 4.3). It has been found in Florida from the Tampa Bay area north and west in the state with the greatest frequency of occurrence in areas of tertiary karst and spring fed streams (Dunbar and Waller 1983, Dunbar 1991). Four of Bullen’s five illustrated sub-types are Clovis Fluteds, though one is probably a late-stage preform which has not been fluted.
B A C
Figure 4.3 Fluted Clovis points from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
32 Clovis Waisted (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004)
This excurvate-sided sub-type of Clovis has been recently recognized as diagnostic (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004: 68-70). It was apparently unknown to Bullen and was not present among the five sub-types illustrated in the Guide. In Florida (Figure 4.4), it is identified as having been reported, but unrecognized at the time as distinctive, from Silver Springs (Neill 1958) and the Sloth Hole site (8JE121) in the Aucilla River (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004: 68), as well as sites in the West, notably Murray Springs, Arizona (Haynes 1982; Justice 2002:57-57, Figure 11.3,) and McFadden Beach, Texas (Stright et. al 1999, Figure BN 56). Both Waisted Clovis points from the Murray Spring, Arizona site were found in the carcass of an adult Mammuthus columbi carcass and both were impact fractured. The Waisted Clovis forms from Sloth Hole are also frequently impact fractured, and found in unstratified association with plentiful megafaunal fossils.
Figure 4.4 Clovis Waisted point from the Aucilla River, Florida. Newly proposed classification (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004). Photograph by Bill Gifford of artifact in collection of Dick Ohmes.
33 Temporal Placement Clovis points are relatively rare in Florida. It was true in Bullen’s time and remains true today. No diagnostic Clovis point has ever been found in a secure stratified context in the state, however Clovis is still the temporal marker for the Paleoindian period wherever it is found. This circumstance is fortunate for Florida researchers, given the aforementioned absence of any from secure contexts in the state. Because they are so widely distributed, because they are such striking artifacts, because for so long they were thought to be the weapons of “The First Americans”, and because they were used to hunt megafauna, Clovis has been, if such a thing is possible, over-studied. Its date range has been defined and refined continuously, perhaps “honed” would be a more appropriate term, for decades. The latest date range for the type is 550- 650 years, 13,500-13,400 to 13,000-12,850 B. P. (Anderson 2004; Collins 2005; Fiedel 1999, 2004).
Redstone (Cambron and Hulse 1964:108)
Figure 4.5 Redstone point from Florida. Tony Gilyard collection.
34 The Redstone is rare in Florida (PIBDA 2005), rarer than Clovis, but the point has been recognized as either Clovis or something very like it since they began to be reported. Ripley Bullen’s Clovis Sub-type 5 is a Redstone. Al Goodyear (2005) speculates that the more triangular, more sharply pointed, Redstone may have been more apt to have been utilized as a projectile point than Clovis points, which typically display a more rounded profile. This notion would seem to be contradicted by the aforementioned high incidence of impact fractures on recovered Waisted Clovis points, which are even more rounded in profile than classic, straight-sided Clovises. Temporal Placement I have been unable to locate a date for a Redstone point. Elsewhere in the southeast, Cumberland points, a distinctive long-fluted, sharply pointed type, are dated at the beginning of the Late Paleoindian, ca 12,750-12,000 (Anderson 2004:120). It is hypothesized that (sensu conversations, Clovis in the Southeast Conference, Columbia, South Carolina 2005) that Redstone and Cumberland represent contemporaneous Late Paleoindian development of earlier Clovis technology.
35 CHAPTER 5
UNFLUTED LANCEOLATE CLUSTER
The exceptional distribution of Clovis technology is explained by at least one Clovis researcher as “A Single Continent-wide Cultural Adaptation.” That, in fact, was the sub-title of a recent Florida Ph. D. dissertation (Hemmings 2002). Hemmings (2004 i-ii) explicitly asserted that Clovis was a response to “unique environmental (italics are mine) settings that existed during the Pleistocene.” Haynes (2002:91) recognizes Clovis’ continent-wide distribution, but asserts that such “uniformity of material culture” reflects a shared set of social circumstances rather than a shared response to environmental conditions. He also notes that such uniformity is typical of other “repeopling events,” notably and significantly the expansion of Magdalenian peoples into the unpopulated interior of post-glacial Europe. Such groups, it is postulated, were initially small and widely dispersed and would have exerted great effort to maintain continuity of culture. Such continuity would have been necessary to facilitate rare social interactions, especially in emotionally charged and crucial situations such as entry into unfamiliar (and possibly already utilized) hunting areas or mate exchanges (Meltzer 2002:39-40). At such meetings, the importance of artifacts or ornamentation with “recognizable elements of style” may well have been critical indicators of non-otherness, “the reflection of active strategies of interaction in an uncertain social and ecological world” (Jochim, et al 1999:139-140). Whatever explanatory theory one believes most likely, Clovis homogeneity is real. The reason it is discussed here instead of in the preceding chapter is that its remarkable homogeneity stands as a sharp contrast to what follows.
36 What follows is a continent-wide fluorescence of unambiguously different (as the various fluted points never were) biface types. Sassaman and Anderson (1996) discuss this phenomenon in terms of their useful concept of scale of ecological adaptation. They suggest, just as Hemmings (2002) more assuredly asserts, that Clovis was primarily a large-scale ecological adaptation, though nothing is said that would question or serve to refute the cultural utility of such a widespread tradition as hypothesized by many Paleoindian researchers (Haynes 2002; Jochim, et. al. 1999; Meltzer 2002). Sassaman and Anderson (1996) suggest that as populations grew and became less mobile (as expressed in the sense of the scale of ecological adaptation having become markedly smaller), that new trends toward more specific regional adaptation were reflected technologically in regionally discrete biface types. Those types, as they developed in the southeast and especially Florida, are our topic in this chapter. Although a distinct fluted point technology, Folsom, succeeded Clovis in the southwest, across the southeast at the end of the Clovis era, approximately 12, 000 B.P., unambiguously fluted projectile points ceased to be made. Subsequent types nevertheless are often readily recognizable as Clovis’ technological descendants. While the difficult controlled outré-passé flaking and basal fluting are less often seen, they persist, if inconsistently, and Clovis’ successor types retain the lanceolate outline of their predecessors. As can be seen in Figure 5.1, bases of a variety of lanceolate points are sometimes thinned, often so aggressively that attempted fluting is suggested -- or achieved. Likewise, occasional outré-passé flaking is present. Such technological holdovers from Clovis technology are frequently encountered in Suwannee and Simpson points, blurring definitions and frustrating attempts to create clear and readily recognizable types. Recent analysis by two Florida Paleoindian researchers suggests a compelling reorganization of Florida unfluted lanceolate types (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004).What follows is in large part a restatement of their suggested typological reordering of the lithic taxonomies that have persisted in Florida since Bullen’s time (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004).
37
C
b a B c d D f E A e
Figure 5.1. Ambiguity among fluted lanceolate forms. Points A, D and E are possibly reworked Clovis. Although a good example of the Waisted Suwannee type, B is fluted. Point C is either a "one-of" or a late stage preform. Alvin Hendrix collection.
Simpson (Bullen 1962)
Simpson is a localized example of the post-Clovis fluorescence of lanceolate types. Not one is recorded by Cambron and Hulse (1964) from Alabama. Whatley (2002: 101) lists the type from the Atlantic Coastal plain of Georgia. The Paleo Indian Data Base of America (PIDBA) distribution maps also depict their occurrence in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, but PIDBA (2005) does not discriminate between Simpson and the more numerous Suwannees. Simpson is a wide-bladed type with narrow hafting area, usually ground. Bases are auriculate and, though expanding, are always narrower than the widest part of the base. Simpsons are often thinner than the other large Florida unfluted lanceolate, the Suwannee, and some near outré- passé width flaking is apparent on most Simpson examples. Although manufacturing techniques differ considerably Simpson and Suwannee points are invariably described in relation to each other (Bullen 1975:55-56; Powell 1990:11; Whatley 2002:101, 111). Both are primarily Florida types, seem to be roughly contemporary, and have been suggested as knife (Simpson) versus projectile point (Suwannee) variants of the same cluster. In their blade width-to-thickness ratios as compared to Suwannees, Simpson is almost delicately thin. They are also often resharpened (Powell 1990). Nevertheless, cross identification has long been common. Recent analysis by
38 Dunbar and Hemmings (2004), as discussed in the following section offers hope of clarification in the matter.
Figure 5.2. Simpson point from Florida. Alvin Hendrix collection.
Temporal Placement The rare Simpson points are dated by association with Suwannee points to roughly 12,500-12,000 B.P. (Anderson 2004; Dunbar et. al 2002; Warren 1966). Suwannee dating is discussed below.
39 Suwannee (Bullen 1958)
Most Suwannee points are either excurvate or parallel-sided. These are the best known, “classic” Suwannee type. A further variant, the “Eared Suwannee” will be illustrated and discussed in the context of the Transitional Side-notched Cluster.
Figure 5.3 Suwannee straight-sided and excurvate forms from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
Suwannee Waisted (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004)
This is a recently proposed type (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004). Because so many Clovis attributes are shared across subsequent types, and shared inconsistently, many Suwannee Waisted points would have been identified as Simpson. Indeed, Dunbar and Hemmings (2004) note similarities between the Clovis Waisted form discussed in the preceding chapter and the Suwannee Waisted type. At Ryan-Harley (8JE1004), a Florida underwater site in the Wacissa River, the late-stage preform of a Suwannee Waisted was recovered in situ. Although this is only one site, Ryan- Harley is of great potential importance. Before it was discovered and investigations had taken
40 place, the temporal placement of the projectile point which I will continue to call Suwannee Waisted, heretofore simply Suwannee, was quite ambiguous. The great majority of them had been recovered at unstratified underwater locations. There have been a few exceptions.
Figure 5.4 Suwannee Waisted points from Florida. Type newly proposed by Dunbar and Hemmings (2004:68-69). Collection of Dr. Lou Hill.
In 1958, at Silver Springs (8MR59), from the lowest levels of the site below a clay layer, Neill excavated a discrete stratum containing broken lanceolate points, including the base of what would today be recognized as a Suwannee Waisted. Also found in secure association were a number of unifacial tools. The site had been previously mined for sand, and complete diagnostic unfluted and fluted points (personal communication, Jim Dunbar 2005) were recovered from “spread sand” associated with the sand-mining (Neill 1958). There are no radiocarbon dates from the site, and in the layers above the lanceolate, no early Archaic notched forms were recovered. During the excavations at Harney Flats (8HI507) in the early 1980s, Suwannee Waisted points were recovered in situ at what appears to have been a base camp. Failed artifacts and preforms in all stages as well as complete artifacts were found (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1986). Less helpful from the standpoint of understanding chronologies was the excavation of Bolen points at Harney Flats, well dated from both Florida and regional contacts at
41 about 11,100 B. P. and earlier (Anderson 2004, 120, Figure 1; Carter 2003:36, 68, Figure 3.1.) from the same sandy stratigraphic level as Suwannee (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). The anomaly may be more apparent than real. Aeolian processes have the potential to significantly modify spatial relationships among artifacts (Waters 1995:195-202). Daniel and Wisenbaker (1987:39-40) themselves concluded that, “The lack of separation within the early component at Harney Flats can be best accounted for by postulating that the different occupations represented by the Suwannee and Bolen points occurred on essentially one stabilized surface…Apparently there was not enough geological deposition between discrete occupations to stratigraphically separate materials.” By contrast, Ryan-Harley is a technologically single-component Suwannee Waisted site, with in situ diagnostics, and rich in faunal remains, including those of extinct species. Temporal Placement Elsewhere in North America, extinctions, including those of the tapir and equid found in situ at Ryan Harley, as well those of the five other extinct genera found there in displaced contexts (Dunbar, Vojnovski, and Stanton, in press) occurred at about 13,000 B.P. (Martin 1984:360-367; 2005:48-57). Dunbar (2002:168) sees evidence that the site was possibly formed during the Younger Dryas, which commenced a few hundred years later, possibly suggesting that some megafaunal species survived longer in the southeast. Indeed, Martin (1984:369) suggests that species in more tropical and heavily wooded environments may not have been as readily or effectively preyed upon by rapidly-dispersing Paleoindians, an observation with possible explanatory relevance for Ryan-Harley, where tapir remains were found. Martin (2005:47) also calls attention to the effects of rapid climate change on the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and a resulting imprecision in radiocarbon dates for the period of North American megafaunal extinction. Altogether, a date of approximately 12,500 B. P. -- or earlier --seems appropriate for Ryan-Harley, and perhaps 12,500-11,500 B. P. for Suwannee technology. These dates agree with the most recent synthesis of Paleoindian data from the southeast (Anderson 2004, PIDBA 2005).
Lake Jackson Lanceolate (proposed by Dunbar and Hemmings 2004)
42 This proposed type is known from only three examples, two of which are illustrated here. Lake Jackson seems to been thinned at all stages of manufacture. It is distinctively tapered from the base towards the distal end, very distinctly from other lanceolates, which are all waisted or parallel sided. The basal ears are rounded.
Figure 5.5 Lake Jackson Lanceolate points from Florida. Type newly proposed by Dunbar and Hemmings (2004:68-69). Dr. Lou Hill Collection.
Temporal Placement Unknown.
Page-Ladson Lanceolate (proposed by Dunbar 2004)
This type has been recovered only from the Aucilla, St. Marks, and Suwannee, as well as one from terrestrial context at the Wakulla Springs Lodge Site (8WA329). Outré passé flaking is present on example made from high quality cryptocrystalline materials. Enough of the few known examples were made on flakes to suggest a deliberate choice of such technique, rather than the occasional and opportunistic use of flakes encountered with almost all types. The Wakulla Springs point was one such example. One of the Page-Ladson (8JE591) artifacts is the only lanceolate point from Florida made from an exotic material, a jasperoid from the upper Flint
43 River Basin in Georgia. Clovis toolkits elsewhere were typified by a high incidence of exotic cryptocrystalline material (Goodyear 1979; Haynes 1982:392, 2002:92; Meltzer 1989:11-39, 2002:37; Stanford 1991:2).
B
A
D C
F
E
Figure 5.6 Page-Ladson points from Florida. New type proposed by Dunbar and Hemmings (2004). Image courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR), Tallahassee.
Temporal Placement Dunbar believes the type may be associated with Page-Ladson Unit 3, where a mastodon tusk with what appear to be butchering cut marks was recovered. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from Unit 3 organics average at 14, 345 B.P. (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004:66). The possible pre-Clovis implications are obvious.
Beaver Lake (DeJarnette, Kurjack and Cambron 1962)
Beaver Lake is a rare type in Florida. Beaver Lakes are small, thin, well made points. As with almost all lanceolate points they are ground on basal and lateral edges. Beaver Lakes from Alabama are more markedly auriculate basally than Florida examples, and Bullen (1975) suggested that a different type name might be appropriate. Florida examples do tend to be
44 smaller than Beaver Lake points from the type site in Alabama. In Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain, Powell (1990: 10) suggested that the smaller Florida points, which he also observed to be infrequently resharpened, were probably more frequently used as dart points than as knives.
Figure 5.7 Beaver Lake points traced for the Guide. From Levy, Dixie, and Columbia Counties. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 63611, 102289, 102423.
Temporal Placement I have been unable to find any report of Beaver Lake points from dated contexts in the state. However, accepting Powell’s plausible suggestion that the regional size differences in Beaver Lake points is only a matter of regional variation in utilization modes, we have a wealth of dates for the type, notably from Dust Cave, Alabama. There, a recent reevaluation and calibration of radiocarbon data, yielded dates for Beaver Lake and cotemporaneous Late Paleoindian artifacts, all recovered from the lowest excavation levels at CALYBP 12,600-11,200 (Sherwood et. al 2004). The early dates coincide with Anderson’s 2004 synthesis.
45 CHAPTER 6
DALTON CLUSTER
The previous chapter dealt with a proposed unfluted lanceolate cluster. Dalton points are unfluted lanceolates, of much the same age as the Suwannees and Simpsons and Beaver Lakes discussed in that previous chapter. Why should Dalton be accorded a separate cluster? Recall that clusters are suggested according to various rationales. One rationale was temporal. Justice (1987:35-44) designates a Dalton cluster, but it contains a number of types that appear to me to be better dealt with in other clusters. His consideration appears to be temporal, since his Dalton cluster includes Beaver Lake, which I place in the unfluted lanceolate cluster, as well as Greenbriar, from the cluster I shall propose as Transitional Side-notched. My rationale in clustering Dalton separately, between unfluted lanceolates and transitional side-notched points was different from the reason I infer that Justice placed them together. I suggest that the morphological characteristics and a developmental sequence of technological change dictate a separate cluster for Dalton points and their correlates. But the suggested developmental sequence in the chapter which follows this one evolves from type to type, culminating in a new hafting paradigm in the Early Archaic. With the Dalton type the developmental changes take place not from new type to new type, but within a recognizably Dalton morphology over an unusually long period significantly overlapping that of Suwannee points, which some archaeologists suspect are a Florida Dalton equivalent (Anderson 2004:120- 122).
46 Dalton (Chapman 1948)
Figure 6.1 Dalton points from Southwest Georgia. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
Dalton points have straight or incurving ground basal edges. The basal concavity is usually pronounced, thinned, and often ground as well. Early-stage Dalton points exhibit straight-sided blades similar to those of typically lanceolate types. Those with incurvate basal edges are more often recovered in an un-resharpened state. Morse notes (1996:329, 1997:21) that impact fractures are typical on un-resharpened points, implying their use as projectile points. At the Sloan site in Arkansas, where 139 completed Dalton points were recovered, the un-resharpened forms often resembled the type known in Florida as Greenbriar Dalton (Morse 1997:7, 21, Figures 3.2-3.4). Far more typical in archaeological reports are examples of resharpened forms with deep serrations ,and shorter and shorter blades. Figure 6.1 illustrates the initial stages of the process. Very late-stage points may retain utility as knife or projectile points, some Dalton’s ultimately become drill-like (Figure 6.2). Figure 6.3 points were unrecognized by Bullen as exhausted Daltons and named Marianna points (Bullen 1975:48). Note vestigial straight basal hafting surfaces and serration. It
47 is suggested here that Marianna points should no longer be considered a separate type. Neither Cambron and Hulse (1964, 1975), Powell (1990), nor Whatley (2002) recognize Marianna.
Figure 6.2 Probable Dalton terminal utilization drill forms from Florida. FBAR accession numbers 74.192.01.11 and 74.192.01.201.
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 6.3 Bullen-designated Marianna points from Alachua and Bradford Counties, Florida. These artifacts are suggested to be exhausted Dalton forms. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 78017, 93614, 102364, 102921.
48 A Dalton point was apparently more often destined for use as a knife than as a projectile point. It was certainly utilized throughout its use-life to a greater extent than is apparent for any other paleo point (Coe 1964; Bullen 1975; Goodyear 1974; Michie 1996; Morse 1973; Powell 1990: 12). Dalton is a chimera. Region by region, researcher by researcher, there is a bewildering profusion of named or hyphenated ostensible Dalton types. In 1964, Cambron and Hulse listed two in Alabama: Nuckolls and Greenbriar Daltons. In North Carolina Coe (1964: 37-38) identified a third, the Hardaway-Dalton. In 1973, Morse (1973: 25-26) wrote that the “lanceolate Dalton” probably belonged to an earlier tradition of unfluted lanceolates and described the sharpened form as “denticulate Daltons.” In 1975, Bullen (1975:44) recognized two in Florida: Nuckolls and Colbert Dalton. Powell’s 1990 guide to coastal plain points recognizes the Colbert Dalton and Greenbriar Dalton, but not the Nuckolls Dalton, while also describing an Escambia Dalton, Ocmulgee Dalton, and Chattahoochee Dalton (1990:12). The Chipola (Powell 1990: 13) is recognized as akin to the San Patrice, which Texas researchers recognize as having “overall morphological and technological similarities” among Texas forms called San Patrice and Dalton Cochranes as well as Dalton River Bend types (Ensor 1986: 72). Bullen’s Gilchrist too, resembles Dalton. Back in Florida, in 2002 Schroder accepted all of Powell’s proposed variants, reinstated the Nuckolls, and recognized that Bullen’s Mariannas are a Dalton type. A Texas archaeologist summed up his frustration in the last sentence of the abstract of a paper on Gulf Coastal Plain San Patrice and Dalton affinities: “Finally, a plea is made for increased use of interregional taxonomic classifications and standard artifact descriptions,” (Ensor 1986:69). The Dalton’s extensive use-life alterations certainly contribute to the misunderstanding. Its wide distribution over the Southeast and Midwest also contributes to the profusion of named Dalton-hyphenated or hyphenated-Dalton types. But it is not all smoke and mirrors. To carry through with our attempt to recognize phylogenetic relationships among stone artifact types, Dalton seems to be a type of astonishing genetic plasticity, a hybridizer. Bullen himself noted (1975:44) that Daltons were rare in Florida, and that hasn’t changed much (Anderson 2004:122, PIDBA 2005). But professional and avocational collections continue to add to our knowledge. Illustrated points (Figure 6.4) from North Florida river contexts are good examples of Dalton morphology. All three exhibit the typical short straight basal hafting
49 edges and fine serrations. Point B is an early stage Dalton, its edges are still excurvate, point C’s edges are less so, point A’s are straight and the point is well on the way to the nearly triangular form of the late-stage Dalton. These points are typical of what Powell (1990:12) called Chattahoochee Daltons, as are the two depicted in Figure 6.1, both terrestrial finds from Southwest Georgia. A and C could easily be mistaken for Tallahassee points – and perhaps are.
Figure 6.4 Dalton points from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
Temporal Placement Goodyear (1982:389-392) dated Dalton at approximately 12,500-11,500 B.P., principally on the basis of two radiocarbon dates from the Rogers Shelter site, in Arkansas. This agrees with recent reevaluations of the Dust Cave, Alabama dates (Sherwood et al. 2004:533-554) and is reflected in the most recent synthesis of Paleoindian chronologies from the southeast (Anderson 2004:199-128).
Greenbriar Dalton (DeJarnette, Kurjack and Cambron, 1962)
Expanding, rather than typical Dalton downward-pointing auricles, and incurvate ground basal lateral edges are diagnostic of Greenbriar Daltons (Cambron and Hulse 1964:38, Powell
50 1990:12). This point, however, would fit without notice of distinctiveness into a Sloan site report figure illustrating the range of variation among the many complete Dalton points recovered there (Morse 1997: figures 3.3-3.4); so would most Greenbriar Daltons examined in Florida collections.
Figure 6.5 Greenbriar Dalton from Florida. Tony Gilyard collection.
Gilchrist (Bullen 1975:49)
Basal and lateral basal traits of Gilchrist show affinities with Greenbriar Dalton and Chipola types. Like those, “They do not have real notches, but expanding tangs which are inset from the blade edges” (Bullen 1975:49). The same might be said of Greenbriar Dalton. As recently as 2002, Gilchrist points had not been found in a stratified context (Schroder 2002; 70-72, FMSF search 2005). This placement may be no more than an example of the unsupported table-top seriation that so often failed Bullen.
51
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 6.6 Gilchrist points from Marion and Alachua Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropological Division of The Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 31876, 78773, 78775, 78696, 79026.
Chipola (Powell 1990:13)
Powell (1990:52-53) recently proposed recognition of these points from west Florida, Chipola shares significant morphological traits with San Patrice, a Dalton variant better known from the western and central Gulf Coastal Plain (Ensor 1986:69-81). Ensor notes that, employing the cluster concept first proposed by Faulkner and McCullough (1973), himself (Ensor 1981), and Futato (1983), the San Patrice type would be recognized as a Gulf Coastal Plain manifestation of the tradition recognized in the east as Dalton. I make the same suggestion for Chipola, suggesting also by doing so that the San Patrice tradition was present further east along the Gulf Coastal Plain than Texas researchers discussing the type had supposed (Ensor 1987). For comparison, a display of Texas San Patrice types is provided at Figure 6.8. The collection was displayed by Bradley Ensor at the Clovis in the Southeast Conference, Columbia, South Carolina, 2005. Ensor (1987) has researched and published on the topic of San Patrice/Dalton affinities.
52
Figure 6.7 Chipola points from Econfina Creek, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 01.242.202.1, 93.532.07.1, 98.5.10.1.
Figure 6.8 San Patrice points from Texas. Collection of Bradley Ensor. Image by Lezlie Barker, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA).
53 Like Greenbriar Dalton, Chipola is more markedly expanding auriculate than other Daltons. Unlike Greenbriar Dalton, however, the basal lateral edges are not merely incurvate. The basal concavity is deeper and the expanding auricles are longer. More distinctive, it is waisted, though not notched, in a way that sets it clearly apart from the straight or somewhat incurvate sides of other Dalton forms (Powell 1990:13; Schroder 2002:52-53). Chipola manufacturers may have been influenced by a trend towards new hafting techniques. Temporal Placement: Greenbriar-Dalton, Gilchrist, Chipola Carter (2003:82-87) suggests persuasively that notching technology was developed in an effort to maximize useable blade length over the life cycle of the artifact. His contention is that notched points were useable (as in Figure 2.1) for more purposes and over a much longer regime of resharpening than early lanceolate points. He further suggests that the need for conserving usable blade length may have evolved in response to the need to process smaller prey as the subsistence implications of megafaunal extinctions trickled down to an increasing population. Carter’s hypothesis is mentioned here rather than in the following Early Notched Cluster chapter, because it is suggested that the incurvate-based Dalton types are a similar response to just such requirements. If true, it would suggest that their correct placement would be late in the Dalton continuum, perhaps as late as the 11,000 B. P. dates suggested by Anderson and PIDBA (2005). Morphological Correlates and Cautionary Considerations
Milanich image, C D A 1994:66 B
Figure 6.9 Nuckolls (A & B) and Colbert (C & D) Dalton points from Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 102432, 102557, 102289, 78635.
54 Nuckolls Dalton (Bullen 1975:44). Bullen Type Collection examples I have examined are so crude as to call into question whether the artifacts in question are an actual type. Nuckolls was named after ostensibly similar points from a Tennessee site of that name. Colbert Dalton (DeJarnette, Kurjack and Cambron 1962). Colbert Dalton points are basally thinned, but not markedly concave. They do share the straight sides, early-stage excurvate blades, and late-stage straight serrated blades of typical Daltons. Santa Fe (Goggin 1950). Santa Fe and Tallahassee are two points which have the potential to be confused with Dalton forms. The types represent the best examples of the fatal seductiveness of attempting seriation without stratigraphic controls. Bullen (1975:57) suggested that Santa Fe might have been “blanks for Clovis sub-type 6 point,” which is curious, as Bullen proposed only five Clovis sub-types. But he also said (Bullen 1975:46) that “Sharpening a Santa Fe results in a Tallahassee and, eventually a Nuckolls Dalton.” Bullen (1975:46) believed that “they herald the arrival of people with the Dalton lithic complex.”
Figure 6.10 Santa Fe points from Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 77986 and 102273.
Santa Fe is lanceolate, with concave base and basal grinding, the latter often running further up the sides than on Dalton points. These points have been recovered in ceramic contexts at the
55 Reddick Bluff site in Walton County in association with Norwood fiber-tempered ceramics (Mikell 1997:83-93). Sears (1982) reported one from Fort Center.
Figure 6.11 Tallahassee points from Apalachicola and Wacissa Rivers, Florida. Collections of Ryan and Harley Means, recorded and documented under Florida State Isolated Finds Program (IFP). Records on file at FBAR, Tallahassee.
Tallahassee. The Tallahassee is a very well made lanceolate point. Basal corners are often flared, but also may have straight sides similar to Dalton points. Tallahassee points usually have a more triangular profile than Dalton points. Some exhibit a diagnostic notching feature; the notch points are flat, rather than pointed. Tallahassee points have only been documented in Woodland contexts. One such is the Block-Stearns site (8LE148), others include the Oconi Mission site (8JE131) in Jefferson County. Santa Fe and especially Tallahassee points can easily be mistaken for Dalton points; it can readily be understood how Bullen assumed an association. Designation as Tallahassee or Dalton for temporal site determination, without other contextual evidence, should be attempted with extreme caution. Note pronounced, almost diagnostic, Tallahassee flat-pointed notching on right point.
56
Figure 6.12 Tallahassee points from Clay and Marion Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 93698, 102583, A-3847.
Marianna. A Bullen named type, discussed above, shown in Figure 6.3, and suggested to be nothing more than nearly exhausted Daltons.
57 CHAPTER 7
TRANSITIONAL SIDE-NOTCHED CLUSTER
This cluster is proposed as a typological bridge over the morphological gap between the true lanceolate points diagnostic of Paleoindian toolkits and the unambiguous side and corner- notched forms that serve as markers for the Early Archaic.
B
A
D C
F
E
Figure 7.1 Dalton, Union, Greenbriar, Norden, and Bolen points from Florida. Alvin Hendrix collection.
58 Figure 7.1 depicts the suggested material culture analog to a biological phylogenetic tree. Dalton points’ straight edges are replaced by Union points’ ground basal notches, which are themselves replaced by the chipped basal notches of Greenbriar, all culminating in deeply side and corner notched forms by the Early Archaic. The concept of a transitional group of weakly or incipiently side-notched points seems to have been growing among archaeologists in the Southeast in the last decade. Recently Dunbar and Carter (2005a) collectively discuss some of these forms in the sense of their being collectively a transitional group, contemporary with late lanceolate forms at some sites and apparently predating the ubiquitous Bolen type (Carter and Dunbar 2005a). Other authors have grouped some of the types suggested here in collective categories such as “Dalton Transitional” (Schroder 2002:27) or Powell’s (1990:11) “Protoarchaic.” Illustrated in Figure 7.2 are examples of each of the projectile point types I propose be considered as members of the Transitional Side- notched Cluster.
Suwannee, Greenbriar-like (Simpson 1948, Dunbar and Hemmings 2004)
Straight sided and excurvate forms of the Suwannee and a newly proposed type, the Waisted Suwannee (Dunbar and Hemmings 2004), have been discussed in a previous chapter. Dunbar and Hemmings (2004:69) also propose the distinctive Greenbriar-like Suwannee, depicted here. The basal ears are created partly by a slightly ground exaggeration of the basal hafting area. It appears to be the earliest point to manifest a trend towards actual notched basal edges, rather than merely ground ones. Temporal Placement Greenbriar-like Suwannee points are probably much the same ages as Suwannee and Suwannee Waisted. If the hypothesis of their representing the beginning of a trend toward notched forms is correct, they may be expected to appear late in the type’s history of manufacture, perhaps as late as 11,500 B.P.
59
B
A
D C
F
E
Figure 7.2 Left to Right, two of Eared or Greenbriar-like Suwannee points, a Union point, two Greenbriar points, and above, two Hardaway Side-notched points. Bottom row depict transitional forms still basically lanceolate in shape. Top two points are Florida Hardaway Side-notched forms, more closely resembling later Archaic notched forms. Tony Gilyard collection.
Union Side-notched (Bullen 1975)
Union is a type recognized by Bullen in the 1975 Guide, but not the earlier 1968 edition. Edges are beveled; sides are usually ground, rather than chipped. Bullen (1975:54) and Powell (1990:11) suggest that it represents a transitional form between Suwannee and Greenbriar. Union points do not exhibit basal thinning or removal of small flute-like flakes, as Suwannee points often do. Suwannee points, on the other hand, are never beveled. Temporal Placement In 1975 Bullen was unaware of any Union point from a stratified context. Schroder (2002:20) relates the recovery of one “only recently” found at an unspecified Marion County site
60 that also produced a fluted Clovis “at a similar level a few feet away.” No site name or number was provided, nor did a FMSF search and conversations with FBAR staff suggest such a site known to Florida archaeologists.
Greenbriar (DeJarnette et al. 1962)
Greenbriar points are well known and widely distributed in the Southeast. They are lanceolate in outline, but thick-bladed, with distinct chipped hafting notches and bifacial beveling. Temporal Placement Regional researchers have noted the apparent transitional position of Greenbriar points between late Paleoindian Lanceolate and early side-notched Archaic forms (Walthall 1980:49; Justice 1987:420). Justice (1987:40-44) clusters them with Dalton, and with Hardaway Side- notched. Such placement rationales support early dates for Greenbriar, perhaps near Anderson’s (2004:120-122) recently summarized timeline, which also associated Greenbriar and Hardaway Side-notched with Dalton. Greenbriar is emblematic of the Transitional Side-notched points as it shares features and overlaps late manifestations of the preceding lanceolate forms such as Dalton as well as the notched types common in the Early Archaic (Justice 1987:42). Justice (1987:42) also observes that they “were no longer used” by 9,500 B. P. A placement of 11,250-9,750 B. P. is suggested for the Greenbriar. Morphological Correlates Union (Bullen 1975:54)
Hardaway Side-notched (Coe 1964)
The point Bullen (1975:50) identified as a Hardaway-Side-notched Type 4, citing Coe’s report on the Hardaway type-site, was no kind of Hardaway at all. Nor does it resemble any artifact identified by Coe as a Hardaway Side-notched. It does somewhat resemble a point Coe (1964:69-71) classified as a Kirk Corner-notched, most of which came from two excavation levels above true Hardaway Side-notched points. Hardaway Side-notched points are small and
61 thin with a distinctive “horned appearance” created by up-swept basal ears (Coe 1964:67, Figure 58; Daniel 1998:52-53).
B
Figure 7.3 Hardaway Side-notched point from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection. Artifact is about the width of a nickel coin.
Temporal Placement Hardaway points are often named in some association with Dalton. In the Tennessee Valley they are called “corner-notched Daltons” (Cambron and Hulse 1964:66) and at the type- site, variants are called Hardaway Daltons (Coe 1964). Hardaway and Dalton are often cited together in stratigraphic or chronological relationship. One date at Stanfield-Worley was associated with Hardaway, Dalton, and Bolen, calibrated to about 11,500 B.P. (DeJarnette et al. 1962). Goodyear (1982), synthesizing and reevaluating the Dalton horizon in the Southeast, concluded Dalton points were made 12,500-11,000 B. P. and that the side and corner-notched period was 10,750-10,000 B. P. Hardaway appears to fall between those traditions. At the type site, Hardaway Side-notched occurs at Level IV, along with the Hardaway Dalton, but none of the Dalton forms were found in situ above that, while the Hardaway Side-notched was also found in Levels III and II, where they were found along with corner-notched types typical of the Early Archaic (Coe 1964: 63-73). A placement of ca 11,500-11,100 B.P. is suggested (Anderson 2004; PIDBA 2005).
62 CHAPTER 8
EARLY ARCHAIC NOTCHED CLUSTER
A frustrating aspect of analyzing projectile point and knife technology on the Atlantic Coastal Plain is an almost total absence in the archaeological record of recovered hafted tools. The bases of bifacial chipped stone tools are consistently the most diagnostic characteristic. Use- wear, resharpening, and utilization of broken points frequently alter blade forms out of recognition (Bullen 1975: 51-52; 32-33; 38-39; 44-48). Bases usually remain unchanged through the use-life of stone artifacts. Consequently it is bases, which must reflect hafting techniques, that most define lithic types and clusters. It remains unclear what hafting developments drove the change from the lanceolate forms diagnostic of the Paleoindian period, through the transitional forms discussed in the preceding chapter, to the emphatically notched forms emblematic of the Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic (Anderson 2004; Anderson et al. 1996: 10-15; Justice 1987: 54- 82). Indeed, it remains unknown exactly what drove that change, but hafting technology suggests itself as the most parsimonious explanation (Carter 2003:81-87). Archaeologists suggest that changed subsistence and related social circumstances strategies caused retention or change in tool types from the beginning (Anderson et al. 1996: 10- 15; Carter 2003:81-87; Meltzer 2002: 27-59; Milanich 1994: 50-70). At the end of the Paleoindian period, a warming climate (the Younger Dryas stadial ended ca 11,5000 B. P.), rising sea levels, and a presumed increasing population density, all seem to have contributed to lower mobility and greater social and technological isolation. These factors were reflected in a continuation of the trend towards increasing technological diversity witnessed in previous chapters, resulting by about 11,000 B. P. in the replacement of lanceolate forms by a significant tool technology innovation – notched bases (Anderson 2004:120, Table 1).
63 We have noted that lanceolate forms were typically basally ground, presumably to facilitate hafting by decreasing wear on lashing materials used to bind the base of the point securely into a foreshaft or spear. We have also noted how this problem was increasingly addressed during the Late Paleoindian Period by a transition through a series of transitional side- ground, then side-notched forms. Likewise we have seen that Daltons seems to have developed from a conventional lanceolate hafting technology to one relying on incurvate waists typical of types such as the Gilchrist and Chipola. In this chapter, however, I discuss the culmination of that trend, a cluster of deeply and unambiguously side-notched points.
Bolen (Bullen 1958)
This type is widespread across Florida and neighboring states, where it is equally well known, but known by a confusing set of other names. In Alabama it is called the Big Sandy (Cambron and Hulse 1964:14-16) and in Georgia and South Carolina the Taylor or Big Sandy (Whatley 2001:117). James Dunbar of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR) suggests on the basis of the description and explicit naming of points from the Bolen Bluff excavation, that naming honors belong to Bullen (1958:14), the only possible contender, Madeline Kneberg (1956:25), actually having been describing a similar Middle-Archaic point which she named Big Sandy. Bullen (1967, 1968, 1975) classified five sub-types of Bolens and a further five sub-types of Bolen Beveled points. I suggest that there is only one type of Bolen, the side-notched type. Bullen’s corner-notched “sub-types” are something else, and will be discussed further on. Bolen points are small to large side-notched points. Side-notching can vary considerably. Blades are excurvate in early stages, becoming straighter and often drill like in later stages of resharpening, which is extremely common. Bolens are almost always sharpened by pressure flaking one edge, then turning the point to repeat the process on the opposite side. The result is that “finished” Bolen points are lenticular in cross section, but become markedly rhomboidal through repeated resharpening. This process is typical of Early Archaic side-notched technology, as opposed to Late Paleoindian Daltons, which were bifacially sharpened, retaining a lenticular cross-section throughout their use-lives.
64
Figure 8.1 Bolen Archaic notched points from Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH collection numbers 72878, 102603, 102432.
Figure 8.2 Bolen points from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
65 Temporal Placement At Page-Ladson (8JE591) and the unnamed 8LE2105, dates for Bolen types cluster at 11,000 B. P. (Faught et al. 2003:16-18). As there is general regional consensus that side notching preceded corner notching (Bense 1994; Coe 1964; Anderson et al. 1996:15), and both Bolen and corner-notched types were stratigraphically associated at Page-Ladson and 8LE2105, it may safely be inferred that Bolen is older than 11,000 B. P., which, in fact, is Anderson (2005) and PIDBA’s (2005) suggested temporal midpoint of early side-notched types. Suggested dates for Bolen are 11,500-10,500 B. P. Morphological Correlates Bolen Beveled. Reworked examples of Bullen’s Bolen Plain. (Bullen 1975)
Kirk Corner-notched (Coe 1959)
Figure 8.3 Kirk Corner-notched points from Gilchrist and Jackson Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 102332, 102386, 102432.
Kirk Corner-notched are typically rather large, with deep notching, and excurvate, flat, or incurvate bases. Coe’s North Carolina examples were not basally ground or smoothed, but
66 Florida examples often are. Coe’s examples were made from local metavolcanic stone, not coastal plain chert. The difference in material may account for differing basal treatment. Randy Daniel, who has encountered Kirk Corner-notched points in Florida as well as the Carolinas (Daniel 1987, 1998, and personal communications, 2006) is of that opinion. Although familiar with Coe’s work, and citing it page by page, Bullen ignored Coe’s classification of the corner- notched points from the Hardaway sites as Kirk Corner-notched (Coe 1964: 69-70, Fig. 60) and instead classed them as Corner Notched Bolen, Sub-type 4 (Bullen 1975: 51-52). Coe’s naming primacy seems clear, and seems (sensu conversations with contemporary Florida archaeologists specializing in early lithics, late 1990s to the present) to be the currently accepted naming paradigm in Florida and the Southeast.
Figure 8.4 Kirk Corner-notched points from the Apalachicola River, Florida. Collections of Ryan and Harley Means. Artifacts recorded in the Florida Isolated Finds Program (IFP) register, FBAR.
Citing Bense (1994), Coe (1964), and others, as recently as 1996, Anderson (Anderson et al.1996:15) confidently asserted that “Early archaic components across much of the Southeast are recognized by successive (italics are mine) side-and corner-notched and bifurcate-based bifaces.” Recent analysis confirms and reinforces such conclusions (Anderson 2004; 2005; PIDBA 2005). Closer to home, we have good stratigraphic evidence of overlap. At both
67 8LE2105 and Page-Ladson (8JE591), early side and corner-notched points were found in the same stratigraphic units. The three radiocarbon dates from 8LE2105 averaged 9870±40, the four from Page-Ladson at 9958±40 (Faught et al. 2003:16-18). These Florida dates, ca RCYBP 9900- 10,000, coincide with Anderson’s most recent Paleoindian chronology for the Southeast, which agree in turn with widespread manufacture and utilization of both side and corner-notched lithic types at around 11,100 B. P. Based on dates associated with 6270 artifacts from 117 sites, PIDBA (2005) suggests, that early corner-notched types’ temporal midpoint is ca 10,000 B. P. A temporal range of from 11,100-9,250 is suggested. Morphological Correlates Bolen Type 4, Corner-notched (Bullen 1968, 1975)
Lost Lake (Cambron and Hulse 1964)
Lost Lake points have been recognized since Bullen’s era in Alabama (Cambron and Hulse 1964:A-27). They are basally ground with distinctive notching terminating in hertzian cones. As with many Early Notched types, Lost Lake points are resharpened by unifacial beveling to a rhomboidal cross section. Both examples in Figure 8.5 were recovered from North Florida Rivers.
Figure 8.5 Lost Lake points from Florida. Left example Tony Gilyard collection, right example Dr. Lou Hill collection.
68 Temporal attribution Lost Lake points from Ice House Bottom apparently predate Kirk Corner-notched, and the lower Kirk strata were dated at about 7,500 B. C. (Chapman 1977:51, 161, 166). Calibrated such dates would equate to 10, 750 B. P., corresponding again with the most recent synthesis of Paleoindian and Early Archaic calibrated dates (Anderson 2004:120). Morphological Correlates Bolen Corner-notched, (1975:51-52) and Kirk Corner-notched (Coe 1964:69-71, Figure 60).
Hardin (Powell 1990)
An uncommon type in Florida, Hardin points, like Lost Lake are encountered only in North and West Florida, primarily in river contexts. The Southeastern Hardin has been proposed as a distinct type by John Powell, collector and author of Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain (1990). Southeastern Hardin is distinguished by thinned ovate bases and distinctive deep crescent notching. Beveling, resulting in a rhomboidal cross section is present on some examples.
Figure 8.6. Hardin points from Apalachicola and Wacissa Rivers, Florida. Collections of Ryan and Harley Means. Reported in accordance with the Florida IFP and recorded at FBAR.
69 Temporal Attribution While deeply notched forms are indicative of Early Archaic contexts, such assumptions betrayed Bullen repeatedly. However, unifacial beveling resulting in rhomboidal cross-section seems to cease by the Late Archaic. As of this writing no Hardin points are known from stratified contexts, but the type bears many similarities, including beveling, to the Plevna points illustrated and described by Cambron (1962) and suggested as being an Early Archaic type. Justice (1987:58-59) also notes the morphological affinities between Lost Lake and Early Archaic Plevna points, suggesting a similar age, bracketing 10,750 B. P. Morphological Correlates Plevna (Coe 1959, Cambron and Hulse 1964:A-72).
Wacissa (Neill 1963)
Wacissa is suggested as a possible transitional form between notched and stemmed forms.
Figure 8.7 Wacissa points from Florida. Alvin Hendrix collection.
Many Archaic stemmed forms were so poorly made as to blur type categorization. In contrast, the Wacissa type is as well made as Early Side-notched forms. Wacissa is beveled distinctly, but not with the single-side beveling so characteristic of Early Notched types. Instead,
70 it is bifacially beveled, producing a steep chisel edge along not only the length of the blade but the hafting stem as well, creating on some examples an appearance of relict notching. Basal edges of stems are not beveled, but thinned. Stems are usually over half the width of the blade. Temporal Placement Wacissa is suggested to be an Early Archaic point, ca 11,000-9,000 B. P. This suggestion is made despite there being only one Wacissa point documented from anything like an intact archaeological context. The actual nature of investigations at the Jefferson County road construction type-site is unclear, but Wilfred Neill asserted with apparent confidence that the Wacissa points there were in association with a Bolen point (Neill 1963: 101-103, Figure 2). This suggested Early Archaic placement is supported, always tenuously but consistently, by reports of Wacissa artifacts found in association with early side-notched types at Florida sites such as Page-Ladson (8JE591) and Cypress Cove (8LE1432), (Dunbar and Hemmings 1993; FMSF file). Professional archaeologists and collectors alike share the sense that Wacissa points are consistently found in association with Early Archaic types (personal communications, Alvin Hendrix 2005, Ryan and Harley Means 2006, Dunbar 2005-2006). Morphological Correlates and Cautions Abbey points (Hulse 1964) bear striking similarities to Wacissa. As is evident from Figure 8.8, Abbey and Wacissa points share approximate size, frequently double beveled blade edges, flat basal edges, frequently flat rather than elliptical cross-sections, and thinned stems. Abbey points differ consistently in having distinctly narrower stems. Abbey points, but not Wacissa are reported from Alabama and Georgia (Cambron and Hulse 1964; Whatley 2001). Conversely, neither Bullen (1975) nor Schroder (2001) take note of Abbey as a Florida type. All of the pictured examples were recovered from the Apalachicola river by a pair of collectors who did not find them elsewhere. Their distribution in the state may in fact be very limited. Unlike Wacissa, Abbey points are reported from at least a few sound contexts. In Georgia they are reported from at least one site (9DW77) believed by the investigator to date to the “early 4500 to 4990 B. P. interval” (Webb 1998:187). This attribution agrees with Cambron and Hulse’s assessment, based as it was upon Abbey points being found along with Elora and Maples points, both known elsewhere from sites and strata suggesting Late Archaic-Woodland manufacture (Cambron and Hulse 1964:1, 47, 85). Carter (personal communication 2006) does
71 not share the sense that Wacissa and Abbey types are widely separated temporally, and suspects that Wacissa belongs with the well-established later dates for Abbey, rather than the tenuously supported early placement.
Figure 8.8 Wacissa points (top row) and Abbey (bottom row) from Florida. Ryan and Harley Means collections, as reported to and recorded in Florida Isolated Find Program (IFP) files, FBAR.
Nevertheless, Wacissa and Abbey are more readily separated morphologically than Dalton and Tallahassee, which are from similarly distant culture periods.
Norden (Farr 2006)
These unusual, points have been recovered in small numbers from river contexts, principally the Waccasassa, Suwannee and Santa Fe at least since the mid-1960s. They are not corner-notched in the sense of the deep and narrow notches diagnostic of Kirk Corner-notched points, but rather exhibit a broader and shallower notch. Unusual in a presumed Early Archaic point, beveling is not present on any of the examples examined and weak serration is present on only one. These observations suggest that the artifact was primarily a projectile point, as opposed to a knife, which would have required regular resharpening, resulting in the beveling and/or serration so common on other Florida Early Archaic Notched points. Collector Alvin Hendrix, of
72 McIntosh Florida, drew Ripley Bullen’s attention to the type and provided him with examples from his collection.
Figure 8.9 Proposed Norden type-specimen, from Santa Fe River, Florida. Artifact collected at the Norden site, 8GI40, in the course of FBAR's Santa Fe River Archaeological Survey, 1997. FBAR accession number 80.11.1.21 (scale is 1:1).
Bullen traced one of Hendrix’s points (the artifact shown on the far left in Figure 8.10) for inclusion in the Guide and identified it as a Hardaway Side-notched Type 4, citing Coe’s 1964 work, The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont by page and figure (Coe 1964:67- 68, Figure 58). Bullen’s Hardaway Side-notched Type 4, bafflingly, bears small resemblance to Coe’s Hardaway Side-notched points. It does resemble a point that Coe identifies, describes, and illustrates as a Kirk Corner-notched (Coe 1964:69-71, Figure 70). Furthermore, the Kirk Corner- notched (all of Coe’s other illustrations depicting the Kirk type agree well with the points
73 described and illustrated above) were found, for the most part, one or two excavation levels above the majority of true Hardaway Side-notched points (Coe 1964: Table 7, Figure 55). Daniel (1998) reevaluated the Hardaway data in the 1990s. He also has extensive experience with Florida Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites and artifacts (Daniel et al.; 1986; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). Provided with the illustrations used as figures here, (personal communications, 2006), he observed that the concave and eared bases are distinctive, perhaps representing a transition between Hardaway Side-notched and Kirk Corner-notched forms. Two other archaeologists with extensive experience in southeaster lithic typologies and chronologies also suggest a transitional role for the Norden – between Kirk Corner-notched and bifurcate types (personal communication, Anderson and Meeks 2006).
Figure 8.10 Norden points from Waccasassa River, Florida. Alvin Hendrix collection.
Collectors have found them to be just as distinctive. Alvin Hendrix has been mentioned. “River Tom” Greenhalgh collected several and brought them to the attention of Naples collector Jarl Malwin, who traced Greenhalgh’s and others in 1964 to create a Bullen-style page in a guide of his own, now extremely difficult to obtain. Malwin named the point after River Tom, but misspelled his name. Here I have followed the common archaeological convention of naming the type after the first site where it was found and described. As noted above, these artifacts have been recovered for decades, but none had been recovered previously from anything other than riverbed contexts.
74 Discovered and investigated in 1975 and again in 1997, the Norden Site (8GI40) has upland, floodplain, and river components. Of interest at Norden, besides the type artifact is the makeup of the floodplain component, which has yielded Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts exclusively (Smith et al.1997:44-46, Figure 4, Field Specimen Catalog). Temporal Placement Diagnostic artifacts recovered from the floodplain component at Norden are exclusively Late Paleoindian, with megafaunal fossil associations (Smith et al.1997). Daniel’s well informed speculation that the type may represent a transition between early side-notched forms such as Hardaway Side-notched and later Kirk Corner-notched (personal communication 2006) would result in a temporal attribution of ca 11,500-10,500 B. P. Anderson and Meek’s (personal communication 2006) suggested placement between Kirk Corner-notched and bifurcate types would be even younger, perhaps 9,500 B. P. Typologically, the younger associations are compelling, but similar rationales repeatedly failed Bullen. At Norden the lithic and fossil associations suggest a much older placement of 12,750-11,250 B. P. (Smith et al. 1997:45-46). Early Archaic Notched-cluster Cautions: Clay/Lafayette Points
Figure 8.11 Clay/Lafayette points from Florida. Dr. Lou Hill collection.
These deeply notched stone artifacts are not Early Archaic Notched points, albeit they are deeply notched. These Clay/Lafayette (Watson et al 1990:67) points, are Late Archaic, and associated with ceramics (Bullen et al. 1978; Atkins and MacMahan 1967; Watson et al. 1990). They are often thermally altered, and associated with Orange Period ceramics, but I found no beveled examples among the dozens I examined.
75 CHAPTER 9
ARCHAIC STEMMED CLUSTER
There is general archaeological consensus that Kirk types represent very early manifestations of the Archaic Stemmed hafting technology. This is in part because Kirk points are often well made, whereas something else entirely began to happen early in the Middle Archaic. The “overriding trend evident in lithic technology during this period is increasing simplification. Simplification refers in this case to a minimalization of elaboration and formalization…” (Blanton and Sassaman 1989:64). Indeed. Except for Kirk, the Middle Archaic Florida stemmed forms proposed for inclusion in this cluster share a common crudeness of manufacture that, except in the case of exceptional examples, often confounds type definition. Ripley Bullen was not deterred.
Kirk Stemmed (Coe 1959)
“Kirk” is a name applied to lithic tools from differing time periods and therefore sometimes confusing. Joffre Coe (1952) named the Kirk types for a prominent family long settled in the area of the Hardaway Site excavations, near the Pee Dee River in the Carolina Piedmont, apparently before the relationships of Kirk artifacts – or lack thereof – became apparent. Kirk Corner-notched points have been previously discussed in the context of the early notched hafting tradition. Stemming followed notching as the preferred hafting technique in what we now think of as the Early Archaic period. Kirk Stemmed and its morphological correlate,
76 Kirk Serrated, are conclusively later points than the Kirk Corner-notched point (Coe 1959, 1964; Cable 1996; Daniel 1998).
Figure 9.1 Kirk Stemmed points from Jackson and Gilchrist Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 93733, 102459, 102495, 102491, 92590.
Kirk points are often large, heavy and thick, with cross-sections that are diamond (◊) shaped, or lenticular. Their stems are usually thinned, rectangular, with flat bases and parallel sides. Some have suggested that the frequently encountered serration trait is not indicative of rejuvenation, as is clearly the case in early notched types (Powell 1990: 75-76). It is true that Kirk examples from FLMNH and BAR collections do show size variation, but not the range of
77 shape concurrently altering function evidenced in other early types, such as Bolen, as a result of rejuvenation and illustrated at Figure 2.1.
A B
Figure 9.2 Kirk Stemmed points from Alachua County, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 93733, 95969, 102290, 102323, 2000-40-2.
Example A is a rare Florida example of the extreme serration of Kirk forms that led to the stemmed Kirk form often being called Kirk Serrated. Example B is more typical, if unusually well made, of Florida Kirk forms and was selected by Jerald Milanich (1994:66) to illustrate the type in his book, Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. Temporal Placement Kirk is an exceptionally widely distributed type (Justice 1987:82-85, Map 34). Joffre Coe’s (1964:70). Hardaway site evaluation of the Kirk Stemmed type suggested an age of between 8,000 and 7,000 B. P. though no radiocarbon dates were obtained in his Carolina Piedmont excavations prior to 1964. Coe’s (1964:87, 118 Figure 15) Kirk Stemmed dates were
78 extrapolations from the relative stratigraphic positions of the type as evaluated in the light of a series of fifteen dates obtained by Griffin and his University of Michigan team (Crane 1956; Crane and Griffin 1958a, 1958b) at the much younger Gaston site. The oldest Gaston site dates were from a series that averaged 5440 ±350 RCYBP, taken from hearth charcoal at a level associated with Halifax points, a type predating any Kirk attribution in the archaeological literature and also not present at Hardaway (Coe 1964: Figures 104-105, Table 15). A recent reevaluation of Dust Cave, Alabama lithics, undertaken with a special attention to calibration of radiocarbon dates yielded an average of five Kirk Stemmed dates as 7,778 B. P. (Sherwood, et. al 2004:533-554, Table 1.). Justice (1987:82-83), synthesizing dates and stratigraphic relationships from a number of sites, suggests a date range of 8,900-8,000 B. P. Morphological Correlates Kirk Serrated (Coe 1959; Justice 1987), Johnson (Bullen 1968, Schroder 2002). Justice accords Kirk Serrated full type status (1987:82-830), others identify “serrated” as a type, but not stemmed (Powell 1990:21; Schroder 2002:76-77). Yet others simply hyphenate the name, as in Stemmed/Serrated (Whatley 2002:60-61). Jerald Milanich’s (1994:63-66) discussion simply refers to Kirk, but provides a photograph labeled Kirk Serrated. That photograph may be part of an explanation for the confusion. The “Kirk Serrated” Milanich (1994) selected is identified as example B in Figure 9.2 and is not deeply serrated, however, it is a typical Florida Kirk. As can be seen in both figures 9.1 and 9.2, the Florida Kirk types are often unserrated, and if serrated, then not deeply so. The examples from FLMNH are typical of the frequency and degree of serration seen in Florida museum and private collections. Of the scores of Florida Kirk examples examined in the course of the preparation for this thesis, from two museum and five private collections, two exhibited the deep serrations illustrated in regional and out-of-state guides. One is example A from Figure 9.2, one is illustrated below, recovered from 8LE853B. Perhaps some material limitation or cultural norm dictated the manufacture of unserrated or less markedly serrated Kirks over most of the Florida peninsula. This is in direct contrast to, for instance, Justice’s illustrated examples, which are from Indiana (Justice 1987:82-83). In summation, I suggest that a Kirk Stemmed with some serration is not a true Kirk Serrated and that heavily serrated Kirk types common elsewhere is a rare type in Florida.
79
Figure 9.3 Serrated Kirk point from Leon County, Florida. FBAR accession number 88.5.124.2.
Florida Stemmed Archaic (Bullen 1968)
This type exemplifies more than any other in the cluster the minimalization of elaboration and formalization noted by Blanton and Sassaman (1989). They are all rather large to medium in size; they are all stemmed in some fashion. Bullen asserted that they do not possess bevels, ground bases, or serrations. Bullen (1959:77-94) named all four of his Florida Stemmed Archaic
80 types from examples found together in roughly the same proportions in the same stratigraphic levels at the Johnson Lake Site (8MR63). All are named for Florida counties, but the rationale for selecting which ones is unclear. Alachua Sub-type Alachua points are the most diagnostic of Bullen’s four identified Florida Archaic Stemmed subtypes. Proximal blade edges tend to be horizontal; stems are parallel-sided and stem bases flat. Of the nineteen examples in the FBAR collection four had stems which had been snapped to obtain a truly flat stem termination. Those four are depicted in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.4 Alachua subtype Stemmed Archaic points from Bradford, Jefferson, and Holmes Counties, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 74.319.79.1, 77.77.11.04, 98.219.5.1, 04.260.108.1.
Levy Sub-type Levy examples at the BAR include one from Levy County, though it was not diagnostic enough to be chosen to illustrate diagnostic characteristics. Levy points are the only Archaic Stemmed points to be consistently basally thinned. Bases are sometimes slightly concave as a result. Bullen (1975:32: “Levy tangs have concave edges connecting blade and tang corners.” Artifact A in Figure 9.5 exhibits this trait.
81
Figure 9.5 Levy subtype Stemmed Archaic points from Washington and Leon Counties, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 95.532.22.2, 00.73.51.2, 00.73.51.1, 95.1.201.1.
Figure 9.6 Putnam subtype Stemmed Archaic points from Jefferson and Leon Counties, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 77.77.39.02, 77.77.54.12, 77.77.60.40.
82
Figure 9.7 Marion subtype Stemmed Archaic points from Citrus and Pasco Counties, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 99.18.3.3, 95.31.27.1, 95.31.27.1.
Putnam Sub-type No Putnam points are recorded in the collection from Putnam County. Putnam points have rounded shoulders and often rounded stems (Figure 9.6). Marion Sub-type No Marion points are recorded from Marion County. Bullen (1975:32) notes that “Marion points have downward and inward sloping basal blade edges and contracting tangs” (Figure 9.7). Bullen remarked (Bullen and Dolan 1959:86) in his Johnson Lake article that “Alachua, Marion, Levy, and Putnam points are not usually as well made as those illustrated.” That was a gross understatement, an apparent attempt to enforce system on a frustrating type actually characterized not by uniform diagnostic features but a lack of them. Figure 9.8 represents all of the diagnostic lithic bifaces from the Windover site (BR248). They are typical of actual, undiagnostic Stemmed Archaic projectile points.
83
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.8 Stemmed Archaic Points from the Windover site, Brevard County, Florida. Windover Site collection. Anthropology Department, Florida State University.
The confusion created by Bullen’s insistence on creating clear types where none was usually apparent caused the confusion reflected in the labeling of a set of ambiguous stemmed forms in the BAR collection in Tallahassee. The site specimen bag containing the two artifacts shown in Figure 9.9 was labeled “Savannah/Hamilton/Stemmed Archaic.”
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.9 Savannah/Hamilton/Florida Stemmed Archaic points from Taylor County, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 93.449.9.9, 77.77.32.03.
The latter happened to be true -- probably -- but the type is so variable and the notion that all Florida Stemmed Archaic points are diagnostic is so pervasive that archaeologists’ mentalmental
84 templates seem to be continuously trimming generic examples to fit one or another of Bullen’s types, or conflating them as hyphenated hybrids of one or more. I have called attention previously to Bullen’s propensity to name separate types based on attributes that were artifacts of use and rejuvenation. Hence Bolen Beveled and Bolen Plain, also Kirk Serrated. So it is no surprise to see a type that seems quite clearly a Florida Stemmed Archaic, named a Hardee Beveled (Bullen 1975:33). This is true even though on facing pages of the Guide Bullen (1975:32-33) on the one hand asserted that Florida Stemmed Archaic points were not beveled, and on the other that Hardee Beveled were the same as Florida Stemmed Archaic points – except that they were beveled. It is proposed here that the admittedly scarce, (the Bullen Type Collection at FLMNH does not include one) Hardee Beveled is not separate type, but simply a beveled Florida Stemmed Archaic point.
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.10 Hardee Beveled point from Gadsden County, Florida. Plow zone find by Chris Smith.
Temporal Placement The earliest appearance of the Florida Stemmed Archaic type is uncertain. Certainly there are no examples from the Page-Ladson (8JE159) Bolen level, or from Ryan-Harley (8JE1004), a Late Paleoindian single component site. There are sound radiocarbon dates for the type. No other
85 type of diagnostic was recovered from Windover, where multiple radiocarbon dates cluster around 8,200 B. P. (Doran 2002:58-72). At the Lake Monroe site (8VO53) radiocarbon dates associated with the type (“type” as in Levy/Putnam) averaged 6,015 B. P. (McGee and Wheeler 1994). At the Canton Street site in St. Petersburg (8PI55), multiple Archaic Stemmed points were recovered from stratigraphic associations with rich ceramic components as well as Hernando and Citrus points, late pre-ceramic/ceramic types such as Lafayette and Culbreath, and the intermediate stemmed forms typical of the Florida Archaic Stemmed confusion such as “Levy/Culbreath” (Bullen et al. 1978). The evidence is that the type persisted from the early Middle Archaic into the early Woodland period. It is so undiagnostic and so pervasive in such a great range of Florida contexts that, as professional archaeologist Beth Horvath remarked (personal communication 2006), laughing, “It’s no good for anything!” Meaning of course, not “good” as a chronological marker except in the broadest sense.
Arredondo (Bullen 1958)
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.11 Arredondo points from Alachua, Dixie, and Gilchrist Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers A6849, 2857, 102316, 102423, 102432.
86 This type is crude, percussion-flaked, flaked and thick in cross-section. Hafting stem is almost as wide as the blade shoulders, but often is sufficiently concave to characterize as bifurcate. Bullen notes (1975:39) that “both long and short varieties are common, but intermediate sizes are rare.” I suggest that Arredondo and Hamilton, described below, are either size variants of the same type or that Hamilton were utilized Arredondo preforms. Arredondo was named first, from Bolen Bluff, Hamilton only in 1975, after points from the Fletcher Davis site (8HI106) described by Lyman Warren (Bullen 1958; Warren 1971: Figure 2, h-i).
Hamilton (Bullen 1975)
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.12 Hamilton points from Alachua and Columbia Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 6638, 93757, 102380.
Arredondo and Hamilton size ranges overlap significantly. Examination of multiple examples of each ostensible type suggests that difference between basal concavities identified as the most diagnostic discriminator – is chimerical. In any case archaeologists have long identified their stratigraphic co-occurrence in Florida archaeological contexts, notably at the Blue Springs locale in Jackson County, and Trilasia Pond (neither the Franklin County site nor the Trilasia
87 Pond one in Marion are listed in the Florida Master Site File) and other sites in Marion County, and the Bolen Bluff site in Alachua County (Bullen 1975:38-39, 1958; Milanich 1994:64-65, personal communication 2006; Neill 1964:187-198; Powell 1990:27, Schroder 2002:67-68, 72- 73). Milanich (1994: 65) illustrated their morphological association by utilizing a figure with both types shown as probable knife types. He supports the speculation that they may have been knives by noting common use-wear patterns (1994:65). Powell (1990:72) also speculates that they may be knife forms Temporal Placement Neill notes (1964:197) that he had never found Arredondo points in any ceramic context. At Trilisa Pond (no FMSF number) Arredondo points “were recovered from above the Suwannee points and below a late preceramic horizon” (Neill 1963:193). The same relationships were observed at Bolen Bluff (Bullen 1958a). That is a wide possible time range, but probably later than the late pre-ceramic dates suggested by Bullen. Perhaps because the type seems to be fairly localized -- almost all examples in the Ripley Bullen Type Collection are from Alachua and Marion Counties -- additional data have been slow to accumulate. Rochelle Marrinan (personal communication 2006) reports an example from an Archaic shell ring site on the Georgia coast. Arredondo is Florida’s only bifurcate point. Elsewhere in the Southeast PIDBA’s analysis of dates involving 151 bifurcate points from 41 sites derives temporal range midpoint for bifurcate points at 9,000 B. P. (Anderson 2005; PIDBA 2005). Such a placement would not conflict with Bolen Bluff or Trilasia Pond data. A placement of 9,500-8,500 B.C. is suggested.
Sumter (Bullen 1975)
Sumter points are not a common type. Named by Bullen after Sumter County, there are no Sumter points from Sumter County in the Bullen Type Collection at the FLMNH. Sumter points are “coarse and massive” (Bullen 1975:36). Their most diagnostic features are weak, rounded shoulders. Bases are straight, with varying degrees of taper or rounding. In the context of this generally poorly made cluster, Bullen (1975:36) noted that a few basal thinning flakes from a Sumter would create an Arredondo. His Bolen Bluff report illustrates just such points (Bullen 1958:Plate I, S and U).
88
A C B
Figure 9.13 Sumter points from Volusia, Hillsborough, and Columbia Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 102572, 103662, 103655.
Temporal Placement Sumter is well represented and associated with Culbreath, Florida Stemmed Archaic, and Thonotosassa types at the West Williams site (8HI509) in Hillsborough County (Austin et. al 2004). West Williams had no significant ceramic component. Sumter was first identified at the Fletcher Davis site (8HI106) and, as at West Williams, associated with Thonotosassa points. Warren (1971:84-88) suggested significant stratigraphic separation between Sumter and most long blades that Bullen would ultimately call Thonotosassa were recovered. However at West Williams, a far more comprehensive investigation, the record contradicts such separation. Of the four Sumter points in the FLMN collection, two (A and C) are those illustrated in the Fletcher Davis report (Warren 1971). Powell (2002) observes that they resemble small examples of the
89 Thonotosassa, with which they are frequently associated. At Bay West, Culbreath points are securely associated with Thonotosassa and Sumter points. Two Bay Cadillac (8HI2398) dates for Culbreath points average at ca 5,500 B. P.(Dasovitch 1996). At the nearby Canton Street site (8PI55), however, Culbreath points were recovered from stratigraphic contexts with numerous examples of Perico Plain and Pasco Plain pottery, as well as other wares (Bullen et al. 1978). No Sumter points were recovered. This suggests that, in the Tampa Bay area Sumter is a late preceramic point. Terminal Sumter is suggested by these associations to be ca 5,500 B. P. Conversely, Bullen (1958) and Neill (1964) associate them elsewhere firmly with Arredondo, perhaps 9,000-8-5000 B. P. Thonotosassa (Bullen 1975)
First described and reported by Warren (1971) from the Fletcher Davis (8HI106) site in Hillsborough County, the Thonotosassa point appears to have a limited distribution, but is well represented in sites from that area such as the recently investigated West Williams (8HI509) site.
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 9.14 Thonotosassa points from Hillsborough County, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 103650, 103670, 103670, 103672. Figure replicates Bullen (1975:40) with same artifacts.
90 Neither Fletcher Davis nor West Williams contained significant ceramic components; both contained Sumter points and Stemmed Archaic points. Thonotosassa points are long, thick, and crudely fashioned, with weak shoulders resembling Sumter points, with which they are associated archaeologically as well as typologically (Austin et. al. 2004; Bullen 1975; Warren 1971). Temporal Placement At Fletcher Davis (8HI106) and other Tampa Bay sites (8HI509, 8HI2398), Thonotosassa points are found in aceramic contexts including Sumter points. It is suggested that their terminal dates are similar to Sumter, ca 5,500 B. P. I find nothing to suggest an early Thonotosassa placement similar to that of Sumter, with its recurring Arredondo associations.
91 CHAPTER 10
NEWNAN CLUSTER
In the Southeast, and particularly Florida, no biface type since Clovis is more consistently admired for its beauty and workmanship than the Newnan and the closely related Hillsborough. There is also a suggestion that no prehistoric knappers since the Paleoindian period were so concerned with tool material. Fossilized coral seems to have been preferentially selected for Hillsborough cluster points. Many are made from thermally altered, also called heat-treated materials. Thermal alteration changes crystalline structure and so allows for more controlled flaking. Thermal alteration is a technological indicator of the Florida Middle Archaic, frequently diagnostic on the basis of debitage alone (Milanich 1994:76; Purdy 1981:144-145). Thermal alteration also changes stone color depending upon source-rock chemical composition; the resulting changes are often as aesthetically pleasing as they are technologically advantageous. Avidly sought by collectors and frequently replicated by modern knappers, Newnan cluster points are often displayed to stunning effect in transparent, back-lit boxes to showcase their thinness and beautiful lithic materials, like lethal gems. They are a Florida phenomenon. Neither type is reported from Alabama (Cambron and Hulse 1964) or Georgia (Whatley 2002). In 1994 Milanich (1994:76) observed that, “One variety of the Newnan point is the Hillsborough point.” In 2002 Schroder (2002:101) flatly asserts that “the Hillsborough point is a Newnan point.” No Florida researcher since Bullen has thought of the two as anything except variations of a single type.
92 Newnan (Clausen 1964)
Newnan points were named for a lake near Gainesville, Florida. Atypically for Bullen type names, the type-artifact was found there in abundance (Clausen 1964).
B A C
Figure 10.1 Newnan points from Alachua and Hillsborough Counties, Florida, Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 102271,102283, 102327,102478.
Hillsborough (Bullen 1968)
In outline the Hillsborough point, like the Newnan, often resembles the finest examples of straight-shouldered Alachua or the drop-shouldered Levy varieties of the Florida Stemmed Archaic, which preceded and, apparently, anteceded Hillsborough and Newnan. But there is little chance of confusing the types. Newnan and Hillsborough are as readily diagnostic as Stemmed Archaic points are confusing and prone to inspire hybrid categories among finders. Note the high incidence of lustrous, colorful tool material and uniform style. Note the constricting stem on some Hillsborough examples. This is not uniform, but does constitute the only morphological distinction between Hillsborough and Newnan.
93
B A C
Figure 10.2 Newnan/Hillsborough points from Alachua, Marion, Suwannee, and Volusia Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 18592, 31884,102603, and two numbered 102646 .
Temporal Placement Three sets of dates are regularly cited for Hillsborough/Newnan artifacts. All are expressed here in approximate calibrated years: two at 7,000 B. P. from 8AL1356 (Clausen, et al. 1975:28); another of the same age from Little Salt Spring (8SO18) in Sarasota County (Clausen et. al. 1975:28); and three from Tick Island, Volusia County averaging 6,500B. B. P. (Jahn and Bullen 1978:22, n.1). This Middle Archaic cluster is temporally and culturally situated much as Bullen suggested. Morphological Correlates It is proposed here that Hillsborough no longer be referred to a separate type, but, perhaps no more than a variant of the Newnan. Caution Powell (1990:28) conflates Newnan, Hillsborough, and extremely well-made (and hence rare) examples of Bullen’s Marion and Alachua sub-types of Florida Stemmed Archaic points.
94
C
Figure 10.3 Newnan or Marion outline point from the Apallachicola River, Florida. Ryan and Harley Means collection. Registered and recorded in Florida Isolated Finds Program (IFP) files, FBAR, Tallahassee.
Figure 10.3 is an example of such a biface. In fact, neither of the finders of this point, nor I thought it was a Hillsborough in spite of the resemblance in outline and unusual tool material for the location of the find and good workmanship; it is too thick to be a Hillsborough (personal communications Ryan and Harley Means, 2006).
95 CHAPTER 11
MISTAKES, MISPLACEMENTS, AND MYSTERIES
In Chapter 3 and Table 2, I recapitulated Bullen’s temporal and cultural placements of projectile point types as he understood them in 1975. Highlighted in Table 2 were a number of types about which current archaeological understanding differs markedly from Bullen’s. In several cases, specific Bullen attributions have already been discussed in the context of actual preceramic types with which they had been, or might possibly be, confused. Bolen and Hardee Beveled types are suggested as not being separate types, as Bullen consistently identified them, but simply resharpened Bolen and Archaic Stemmed types. Santa Fe and Tallahassee, well-made lanceolate points from Late Archaic and Woodland contexts that Bullen associated with very similar Dalton points, are discussed and illustrated as “Cautions” in the Dalton chapter. In the same chapter, Marianna points were illustrated and suggested to simply be exhausted Dalton points, not a separate type at all. Lafayette and Clay, persuasively suggested by Tesar (Watkins et al. 1990:63-70) as being variants of the same type, are discussed as cautions in the context of Early Notched Cluster points. Lafayette/Clay is conclusively associated with ceramic occupations at several Florida sites, most conclusively at the Canton Street site (8PI55) in St. Petersburg (Bullen et al. 1978). Of my suggested corrections to Bullen’s 1975 attributions, six have not been discussed in previous chapters. These types are Culbreath, Savannah River, Morrow Mountain, Westo, Florida Spike, and Stanfield. They are the mistakes, or at any rate the ones not already dealt with previously.
Culbreath (Bullen 1975)
Culbreath points are associated in several Florida sites with Clay/Lafayette points, most notably at the Canton Street site, where they were associated not only with ceramics but the
96 basally-notched Citrus and Hernando point types with which they would logically be clustered (Bullen et al. 1978).
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 11.1 Culbreath points from Alachua, Gilchrist, Pasco, Pinellas, and Volusia Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 4127, 93642, 102434, 102595, 102640.
Savannah River (Claflin 1931)
The massive Savannah River type unequivocally has its origins in the preceramic period. In Joffre Coe’s (Coe 1964:123-124) Conclusion to The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmon,t he locates the Savannah River type firmly at the end of the Late Archaic, but prior to any ceramic tradition. He observes that Savannah River lithics are followed in the archaeological record by completely different projectile points and well-made pottery types. A transition had taken place, but was not evident at the sites Coe investigated and described in The Formative Cultures. Something similar exists in the Coastal Plain of the Savannah River, only there the
97 transition is accompanied by a big subsistence shift, from one without shellfish to one apparently relying heavily on shellfish (personal communications, Chester De Pratter 2006).
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 11.2 Savannah River point from Alachua County, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Department of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog number 10287.
The transition is visible at a few sites. In Florida, Savannah types co-occur with ceramics at Bluffton (Bullen 1972:28), and Tick Island (Jahn 1978). Those circumstances suggest a possibility that Florida sites might provide insight regarding the cultural disconnect visible between preceramic and ceramic periods in the Carolinas. Nevertheless, Savannah River is, in Florida, a type firmly associated with early ceramic traditions.
98 Morrow Mountain (Coe 1964)
Morrow Mountain is a well documented preceramic archaic type. The question is whether or not Morrow Mountain occurs in Florida. The answer I suggest is that it may not, or if it does, in extremely rare circumstances. The type has been well described and its distribution mapped in Alabama, the Carolinas and Georgia (Cambron 1964:89-91; Coe 1964:23-24, 50, Figures 33-34; Whatley 2002:81-85). But all the Alabama points discussed by Cambron and Hulse came from a single county on the Tennessee line. In Georgia they are extremely rare below the fall line except along the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Allendale chert quarries (Whatley:81-85). I have serious reservations as to whether or not the scarce Florida artifacts identified as Morrow Mountain are anything of the sort.
A B C
Figure 11.3 "Morrow Mountain" points from Alachua and Dixie Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 78203, 102298, 102423.
At the least, Morrow Mountain is a very uncommon Florida type ( Powell 1990:29; Schroder 2002:138-140), and recovered examples are few. Having recovered numerous Morrow Mountain I points myself while participating in field work on the Savannah River, I am unwilling to call the FLMNH examples Morrow Mountain points. Example A is, if any diagnostic at all, a
99 Putnam or perhaps Levy subtype of Stemmed Archaic point. It lacks the shield or kite shaped outline typical of the larger Morrow Mountain points. Examples B and C could be preform stages for the same sort of point. Regionally, Morrow Mountain’s place in the relative temporal order of early Southeastern hafted bifaces is well established (Blanton 1983; Cambron and Hulse 1964; Coe 1964; Sherwood et al. 2004). Its regional placement as a Florida diagnostic, as opposed to a possible curated and traded exotic, is suggested as questionable, at best.
Westo (Neill 1966)
Westo points were reported by Neill (1966), not from any Florida site, but from Columbia County, Georgia. The projectile point types illustrated in his report could serve as substitutes for the Morrow Mountain II artifacts illustrated in Coe’s (1964:Figure 34) report on the Doerschuck site in North Carolina. Apparently unaware that the type had already been described and named, Neill called it Westo, after the name of the bluff on which his site was situated. It is significant that the most recent Georgia guide (Whatley 2002:81-85) discusses Morrow Mountain I and II, but makes no mention of Westo; in fact, Westo is Morrow Mountain.
Milanich image,
1994:66
Figure 11.4 "Westo" points from Citrus County, Florida. FBAR accession numbers 99.18.3.3, 95.31.27.1, 95.31.28.1.
100 As noted, I have reservations about whether or not Morrow Mountain is a Florida type. Florida is all Coastal Plain, and Whatley’s observations about the consistent absence of the type from the lower Georgia Coastal plain seem to apply to Florida as well. Nevertheless it is a testimony to the enduring power of Bullen’s Guide that points are assigned to a type that may not have ever existed in Florida. The illustrated examples of Westo points from the FBAR collections might be Morrow Mountain points. Typically poorly made examples of several Florida Archaic forms may also bear similarities. A comprehensive study of Florida collections by another researcher with a good appreciation of what Morrow Mountain looks like “at home” may alter my opinion, but I suggest that Morrow Mountain is only present in Florida as a possible artifact of trade or curation. Alvin Hendrix (personal communication, 2006), collector, advisor to Bullen, and benefactor of the Silver River Museum lithics collection, can have the final word: “I’ve handled 15,000-20,000 Florida projectile points and I’ve never seen a Florida Morrow Mountain.”
Florida Spike (Bullen 1975)
Figure 11.5 Florida Spike points from Alachua and Levy Counties, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog numbers 14758, 78844, 93753.
101 Bullen (1975:41) attributed these crude artifacts to the Early Preceramic Archaic, but in 1975 they were only known from surface finds. Schroder (2002:213-215 cites several unidentified locations where Florida Spike points have been recovered with St. Johns and Deptford ceramics. I suspect that the lack of specificity is because those are heavily collected, but perhaps not reported, sites. However, at Block-Stearns (8LE 148), in a Woodland component, Florida Spikes were also recovered. Such an attribution agrees with the type names from Alabama, the Bradley Spike (Cambron and Hulse 1964:19) and Georgia, where it is known as the Woodland Spike (Whatley 2002:125-126).
Stanfield (Cambron and Hulse 1962)
C
Figure 11.6 "Stanfield" point from Alachua County, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History, FLMNH catalog number102335.
102 Bullen (1975:42) attributed the Stanfield to the Preceramic Archaic. Upon examination of the FLMN Stanfield points, it was apparent that none was basally ground, to facilitate hafting, and as all finished lanceolate points are. Neither was edge retouch present. I have over five months of experience at South Carolina flint quarry sites (38AL23, 135, 139, 143) with excellent prehistoric cultural stratigraphy. Artifacts identical to FLMH Stanfield points were present, most often broken, at all prehistoric levels, in road cuts, and washing out on hillsides. Little morphological difference between them was evident. It was accepted there that they were preforms in one stage or another of completion. Some, at various levels, did show use-wear, though telling use-worn examples from the Taylor (Bolen) horizon apart from use-worn examples from the Morrow Mountain horizon would have been impossible to accomplish with certainty. The artifacts that Bullen identified as Stanfield blades are preforms, of what exactly; it is not possible to say with any certainly unless perhaps recovered among finished diagnostics with similar flaking patterns. A number of collector-identified or suggested types that appear in contemporary regional guides have been omitted here. A few have seemed to be both sufficiently distinct from other forms and present, if regionally, in collections in sufficient numbers to merit inclusion. In this I have perhaps been influenced by the collections of North Florida river divers. There are types that are distinctive enough, but unprovenienced and known in very small numbers, that they compel notice. Perhaps a reader will one day recover one in an archaeological context and shed some light on their provenience, or purpose. These are the mysteries…
Moustache Simpson
In the Bullen File at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research is what was apparently intended as a draft of the Guide as it was published in 1968. In it, sketched roughly in on the Suwannee page, is a Moustache Simpson, though there are no notes associated with it. It may be an addition Bullen was considering; it may be an addition that Ross Morrell, the State Archaeologist, was considering suggesting for inclusion. All that we know for certain is that it means that Florida archaeologists have been puzzling over this form for scores of years. I have heard it suggested that the basal “moustache” sometimes show use-wear suggesting they were used as some sort of scraper. I have also heard tongue-in-cheek suggestions that they are fish
103 effigies. It is not clear what to make of it yet, except for the fact that it’s the sort of thing that helps make archaeology fun. And as if that old mystery wasn’t enough…
C
Figure 11.7 Moustache Simpson from Florida. Alvin Hendrix collection.
Ghost Orchid Bolen I named this one myself, thinking the long white basal tangs suggestive of the swooping petals of the rare Everglades orchid I was entranced by as a teenager. It might better be called the Pincers Bolen.
104
C
Figure 11.8 Ghost Orchid Bolen from Florida. Private collection.
A Central Florida collector, dealer, and authenticator had it for display at the Clovis in the Southeast Conference held in Columbia South Carolina in October of 2005. Its story? The authenticator said that a customer had brought him a complete one. The authenticator told him it was a fake, and not to buy it. Years later a friend of his found this one, convincing the dealer that these are real, if very rare types.
105 CHAPTER 12
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the introduction to this thesis I stated that my intent was twofold: to update Bullen’s 1975 temporal attributions and, to rearrange Bullen’s type categorizations in the context of our contemporary understanding utilizing Noel Justice’s concept of technological clusters.
Proposed Revisions to Bullen’s 1975 Temporal Placements
Chapter 2 analyzed the sources of Bullen’s misconceptions. For the most part, they simply reflected the state of archaeological knowledge in Bullen’s era. The misconceptions were nevertheless considerable and consistent. They proved to have merited a systematic reconsideration. Chapters 4 through 11 presented that reconsideration, type by type, of all of the types that Bullen believed in 1975 to constitute the preceramic lithic artifact assemblage of Florida. Several types (Bullen identified several spurious ones) have been shown to reflect morphological similarities with earlier types, but to derive from more recent cultural contexts. These, the Dalton-like Tallahassee and Santa Fe, as well as the Lost Lake-like Clay, are discussed as “Cautions” in conjunction with the types with which they might be confused. Bullen’s Late Preceramic Archaic points and the Savannah River type have been found since Bullen’s time to occur in both preceramic as well as early ceramic archaeological context. Morrow Mountain, seems to have been “found” in Florida by dint, perhaps, of expectations generated by the type’s prevalence in the Piedmont and its prominence in reports from that area. A few types, unrecognized in Bullen’s day, are now known to occur, particularly in North Florida, with sufficient frequency to merit inclusion as Florida types. These include the Lost Lake and Hardin points. Finally, a type long recognized by a few collectors as distinct, and addressed by Bullen as a sub-type of something unrelated, is suggested here as a separate type, and a type name and site, Norden, proposed for it. Figure 12.1 summarizes the relationship between Bullen’s 1975 conceptions and my proposed assignments.
106 I 4,ooo 4,060 5oo 4,So0 4. <> nt i Archaic tory. Late s midpo hi ocal 5,500 5,000 s.50o s.ooo l temporal I ooo 0oo 2005 reflect e. 6, ot DBA n PI ay SOO soo m 6, s . and ic ic ooo 000 al n 7, 1. m Archa MH @ natio soo SOO I is Middle 7, 1. ££1 ISI'J!II - PIDBA 8.ooo 8,000 1975 emente. 8.50o S,Soo I plac l _ placements 9.ooo 9,000 type tempora --- .,_ 500 soo 9, Bullen 9, ＭＭＭＭ ﾷＭＭ ＠ Arcnalc - ooo $4 ,000 ｾ "- <> ntemporary 1o. 10 ｅ｡ｾｹ＠ co 5oo 500 , 1o, 10 versus 000 I : , w. 11 Bullen's of -::;- -J an i 2006 11.500 11.000 11,500 nd i ooo *+ , ,000 Paleo J acement pl 12 12. Comparison Late type 500 -:;- , ,F ,F 12 12 j Figure12.1 Proposed ｯｯｯ＠ 000 ｾ . Ｎ , I ＱＳ 13 ton l Kirk Lake Bolen Comer- Clovis r tosassa Da Archaic Sumter Norden Newnan Notched Hardaway Stemmed Redstone Lostlake Kirk Arredondo Suwannee Greenbriar Side-notched Thono Beave
107 Suggested Clustering of Florida Projectile Point Types, 2006
In Chapter 3, I discussed the recent concept pioneered by Noel D. Justice of ‘clustering” types recognized as related in some fashion, thus partially sidestepping the conflict of “lumpers” and “splitters.” Clusters are formed principally by grouping types which consistently share traits, though not without due consideration for known archaeological associations of temporal determination. Clusters may be named for shared morphological characteristics, as is my proposed Fluted Lanceolate Cluster. They are may be named for a distinctive type within the cluster, such as Dalton, for temporal considerations, such as the Archaic Stemmed Cluster, or for a shared developmental heritage, such as the proposed Transitional Side-notched Cluster. I propose seven Florida preceramic clusters. Each has been discussed separately in a preceding chapter. Most of Bullen’s erroneous placements are discussed in the context of the confirmed preceramic types with which Bullen believed them to be associated. Bullen recognized the general developmental trend of projectile point types based on changes in basal forms, but he failed to realize that hafting forms and other morphological characteristics may recur in completely different temporal and cultural contexts. Instances of such confusing misplacement are discussed as “Cautions” because misattributions of very similar artifacts encountered without sufficient archaeological context are easy, and have the potential to cause confusion and error. In summation, Bullen’s types as of 1975 are suggested today to be better understood as follows – • Santa Fe, Tallahassee, and Florida Spike points are all from Woodland contexts. • Clay/Lafayette (now understood to be the same type), Culbreath, and Savannah River points may have origins in preceramic Florida, but are nonetheless firmly placed in ceramic contexts by their terminus dates. • Morrow Mountain types do not seem to appear in Florida, except possibly in very rare, probably curated contexts. Westo, named for a Georgia site on the fall line, seems to have been named without knowledge of already named and described Morrow Mountain forms.
108 • Beveled types; Bolen Beveled Types 1-5 and Hardee, along with other Early Archaic Notched types misidentified by or unknown to Bullen (Kirk Corner-notched, Lost Lake, and Hardin) are not separate types at all. • Stanfield and Marianna are also suggested as not being types. Stanfield points in the Ripley Bullen Type Collection are almost certainly late-stage preforms of Archaic types such as Bolen. Marianna points are nearly exhausted Dalton points. • Two pairs of preceramic types recognized by Bullen as extremely similar types are now suggested as representing normal variations within one type, just as was the case with the later Clay/Lafayette points. The two types are Newnan/Hillsborough, now suggested as Newnan, and Arredondo/Hamilton, perhaps best dealt with in future work as simply Arredondo. • Kirk Serrated, though perhaps better characterized in Florida where the extreme serrations seen in other areas is rare, as Kirk Stemmed, is a definite type, and quite well represented in Florida sites and collections. • Sumter and Thonotosassa seem to be discrete types, but share some significant attributes and are found together. Consideration should be given to whether or not they actually represent a relationship such as that proposed for Arredondo and Hamilton points. • Wacissa is suggested as having been correctly placed by Bullen, but deserving careful further consideration. Its distinctive bifacial beveling is in contrast to the unifacially beveled Early Archaic notched types with which archaeologists have associated it temporally since its first description. It shares many attributes with Abbey points, found mainly in neighboring states, but also in North Florida. Abbey points are Woodland in age. Nevertheless, Wacissa and Abbey are less similar than Dalton and Tallahassee, which occur at similarly significant temporal removes from each other. • Beaver Lake and Dalton are both uncommon in Florida, but, unlike Morrow Mountain the examples from museum and private collections are diagnostic. One Bullen type, the Gilchrist, is suggested as being a distinctive Dalton variant, indicative of a late trend in Dalton technology towards waisted, forms, perhaps presaging the following notched technology. • Union, Greenbriar, and Hardaway Side-notched are all Florida types and are suggested here as members of a morphologically related group transitional between Late
109 Paleoindian lanceolate types such as Suwannee and Dalton to the deeply notched forms that predominated in the Early Archaic. • Bolen types, as conceived by Bullen actually represent much of the range of Early Archaic Notched variability. The side-notched types, known elsewhere as Taylor and Big Sandy were first described by Bullen from the Bolen Bluff site. Corner-notched sub-types are now commonly referred to as Kirk Corner-notched. • Simpson, Suwannee, and Clovis all remain as recognized types, and study of their variability continues to offer new insights into the range of issues surrounding the peopling of the hemisphere.
Since Bullen several types have been recognized as occurring in Florida with sufficient frequency to suggest inclusion in identified Florida types. • Lost Lake and Hardin are diagnostic Early Archaic Notched types found to date mainly in North Florida rivers. • Chipola is also diagnostic and found in West Florida, suggesting that the very similar San Patrice variety of Dalton occurs further east along the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain than previously supposed. • Norden is a distinctive type recognized by collectors such as Alvin Hendrix, “River Tom” Greenhalgh, and Jarl Malvin, but unrecognized in guidebooks or the archaeological literature. Based on its association with Suwannee technology and extinct faunal remains at the Norden site in the Santa Fe River floodplain, it is suggested a Paleoindian type, but its unusual form suggests a transitional status between later forms. Figure 12.2 synopsizes my suggested organization of Florida preceramic projectile point types. Private Collectors, Private Collections, and Florida State Policy
In the course of five field seasons of work supervising volunteers at deeply stratified prehistoric quarry sites in South Carolina, I was fortunate to encounter in situ most of the same projectile point types we recognize in Florida today. I also encountered a phenomenon almost unknown in Florida today. The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) long ago decided to reach out to the state’s artifact collectors and a level of trust has
110 been established there that results in SCIAA being given access to private collections on an ongoing basis which, on balance benefits the state. Figure 12.2 Projectile point cluster key
The artifact types depicted here are the principal ones discussed in the body of the text. They are arranged chronologically, from Paleoindian to Middle Archaic culture period, though both inter and intra cluster temporal overlap is present.
Fluted Lanceolate Cluster: lanceolate outline, concave base, longitudinal fluting, ground hafting edges, frequent and controlled outré-passe flaking. Clovis, Waisted Clovis, Redstone.
Unfluted Lanceolate Cluster: lanceolate outline, concave base, ground hafting edges, basal thinning. Simpson, Suwannee (straight and excurvate sided), Suwannee Waisted, Beaver Lake.
Dalton: straight or incurvate hafting edges, bases concave to auriculate, extensive serration and reduction, especially of straight-sided forms. Dalton (three examples), Greenbriar Dalton, Gilchrist, Chipola.
Transitional Side-notched Cluster: from lanceolate shape with ground shallow notches, to shallow chipped notches, to unambiguous side- notching and serration. Greenbriar-like, Suwannee, Union, Greenbriar, Hardaway Side-notched.
Early Notched Cluster: side and corner-notched bases, often deep, with pronounced hertzian cones, some forms very frequently single-beveled to create rhomboidal cross-section. Bolen, Kirk Corner- notched, Calf Creek, Hardin, Wacissa, Norden.
Archaic Stemmed Cluster: large, often crudely flaked, often thick in cross-section, some form of every basal type except lanceolate, serrations often present on Kirk forms. Kirk, Thonotosassa, Arredondo, Hamilton, Sumter Archaic Stemmed.
Newnan Cluster: very thin, triangular, descending shoulders often pointed, contracting stem, frequently manufactured from thermally altered material. Hillsborough, Newnan.
111 This is diametrically opposed to the situation which obtains in Florida today, and has since at least the late 1990s. In the course of visiting collectors, many of whose finds are illustrated in this thesis, I encountered a uniform level of suspicion and resentment of state policies. One collector agreed to let me see his collection only on the basis of a personal introduction from an archaeologist with whom he has a business relationship unrelated to the issue of artifacts or collecting. Even he agreed to allow me access to his collections only after a probing conversation that was friendly enough on the surface but was in fact an interrogation. The same collector stated that he had long planned to contribute his collection to the state, but will not now consider such a course. He has begun to sell his pieces on the internet. He was one of several who also said that, had they known that a current Florida State University student with whom they had cooperated is in favor of restrictive state policies they would not have assisted his researches by allowing access to their collections. I approach this issue with my own grave reservations. For instance, I completely support the state’s right and obligation to regulate hunting and fishing. Fish and game are renewable resources. Any artifact on state property is a non-renewable resource. How can we countenance its removal for any private purpose, let alone its possible eventual sale? I am also sure that a short-lived state policy regarding diving collectors, the Isolated Finds Program (IFP) was used by an unscrupulous few to report finds as having been recovered from river bottom contexts and thus, in effect, “launder” looted artifacts. Likewise, I am aware that only a very small number of diving artifact collectors participated in the program. I also approach the issue with some sobering understanding of Florida realities. In his recent article titled “Homeless Collections” Jerald Milanich (2005: 57-64), Curator of Florida Archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History, points out the situation at FLMNH and many other museums around the country: as a discipline, we are running out of money, space, materials, and staff energy for storage and curation. Much of the problem is being fueled, especially in Florida, by runaway development. I am also aware of the problems of cultural resource protection in rural settings; preventing collection is almost impossible except on a hit- or-miss basis that breeds more resentment that it does compliance. Unenforceable laws are inherently bad, breeding disrespect for resource protection laws in general.
112 During the 1997 FBAR Santa Fe River Archaeological Survey, in which I participated, I was able to see first-hand the level of suspicion and hostility exhibited by river divers encountered in the course of research activities on the river. At a meeting to publicize and garner support from the river diving community at Fanning Springs that same summer, I was able to witness that same hostility and suspicion. It is a bad situation, and a curious one. Wildlife officers who encounter hunters and sport fishermen in the course of their duties are far more often met with goodwill. It is clear that a sense of entitlement to remove artifacts from state lands has somehow developed. There is possibly still some basis on which to build a new state policy. That possibility is suggested by the admittedly subjective sense that the divers who cooperated with the IFP and participated in state and university research programs enjoyed an elevated status and respect among their peers. Recommendations In South Carolina collectors do not feel threatened by SCIAA. They bring their artifacts in to be recorded, bring entire collections to South Carolina conventions where SCIAA maintains a staffed facility to record artifact details including morphology, tool material, location and circumstances of the finds. Are there abuses being perpetrated? I’m sure there are, but in the end SCIAA gets the data, and it doesn’t have to curate the artifacts, which it has neither money, space, nor staff to do anyway. And the collectors feel like part of the team, recording and protecting the state’s cultural patrimony. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of them also become effective adjuncts to South Carolina’s limited policing capabilities. Compare that to the situation in Florida, where even collectors who have routinely cooperated with researchers are closing off access and disposing commercially of largely uncatalogued collections. I recommend that Florida begin what must be (as has been South Carolina’s) a long-term outreach program to gain the trust, confidence, and cooperation of archaeological artifact collectors. The first step should be the reinstitution of the Isolated Finds Program, possibly expanded to include surface finds on state lands. The second would be to create a position within FBAR whose occupant’s responsibility would be to act, as it were, as an ambassador to the hostile tribes of Florida collectors. This individual would have to practice a lot of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” diplomacy, especially in the early years, but their mission would be to reenlist Florida collectors in the enterprise of reporting and recording the distribution and variation of Florida’s
113 prehistoric and historic artifacts in the face of ever accelerating development. Academic archaeology does not have the resources to do that, even through the long-established and excellent cooperation of the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) for which Bullen deserved so much credit. Neither can what Milanich (2005:57) identifies as the “now dominant” field of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) provide that level of survey and data recovery. Neither can all three working together. In fact, whatever we as a state do, or fail to do, our cultural heritage is being destroyed at a sickening rate, principally by forces absolutely oblivious to issues like artifact collection. Refusing information from any source is tantamount to throwing it away. The situation requires that Florida make every effort to record as much of our vanishing archaeological heritage as may yet be possible. In South Carolina, SCIAA struck what was feared at first to be a Churchill-style deal with the devil. It has won over its skeptics and created at minimal cost in funds or staff energy, an invaluable resource. It has also multiplied the effectiveness of South Carolina’s thinly stretched resource protection officers. It did not happen over night, or over just a few years, or by publishing pretty brochures. It was the concept and the work of a handful of SCIAA staff members with good interpersonal skills, operating for decades. The same model can be replicated in Florida. I believe it should be.
114 REFERENCES
Addington, Lucile R. 1986 Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology series. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Anderson, David G. 1991 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by Kenneth B. Tankersly and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 163-216. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
2004 Paleoindian Occupations in the Southeastern United States. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 119-128. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station, Texas.
Anderson, David G. and Michael K. Faught 1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points http://www.adp.fsu.edu.aenaf.html, accessed multiple times beginning 2000 Department of Anthropology, Florida State University (FSU) and National Park Service Southeastern Regional Archaeology Center (SEAC)
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1995 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andrefsky, William, Jr. (editor) 2003 Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City
Atkins, Stephen C., and Jeannie MacMahan 1967 The Zabski Site, Merritt Island, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 133-145.
Austin, Robert J. and Richard W. Estabrook 2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53 (2-3):116-130.
115 Austin, Robert J., Bradley E. Ensor, Lisabeth Carlson, and Jon Endonino 2004 Multidisciplinary Investigations at West Williams, 8HI509: An Archaic Period Site Located Within Florida Gas Transmission Company’s Bayside Lateral Pipeline Corridor, Hillsborough County, Florida. Submitted to the Compliance and Review Section, Florida State Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), Tallahassee, Florida by Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc..
Bartlett, Marion C. 1964 Collections from Disturbed Sites on IR-75 in Alachua and Marion Counties. The Florida Anthropologist 17: 201-211.
Betteridge, Harold T. (editor) 1965 The New Cassell’s German Dictionary. Funk and Wagnalls, New York.
Binford, Lewis R. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330-361.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20.
2002 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record: With a New Afterward. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Blanton, Dennis B. 1983 Lithic Raw Material Procurement and Use During the Morrow Mountain Phase in South Carolina. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropolgy, Brown University, Providence.
Blanton, Dennis B. and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and G. T. Hanson, pp. 53-72. Anthropological Study 9. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Bleed, Peter 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability and Reliability. American Antiquity 51: 737-747.
Bordaz, Jaques 1959 Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.
116 Bradley, Bruce A. 1982 Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. Stanford, pp. 181-208. Academic Press, London.
Broyles, Bettye J. 1968 St. Albans Archaic Site, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological Survey Newsletter No. 11. Morgantown.
Bullen, Adelaide K. Bibliography of Ripley P. Bullen. Manuscript on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Includes short biography by S. Jeffery K. Wilkerson and testimonial, “Dr. Bullen and the Amateurs” by I. A. Earle Kirby. Subsequent to Ripley Bullen’s death in late 1976.
Bullen, Adelaide K., and Ripley P. 1953 The Battery Point Site, Bayport, Hernando County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 6: 85-92.
1954 Further Notes on the Battery Point Site, Bayport, Hernando County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 7: 103-108.
1961 The Summer Haven Site, St. Johns County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 14: 1- 15.
1963 The Wash Island Site, Crystal River, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 16: 81-92.
Bullen, Ripley P. 1949 The Woodward Site. The Florida Anthropologist 2: 49-64.
1950 An Archeological Survey of the Chattahoochee River Valley in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 40(4): 101-125.
1951 The Terra Ceia Site, Manatee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 3. Gainesville.
1953a The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida Anthropologist 6: 9-37.
1953b Excavations at Manatee Springs, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 6: 53-67.
1956 Some Florida Radiocarbon Dates and their Significance. The Florida Anthropologist 9: 31-46.
117 1958a More Florida Radiocarbon dates and their Significance. The Florida Anthropologist 11: 97-110.
1958b Six Sites near the Chattahoochee River in the Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area, Florida. River Basin Survey Paper, No. 14. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No 169: 315- 357.
1958c The Bolen Bluff Site on Paynes Prairie, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 4. Gainesville.
1962a Suwannee Points in the Simpson Collection. The Florida Anthropologist 15: 83-88.
1962b Indian Burials at Tick Island. American Philosophical Society Year Book 1961, 477- 480.
1965 Florida’s Prehistory. Chapter 22 in Florida from Indian Trail to Space Age. Southern Publishing Co. Delray Beach.
1967 A Florida Folsom (?) Point. The Florida Anthropologist 20:2.
1968a A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Florida State Museum, University of Florida. Gainesville.
1968b Beveled Stemmed Points from Tampa Bay The Florida Anthropologist 21: 89-90.
1969 Excavations at Sunday Bluff, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 15. Gainesville.
1971 The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 24: 1-30.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida.
1976 Some Thoughts on Florida Projectile Points. The Florida Anthropologist 29: 33-38.
Bullen, Ripley P., and Walter Askew 1965 Tests at the Askew Site, Citrus County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 18: 201- 217.
Bullen, Ripley P., and Carl Benson 1964 Dixie Lime Caves Numbers 1 and 2, a preliminary report. The Florida Anthropologist 17: 153-164.
118 Bullen, Ripley P., and Edward M. Dolen 1959 The Johnson Lake Site, Marion County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 12: 77-94.
1960 Shell Mound, Levy County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 13: 17-24.
Bushnell, Frank 1962 The Maximo Point Site – 1962. The Florida Anthropologist 15: 89-101.
Cable, John S. 1996 Haw River Revisited. Iin The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 113-148. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cambron, James W. 1959 Projectile Point Types from the Tennessee Valley, Part V. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 5(3): 73-75.
Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse 1964 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I, Point Types. Alabama Archaeological Society, Huntsville, Alabama.
Carter, Brinnen S. 2003 Page/Ladson (8JE591): Excavation of an Early Holocene Occupation Site in the Aucilla River, Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Chapman, Carl H. 1948 A Preliminary Survey of Missouri Archaeology, Part IV. Missouri Archaeologist 10 (4):135, 164.
Chapman, Carl H., and Leo O. Anderson 1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropolog, Report of Investigations No. 18. Knoxville.
Chatters, James C. 2000 The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65: 291-316.
Claflin, W. H., Jr. 1931 The Stalling’s Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1). Cambridge.
119 Clausen, Carl J. 1964 The A-356 Site and the Florida Archaic. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Clausen, Carl J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky 1975 Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000-Year-Old Early Man Site. Florida Anthropolgical Society Publications 7. Gainesville.
Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.
Coe, Joffre L. 1952 Culture sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. Universitry of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1959 Prehistoric Culture Change in the Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor..
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 54(5). Philadelphia.
Collins, Michael B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Keren Davis Cache, Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin.
2005 Clovis -- a Fresh Look at an Ancient Culture. Paper presented at the “Clovis in the Southeast Conference”, Columbia, South Carolina.
Crabtree, Don 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional papers of the Idaho State University Museum, 28. Pocatello.
Crane, H. R. 1956 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates I. Science 124:664-672.
Crane, H. R. and James B. Griffin 1958a University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates II. Science 127:1098-1105
1958b University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates III. Science 128:1127-1123.
Damon, P. E., C. W. Ferguson, A. Long, and E. I. Wallick 1974 Dendrochronologic Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale. American Antiquity 39:350-366.
120 Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. 1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., Michael Wisenbaker, and George Ballo 1986 The Organization of a Suwannee Technology: The View From Harney Flats. The Florida Anthropologist 39(1-2): 24-56.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Press, Farmingdale, New York.
Dasovitch, S. J. 1996 A Compilation and Analysis of Florida’s Prehistoric Radiocarbon Database. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
DeJarnette, David L., Edward B. Kurjack, and James W. Cambron 1962 Excavations at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8(1-2): 1-124.
DeJarnette, David L., John A. Walthall, and Steve B. Wimberly 1975 Archaeological Investigations in the Buttahatchee River Valley II: Excavations at Stucks Bluff Rock Shelter. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 21(2): 99-119.
Dickel, David N. 2002 Analysis of Mortuary Patterns. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by Glen H. Doran, pp. 73-96. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Doran, Glen H. (editor) 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Douglas, A. E. 1919, 1928, & 1936 Climatic Cycles and Tree Ring Growth. 3 vols. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C.
Dragoo, Don W. 1963 Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of Carnegie Museum Vol. 37. Pittsburgh.
121 Dunbar, J. S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 185- 213. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Dunbar, J. S., and B. Carter 1993 Recovered Stone Tools, Described, Investigated. Aucilla River Times VII (1): 3.
Dunbar, J. S., and B. I. Waller 1983 A Distribution of Clovis/Suwannee/Simpson Paleo-Indian sites of Florida -- A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36: 18-30.
Dunbar, J. S., and C. A. Hemmings 2004 Florida Paleoindian Points and Knives. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 65-72. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station, Texas.
Dunbar, J. S., C. A. Hemmings, P. K. Vojnovski, S. D. Webb, and W. M. Stanton 2002 The Ryan/Harley Site 8JE1004: A Suwannee Point Site in the Wacissa River, North Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
Dunbar, J. S., and P. K. Vojnovski n.d. Early Floridians and Late Mega-Mammals: Some Technological and Dietary Evidence from Four North Florida Paleoindian Sites. Ms. on file, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Ca. 2002.
Ensor, H. Blaine 1981 Gainesville Lake Area Lithics: Chronology, Technology, and Use. Report of Investigations 13, Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
1986 San Patrice and Dalton Affinities on the Central and Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 57: 69-81.
Fairbanks, Charles H. 1954 1953 Excavations at Site 9HL64, Buford Reservoir, Georgia. Florida State University Studies No. 16: 1-26. Tallahassee.
1965 Excavations at the Fort Walton Temple Mound, 1960. The Florida Anthropologist 18: 237-264.
122 Faught, Michael K. 1996 Clovis Origins and Underwater Prehistoric Archaeology in Northwest Florida. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuscon.
Faught, Michael K., Michael B. Hornum, R. Christopher Goodwin, Brinnen Carter, and S. David Webb 2003 Earliest-Holocene Tool Assemblages from Northern Florida with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Estimates (Site 8LE2105 and 8JE591). Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:16-19.
Faulkner, Charles H., and Major C. R. McCullough 1973 Introductory report of the Normandy Reservoir Salvage Project: Environmental Setting, Typology, and Survey. Report of Investigations No. 11, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Ferguson, George R., and Wilfred T. Neill 1977 The Age of the Santa Fe Projectile Point Type. The Florida Anthropologist 30:18-21.
Fiedel, Stuart J. 1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64: 95-115.
2004 Clovis Age in Calendar Years: 13,500-13,000 CALYBP. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 73-80. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station, Texas
Flenniken, Jeffrey J. 1984 The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping: An Anthropological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 187-203.
Ford, J. A. 1938 Correspondence: A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity 3: 260-264.
1954 On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist 56: 42-57.
Frison, George C., and Bruce A. Bradley 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149-55.
1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
123 Futato, Eugene M. 1983 Archaeological investigations in the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoir. Report of Investigations 29. Office of Archaeological Research, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Goggin, John M. 1952 Space and Time Perspectives in Northern St. Johns Archaeology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 47. New Haven.
Goggin, John M. 1950 An Early Lithic Complex from Central Florida. American Antiquity 16: 46-49.
1951 Archeological Notes on Lower Fisheating Creek. The Florida Anthropologist 4: 50-66.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 47. New Haven.
1953 An Introductory Outline of Timucua Archeology. Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 3(3): 4-17.
Goodyear, Albert C., III 1974 The Brand Sit: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Publications on Archaeology, Research Series 7. Fayetteville, Arkansas.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. Columbia.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47: 382-395
2005 Clovis in Allendale: The Topper and Big Pine Tree Sites. Paper presented at the “Clovis in the Southeast Conference”, Columbia, South Carolina.
Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N. Goodyear 1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36: 40-65
Gramly, R. M. 1993 The Richey Clovis Cache. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.
124 Griffin, John W. 1974 Investigations in Russell Cave. Russell Cave National Monument, Alabama. National Park Service Publications in Archaeology No. 13. Washington, D. C.
Griffin, John W., and Ripley P. Bullen 1950 The Safety Harbor Site, Pinellas County, Florida. The Florida Anthropological Society Publications, No.2. Gainesville.
Griffiths, Nick, Anne Jenner, and Christine Wilson 1991 Drawing Archaeological Finds: A Handbook. Occasional Paper No. 13, Institute of Archaeology, University College of London.
Hall, Don Alan 1997 Corrected Radiocarbon Calendar Can Clarify Peopling of Americas. Oregon State University Center for the Study of the First Americans Newsletter: Mammoth Trumpet 12(4): 1-7.
Hardman, Clark Jr., and Marjorie H. Hardman 1994 A Cache of 55 Points: Taylor County, Florida (8TA203). The Florida Anthropologist 47:280-286.
Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Haynes, C. Vance 1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Berengia? In Paleoecology of Berengia, edited by D. M. Hopkins, J. V. Matthews, C. E. Schweger, and S. Young, pp. 383-398. Academic Press, New York.
Hranicky, W. Jack 2003 Prehistoric Projectile Points Found Along the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Universal Publishers, USA.
Jablonski, Nina G. (editor) 2002 The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World. Wattis Symposium Series in Anthropology, Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, No. 27, University of California Press, San Francisco.
Jahn, Otto and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 10. Gainesville.
125 Joachim, Michael, Cynthia Herhahn, and Harry Starr 1999 The Magdalenian Colonization of Southern Germany. American Anthropologist 101: 129-142.
Justice, Noel. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
2001 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231-244.
Klein, J., J. C. Lerman, P. E. Damon, and E. K. Ralph 1982 Calibration of Radiocarbon Dates: Tables Based on the Consensus Data of the Workshop on Calibrating the Radiocarbon Time Scale. Radiocarbon 24:103-150.
Kneberg, Madeline 1956 Some Important Stone Projectile Points Found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee Archaeologist 12(1): 17-28.
Knecht, H. (editor) 1997 Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York.
Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg 1958 The Nuckolls Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 14(2): 60-79.
1960 Editor’s Notes, Aaron B. Clement Collection. Tennessee Archaeologist 16(1): 49-61.
Lewis, T. M. N., and Madeline Kneberg Lewis. 1961 Ev: An Archaic Site. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Libby, Willard F. 1952 Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
126 Lipo, C. P., M.E. Madsen, R. C. Dunnell, and T. Hunt 1997 Population Structure, Cultural Transmission, and Frequency Seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:301-334.
Little, Elizabeth A. 2002 Kautantouwit’s Legacy: Calibrated Dates on Prehistoric Maize in New England. American Antiquity 67:109-118.
Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien 2000 Chronometers and Units in Early Archaeology and Paleontology. American Antiquity 65: 691-707.
Marlowe, Greg 1999 Year One: Radiocarbon Dating and American Archaeology, 1947-1948. American Antiquity 64: 9-32.
Martin, Paul S. 2005 Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley.
1984 Prehistoric Overkill: The Global Model. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and Richard G. Klein, pp. 354-403. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Mayr, Ernst 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought. Belknap Press, Cambridge.
McGee, P. M., and R. J. Wheeler 1994 Stratigraphic Excavations at Grove’s Orange Midden, Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida: Methods and Results. The Florida Anthropologist 47:333-349.
McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4: 301-313.
Meltzer, David J. 2002 What to do When No One’s Been There Before? Thoughts on the Colonization of New Lands. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by Nina G. Jablonski, pp. 27-58. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences Number 27, San Francisco.
1989 Was stone exchanged among eastern North American Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource and Processing, edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, pp. 11-39. Wrestview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 127 Michie, James L. 1966 The Taylor Point. The Chesopiean 4(5-6): 123.
1996 The Taylor Site: An Early Occupation in Central South Carolina. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 239-269. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Mikell, Gregory A. 1996 Two Sites of Interest in the Withlacoochee Bay Area of Levy County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 49: 89-94.
1997 A Case of Direct Association Between Fiber-tempered Pottery, Late Archaic Stemmed Points, and Santa Fe Points at the Reddick Bluff Site, Walton County. The Florida Anthropologist 50: 83-93.
Milanich, Jerald T. 1977 Ripley Pierce Bullen, 1902-1976. The Florida Anthropologist 30: 34-36.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
2005 Homeless Collections: What happens to artifacts when they have no place to go? Archaeology November/December:57-64.
Miller, Carl F. 1957 Radiocarbon Dates from an Early Archaic Deposit in Russell Cave, Alabama. American Antiquity 23: 84.
Morse, Dan F. 1973 Dalton Culture in Northeast Arkansas. The Florida Anthropologist 26: 23-38.
Morse, Dan F., David G. Anderson, and Albert C. Goodyear 1996 The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in the Eastern United States. In Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by Lawrence Guy Strauss, Berit Valentin Ericksen, and David R. Yesner, pp. 319-339. Plenum Press, New York.
Nash, Stephen E. 1999 Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and the Development of North American Archaeology 1914-1950. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2000 It’s About Time: A History of Archaeological Dating in North America. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
128 Neill, Wilfred T. 1958 A Stratified Early Site at Silver Springs, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 11: 33-52.
1963 Three New Florida Projectile Point Types, Believed Early. The Florida Anthropologist 16: 99-104.
1964a The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct Animals in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17: 17-32.
1964b Trilisa Pond, An Early Site in Marion County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17: 187-200.
1966 Westo Bluff, A Site of the Old Quartz Culture in Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist 19: 1-10.
Neiman, F. D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Implications for Middle Woodland Ceramic Diversity. American Antiquity 60:7-36.
Newsome, Lee A. 2002 The Paleoethnobotany of the Archaic Mortuary Pond. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by Glen H. Doran, pp. 191- 210. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
O’Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman ca. 2000 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
Odell, George H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer Press, New York.
Oliver, Billy L. 1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savanna River Stemmed Point Type. Masters Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Perino, Gregory 1985 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians, Vol. 1, Points and Barbs Press. Idabel, Oklahoma.
Peterson, Drexel A. 1973 The Spring Creek Site, Perry County, Tennessee: Report of the 1972-1973 Excavations, Memphis State University Anthropological Research Center, Occasional Papers, No. 7. Memphis.
129 PIDBA: Paleoindian Data Base of America 2005 http://pibda.utk.edu Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Powell, John 1990 Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain. American Systems of the Carolinas, West Columbia, South Carolina
Prentiss, William C., Michael Lenert, Thomas A. Foor, Nathan B. Goodale, and Trinity Schegel 2003 Calibrated Radiocarbon Dating at Keatley Creek: The Chronology of a Hunter-Gatherer Village. American Antiquity 68(4):719-735.
Purdy, Barbara A. 1981 Florida’s Prehistoric Stone Technology. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Purdy, Barbara A., and Laurie M. Beach 1980 The Chipped Stone Tool Industry of Florida’s Preceramic Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North America. Vol. 1: 105-124.
Ralph, E.K., H.N. Michael, and M.C. Han 1973 Radiocarbon Dates and Reality. University of Pennsylvania Applied Science Center for Archaeolog,y MASCA Newsletter 9(1): 1-20.
Renfrew, Colin 1973 Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Rouse, Irving 1955 On the Correlation of Phases of Culture. American Anthropologist 57: 713-722.
1967a Report of the Research Committee – Eastern States Archeological Federation. Eastern States Archeological Federation, Bulletin No. 26, 13-14.
1967 Seriation in Archaeology. In American Historical Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Leslie Spier, edited by Carroll L. Riley and Walter W. Taylor, pp. 153-195. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-13.
130 Saunders, Joe W., Rolfe D. Mandel, C. Garth Sampson, Charles M. Allen, E. Thurman Allen, Daniel A. Bush, James K. Feathers, Kristen J. Gremillion, C. T. Hallmark, H. Edwin Jackson, Jay K. Johnson, Reca Jones, Roger T. Saucier, Gary L. Stringer, and Malcom F. Vidrine 2005 Watson Brake, a Middle Archaic Mound Complex in Northeast Louisiana. American Antiquity 70(4): 631-668.
Schroeder, Lloyd E. 2002 The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades. American Systems of the Southeast, West Columbia, South Carolina.
Sears, William H. 1958 The Grant Site—Br-56. The Florida Anthropologist 11: 114-124.
1959 Two Weeden Island Burial Mounds, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 5. Gainesville.
Sellards, E. H. 1938 Artifacts Associated with a Fossil Elephant. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 49: 999-1,010.
1952 Early Man in America: A Study in Prehistory. University of Texas, Austin.
Sherwood, Sarah C., Boyce N. Driskell, and Scott C. Meeks 2004 Chronology and Stratigraphy at Dust Cave, Alabama. American Antiquity 69: 533-554.
Schick, Kathy D. and Nicholas Toth 1993 Making Silent Stones Speak. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Simpson, J. Clarence 1948 Folsom-Like Points from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 1: 11-15.
Smith, Roger C., James S. Dunbar, and Michael K. Faught 1997 An Underwater Archaeological Survey in the Santa Fe River, Florida, July 1997. Florida Archaeological Reports 36. Florida State Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources. Tallahassee.
Soffer, Olga, and N. D. Praslov (editors) 1993 From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic – Paleo-Indian Adaptations. Plenum Press, New York.
Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18: 305- 313.
131 1958 The Significance of Differences between Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity 23: 309-311
Stanford, Dennis 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 1-13. Oregon State University and the Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
2005 The Solutrean Connection. Paper presented at the “Clovis in the Southeast Conference”, Columbia, South Carolina.
Stanford, Dennis, and Bruce Bradley 2002 Ocean Trails and Prairie Paths? Thought about Clovis Origins. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by Nina G. Jablonski, pp. 255-271. Wattis Symposium in Anthropology, Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, Number 27. San Francisco. Straus, Lawrence Guy 2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality. American Antiquity 65: 219-226.
Stright, M. J., E. M. Lear, and J. F. Bennett 1999 Spatial Data Analysis of Artifacts Deposited by Coastal Erosion: A Case Study of McFadden Beach, Texas, Vol II. pp. 315 Figure BN56, OCS Study 99-0068, U. S. Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service, Herndon, VA.
Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren Beck, G. S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plicht, and Marco Spurk 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041- 1083. 1999 Stuiver, Minze, H. E. Suess 1966 On the Relationship Between Radiocarbon Dates and True Sample Ages. Radiocarbon 8:534-540.
Suess, H. E. 1961 Secular Changes in the Concentration of Atmospheric Radiocarbon. In Problems Related to Interplanetary Matter, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, pp. 90-95. Nuclear Science Series Report Number 33, Publication 845. Washington, D.C.
1965 Secular Variations of the Cosmic-Ray Produced Carbon 14 in the Atmosphere and their Interpretations. Journal of Geophysical Research 70:5937-5951.
132 1967 Bristlecone Pine Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale from 4100 B.C. to 1500 B.C. In Radiocarbon Dating and Methods of Low-Level Counting, International Atomic Energy Agency, pp. 143-150. Vienna.
1970 Bristlecone-Pine Calibration of Radiocarbon Time 5200 B.C. to Present. In Radiocarbon Variations in Absolute Chronology, edited by I. U. Olsson, pp. 303-312. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Suhm, Dee Ann, Alex B. Krieger, and Edward B. Jelks 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society, Vol. XXV. Texas Archaeological Society, Austin.
Sullivan, Lynne P. 1999 Madeline D. Kneberg Lewis: Leading Lady of Tennessee Archaeology. In Grit- Tempered: Early Women Archaeologists in the Southeastern United States, edited by Nancy Marie White, Lynne P. Sullivan, and Rochelle A. Marrinan, pp. 57-91. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Taylor, R. E. 1985 The Beginnings of Radiocarbon Dating in American Antiquity: A Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 50:309-325.
1987 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando.
Taylor, R. E., C. V. Haynes, Jr., and M. Stuiver 1996 Clovis and Folsom Age Estimates: Stratigraphic Context and Radiocarbon Calibration. American Antiquity 70(269): 515-525.
Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones 2004 Wakulla Springs Lodge Site (8WA329) in Edward Ball state Park Wakulla County Florida: A Summary of Eleven Projects and Management Recommendations. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State.
Tuck, James A. 1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 2(1): 72-80. Attleboro.
Tudge, Colin 2000 The Variety of Life. Oxford University Press.
Waller, Ben I., and James Dunbar 1977 Distribution of Paleo-Indian Projectiles in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30: 79- 80. 133 Walthall, John A. 1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Warren, Lyman O. 1966 A Possible Paleo-Indian Site in Pinellas County. The Florida Anthropologist 19: 39-41.
1967 Two Dredged Sites on Bear Creek. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 170-174.
1971 The Fletcher Davis Site. The Florida Anthropologist 24: 81-90.
Warren, Lyman O., and Ripley P. Bullen 1965 A Dalton Complex from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 18: 29-32.
Warren, Lyman O., William Thompson, and Ripley P. Bullen 1967 The Culbreath Bayou Site, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 20: 146-163.
Watson, Mary Lou, Tom Watson, and Louis D. Tesar 1990 A Cache of Points from Bay County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 43:63-70)
Webb, R. S. 1998 Archaeological Investigations at Three Prehistoric Sites (9DW64, 9DW77, 9CK713) Cherokee and Dawson Counties, Georgia, Cherokee County Raw Water Supply Reservoir. R. S. Webb and Associates, Holly Springs. Submitted to the Cherokee County Water and Sewage Authority, Canton, Georgia.
Webb, S. D., J. T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J. Dunbar 1983 An Extinct Bison Kill Site, Jefferson County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36: 81-82.
Whatley, John S. 2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia 30: 1.
White, Leslie A. 1949 The Science of Culture. New York, Grove Press.
Whitehouse, Ruth D. (editor) 1983 The Facts on File Dictionary of Archaeology. Facts on File Publications, New York.
134 Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. n. d. Bibliography of Ripley P. Bullen with Biographical Preface. Files of the Florida State Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), Tallahassee, Florida. Publication history (if any) unknown, estimated date 1978.
Willey, Gordon R. 1949a Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 113. Washington, D. C.
1949b Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 42. New Haven.
Wilson, Rex 1965 Excavations at the Mayport Mound, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences No. 13. Gainesville.
Wormington, H. M. 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4. Denver.
135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
I come from a multigenerational Florida Cracker family that received a land grant west of Tallahassee in 1828. An unabashed romantic, I never really ever wanted to be anything except a soldier or an archaeologist. After graduating from Florida State University in 1971 I spent a first career as the former, serving in Special Forces, Ranger, and Special Mission Units. Upon my retirement in 1994, I set about learning to be the latter. Besides studying archaeology, I had two flippant answers to questions about what I intended to do when I retired from the Army. One was, “Anything outdoors and in Florida.” The other was “Draw a line in the dirt someplace north of Orlando and say, ‘This is as far as Miami comes!’ ” The answers were flip, but the intent was real. So besides studying archaeology and working at a variety of archaeological jobs, I spend most of my time pursuing one or the other of those two objectives, working on any natural history project or survey that offered itself and serving environmental groups in any capacity that appeared to promise some positive result for what’s left of Florida.
136