January 10, 2009 08:29 pm
—
I feel sure most of the readers noticed a problem with the illustrations in last week’s article. Both of the photocopies had part of the illustration missing. This is understandable since space is limited in each week’s newspaper. This same problem happens in all of the typology books I have seen over the years. Regardless of the size of the book, either paperback or hardback, space is limited. Therefore each author must carefully choose a few examples of each type to illustrate in his publication. Typically most authors will pick out a few complete examples of a projectile point or tool. This tends to make the readers of a typology publication understand only the classical basics of any type. If you will remember, several weeks ago I made a statement about the fact the archeological community wants to see a hundred examples of a newly named type before they are willing to accept it as something different and unique.
Many times I have discussed what happens to a particular shape after the piece has been resharpened numerous times. Eventually the piece will start looking like another type and inevitably someone will either place it in the wrong category or in some cases try to assign the piece a new name. Typology is a practiced science with certain limitations and the learning process never stops.
The two points illustrated in last week’s article create all sorts of new questions. First of all, both pieces look similar to the Wilson points I mentioned a few weeks ago. However, the length of the stems on both specimens is shorter than the stems on a classical Wilson. Also Wilson points are more robust in thickness than either of the two points from East Texas. One must keep in mind both of the points from the Piney Woods were made out of chert either from eastern Oklahoma or western Arkansas. Several years ago Gregory Perino published a two-set volume of books dealing with projectile points found all over the United States. These books which are hardbacked are now out of print and very difficult to locate. Through some of my friends in Dallas I was very fortunate to acquire both books. Recently I have gone through both books looking for an example of a point which might closely match the two points from East Texas. One particular type known as the Lost Lake point fairly well resembles the East Texas points but Lost Lake points are typically found on the eastern side of the Mississippi River and definitely not from Texas. With all of the above in mind, what should I call the two points? More examples are needed along with some dateable material which might help to assign the weapon tips to a certain time frame. However, it is almost impossible to find wood or bone or charcoal in any excavated archeological site in East Texas. We need some other type of method to help date materials discovered in East Texas. The dating of tiny quartz crystals found in buried deposits in Central Texas probably would not be very successful in East Texas because the soils there are constantly being changed by either the growth of vegetation or the burrowing of animals. Gophers are very prevalent in the Piney Woods and they are constantly making changes in the soil horizons.
If someone looks though any typology book dealing with projectile points typically found in Texas, they will note all of the points with big barbs or bifurcated bases are found in Central Texas. It becomes very obvious when you try to find an example of either shape in East Texas these shapes are not present in the Piney Woods. Why? There may be a couple of reasons I can think of for the cultures living east of here not to adapt either of the Central Texas shapes. First and foremost is the obvious absence of good, decent chert. Period. If the inhabitants wanted good chert, they had to go either to the Edwards Plateau to find good material and at the same time deal with the cultures living in Central Texas who I must assume considered all of the chert bearing limestone in Central Texas as their property. Or the East Texas groups had to go north to the Red River where cobbles of decent chert could be found in the gravel bars during low water periods or venture father to the north into the Ozark Plateau where good chert was readily available. Once more they were forced to deal with one or more cultures who considered the Ozarks as their home.
Most of the projectile points recovered in East Texas which we think — note think — belong to the Early Archaic time periods are typically made out of an exotic chert either from Central Texas or the Ozarks. This should mean there was a trade network already in place 8,000 or 9,000 years ago. The San Patrice people of slightly more than 10,000 years ago who lived in East Texas and eastern Oklahoma and in western Arkansas and Missouri were willing to make weapons and tools out of materials found in some of the stream beds in northeastern Texas. The Dalton people who lived to the north of the San Patrice culture yet their territories overlapped only used the higher grade Ozark chert or the Edwards material when they ventured into the mid-sections of Texas. Those points which we think belong to the Early Archaic cultures in East Texas have a couple of things in common. They do not have big barbs or wide shoulders plus most of the shapes have contracting stems which are either rounded on the base or tapered into a squared-shape base. To me (and keep this in mind as this is my opinion) the narrow, tapered-stem shapes tell me the points were socketed into a round hole rather than placed in a cut groove. To further add some justification to my way of thinking these points were hafted in a hole is the fact cane is very plentiful in East Texas. All it takes is for there to be a small water seep coming out of the ground and cane will take hold. If someone wanted to make the short shaft to hold the stone weapon tip, all they had to do was cut pieces of cane just below the growth ring. Then they could easily hollow out the other end which in turn will form a fairly rigid piece with an opening suitable for inserting a tapered dart-point stem. Then it was only a matter of firmly anchoring the point into the cane piece. Cane is light and yet fairly durable and the cultures who used the cane, would have recognized the advantages of using cane for their short shafts. The big main atlatl shaft was made out of something more durable and also heavier so it would withstand the pressure applied at the base when it was thrown but the only pressure received on the short shaft occurred when the point struck its intended target. If the stone weapon tip was suitably sharp, the dart point would enter the animal before much pressure could be applied to the shaft. Something to think about.
Next week: Salt, a very valuable commodity
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.