Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1). The Florida Anthropologist 64(3-4):207-240.

The Florida Anthropologist
Volume 64 Numbers 3-4 September-December 2011 Table of Contents

From the Editors Articles On the Trail of the Panther in Ancient Florida Ryan J. Wheeler Excavation of a Mid-Nineteenth-Century Barrell Well and Associated Features at Fort Brooke, Tampa, Florida Robert J. Austin,. Hendryx, Brian E. Worthington, and Debra J. Wells Swift Creek Paddle Designs from the Florida Gulf Coast: Patterns and Prospects Neill J. Wallis and Amanda ODell Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1) Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Sean P. Norman Middle Woodland and Protohistoric Fort Walton at thee Lost Chipola Cutoff Mound Cutoff, Northwest Florida Nancy Marie White 2011 Florida Field School Summaries About the Authors 139 137
163 187 207
241 275 288
Cover: USF students shovel test during the 2011 field school.
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893
Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1)
Thomas J. Pluckhahn1 and Sean P. Norman2 Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Flowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-7200 (tpluckha@usf.edu) 2 Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Flowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-7200 (spn@mail.usf.edu)
1
Woodland period hafted biface assemblages of the Gulf Coast and adjacent interior regions of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, are comprised of a variety of forms: from spikes, ovates, and other forms that contract at the base; to straightand expanding-stemmed and corner- and side-notched types that expand at the base; to large and small triangulars. Subtle gradation between many of these forms can make point identification challenging. The problem is exacerbated by a rampant state parochialism that has resulted in a excess of formal types. A quick survey of standard compendiums of point types reveals the severity of the problem. Bullen (1975), in his seminal guide to Florida points, describes 18 named point types dating to the Middle or Late Woodland period; five more of his points could probably be added to this list based on contemporary dating. Cambron and Hulse (1990) describe another 29 different Middle/Late Woodland types for Alabama. Whatley (2002), in his more recent overview of Georgia points, lists 18 points dating to the Middle/Late Woodland; most of these overlap with Bullen and Cambron and Hulse, but he also adds five different types. Thus, these three guides alone describe a combined 53 Middle and Late Woodland types. To this could be added two additional types described by Schroder (2006). Finally, Baker (1995) has added a dizzying array of new types, including eight specific to Weeden Island alone and dozens of others relating to the Middle and Late Woodland periods in the Southeast more generally. In addition to the obvious problems it poses for the identification of individual specimens, the proliferation of types also obscures the understanding of hafted biface function. Many of these point type compendiums simply put forth unsupported claims of functional identification. Baker (1995), for example, routinely classifies point types as either dart or arrows but provides little or no rationale for such inferences. Finally, the ever-expanding roster of Woodland point types serves as an impediment to comparison of assemblages and the identification of social processes that may account for similarities and differences between them. Even relatively modestly-sized Woodland point assemblages can easily include dozens of distinct types, a single example of which may be represented by only one or two specimens. This makes comparisonparticularly statistical comparisons Vol. 64 (3-4)
challenging. As a result, we have a very rudimentary understanding of how hafted biface styles and functions changed through time. For example, it is widely acknowledged that the Middle and Late Woodland periods witnessed the widespread adoption of the bow and arrow (Blitz 1988; Cobb and Nassaney 1995:209; McElrath et al. 2000:17; Milanich et al. 1997:188; Muller 1997:129; Nassaney 2000:716; Nassaney and Pyle 1999). Yet the precise timing, tempo, and context of this transition have rarely been the focus of concerted study. Clearly, the time is ripe to reevaluate the plethora of Woodland point types. Farr (2006) has usefully re-evaluated Bullens Paleoindian and Archaic point typology, suggesting that some types be dropped due to chronological refinements or lack of morphological distinctiveness, and placing the remainder in aggregate clusters based primarily on gross morphology. To our knowledge, however, no such effort has been directed to point types of the Middle and Late Woodland periods. And, while Middle and Late Woodland points from elsewhere in the Southeast have been analyzed for discrimination of functionspecifically the differentiation of dart and arrow points (e.g., Nassaney and Pyle 1999) this task has rarely been attempted for the eastern Gulf Coast region (but see Ste. Claire 1996). This paper represents a preliminary attempt at such endeavors. Our analysis is based on an assemblage of more than 200 Middle and Late Woodland period hafted bifaces from the Kolomoki site (9ER1) in southwestern Georgia (Figure 1). Focusing primarily on metric divisions of hafting areas, we classify the collection into increasingly specific taxonomic categories, from clusters to types. We then examine the clusters, types, and individual points for evidence of functionspecifically use as darts or arrows. We illustrate why we think the cluster approach is more useful for comparison of assemblages. The samples includes points collected by various researchers and projects, including: surface collections and test excavations by Fairbanks and Wauchope in the 1930s (Fairbanks 1946); the intensive excavations by Sears in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Sears 1956); surface collections and testing by Blanton and Snow in the 1970s and 1980s (see Pluckhahn 2003); and, finally, the most recent investigations by Pluckhahn (2003, 2011). The focus on points from Kolomoki, to our minds, avoids September-December 2011
208
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 1. Map of Kolomoki showing locations of Blocks A and D. ome of the problems that plague discussions of hafted biface types at a state or regional level. Specifically, we think the narrow focus satisfies the conditions established by OBrien and Lyman (1999) for seriation. First, the collection spans an interval of relatively limited duration. Second, the collection is derived from a localized area. Finally, the collection is associated with what could be considered a single cultural tradition; namely, the overlapping and closely-related Swift Creek and Weeden Island traditions. Methods Typological Analysis The hafted biface collection was initially sorted into types by the senior author, who presented the results at a meeting on the archaeology of southeastern coastal plain in Douglas, Georgia (Pluckhahn 2007). Pluckhahns type assignments were subsequently submitted to John Whatley and Lloyd Schroeder (personal communication 2008), who recommended revisions to type nomenclature and assignments. The data discussed herein reflect many, but not all, of their suggestions. We thank Whatley and Schroeder for their opinions, but emphasize that they are not responsible for any of the data or interpretations presented here. Our first basic question in this paper is the following: can typological assignments (whether types or clusters) be justified on the basis of objective metric attributes? Following Farrs example, we begin by placing the points into general clusters based on similarities in basic morphological attributes. We then look for measurable differences that would permit finer divisions. Ideally, where the differences are clear enough, our comparisons will lead us to the types we assigned. Where measurable differences are less pronounced, we are left with groups of closely related types. We suggest that, at least in some cases, the lack of clear measurable differences among these types may be indicative of redundancy in type designations. Our original intent was to compare types using statistical measures. However, variations in sample size and high standard deviations made this very difficult. We have tried to devise taxonomic divisions that we believe are meaningful, albeit not necessarily with any degree of statistical certainty. Our typological analysis emphasizes hafting areas to minimize effects of use wear, damage, and re-sharpening (Andrefsky 1998:178; Bacon 1977; Binford 1963). Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that hafting elements are also subject to the same processes, if less often and less severely affected than blades. We generally focus on ratio of measurements (for example, the ratio of blade width to haft length), to accommodate the constraints on the size of finished bifaces relative to raw material (although they are manufactured primarily from various cherts of the Coastal Plain, there are also specimens made from cherts of the Ridge and Valley, as well as Tallahatta Quartzites/Sandstones of southern Alabama). Hafted bifaces were measured using a dial calipers to the nearest .1 mm. Our measurements focused on 9 basic dimensions: Maximum Length (ML), Maximum Width (MW), Blade Length (BLL), Blade Width (BLW), Base Width (BW), Haft Length (HL), Neck Width (NW), Neck Height (NH), and Maximum Thickness (MT) (Figure 2). These dimensions generally conform to those defined by Andrefsky (1998:179), with a few exceptions. First, measurements of haft length and neck width are reserved only for points with relatively well-defined hafting
Pluckhahn and Norman
Woodland Hafted Bifaces
209
Figure 2. Illustration showing hafted biface dimensions that were measured for this study
elements, as delineated by shoulders. Thus, triangular points by our definition lack hafting areas (although we recognize these were indeed hafted in most cases). Perhaps most important, we restrict the use of the term neck to an area of constriction below the shoulders of width roughly equal to or less than that of the base. So defined, proximally contracting stemmed and triangular points lack necks. We would note that our method also differs from Whatley (2002:10), who measures haft width and length relative to an undefined point on the contracting stem. In addition to these dimensions, we also recorded weight (WT), measured to the nearest gram. Functional Analysis The second basic question we ask in this paper regards hafted biface function: specifically, based on formal attributes alone, can we differentiate darts from arrow points at the level of individual specimens, types, or clusters? Archaeologists have proposed various criteria for the discrimination of dart and arrow points. In one of the first modern studies in this vein, Thomas (1978) examined a collection of still-hafted (and thus securely identified) dart and arrow points in ethnographic collections of the American Museum of Natural History and archaeological collections from various sites, mostly in the western United States. Once the points had been measured, a step-wise discriminant analysis was performed to determine the most salient of four attributes (length, width, thickness, and neck width) for delineating arrows from darts. This resulted in two equations, one for darts and the other for arrows. Raw metric data for hafted bifaces of unknown function can be fitted into the equations; the equation producing the higher value indicates the proper category. Thomass (1978) discriminant analysis is not applicable to the point assemblage from Kolomoki (or from many sites in eastern North America more generally) in that the majority of points are unnotched and lack true necks (the assumptions of discriminant analysis do not allow one to simply omit one variable such as neck width from the equations) (Shott 1997:94). Fortunately, Shott (1997) revisited Thomass (1978) analysis, producing four-, three-, two-, and onevariable solutions. Shotts two- and one-variable solutions are applicable here. The former includes only shoulder width and thickness, the two variables that Shott found to be best at discriminating the two hafted biface types. The two-variable
classification functions proceeds as follows: Dart: 1.42 (shoulder width) + 2.16 (thickness) - 22.50 Arrow: .79 (shoulder width) + 2.17 (thickness) - 10.60 Shotts (1997) one-variable solution includes only shoulder width, the attribute he found most relevant for discerning dart and arrow points: Dart: 1.40 (shoulder width) - 16.85 Arrow: .89 (shoulder width) - 7.22 As with Thomass (1978) equations, raw metric data for hafted bifaces of unknown function can be fitted into the equations, and the equation producing the higher value can be assumed to represent the proper category. It may seem inappropriate to employ formula developed primarily from western North America to evaluate the function of hafted bifaces from the Southeast. However, the same approach has employed by researchers working on Late Woodland assemblages in the Midwest (Seeman 1992; Shott 1993). Shott (1993:431) argues that the application is appropriate because ballistic-performance properties that influence the size and form of projectile points are universal, not somehow specific to certain areas and cultures. As Shott also notes, Thomas made use of a hafted tools from a wide range of cultures and areas. Finally, Shott points out that similar ethnographic and archaeological collections of known function are simply unavailable for eastern North America. Nevertheless, archaeologists in the eastern United States have attempted to discriminate function from the form of archaeological specimens. Particularly noteworthy in this regard is the analysis of dart and arrow points in central Arkansas by Nassaney and Pyle (1999), given that it deals with collections from the same general time period as Kolomoki, and containing generally similar point forms. Examining histograms of metric data for a collection of 93 points from sites within 20 km of the Toltec Mounds, the authors noted bimodal distributions in five attributes: neck width, thickness, weight, length, and maximum width. Based on the data distributions, Nassaney and Pyle proposed that arrow points could be differentiated from dart points as follows:
210
The Florida Anthropologist arrow: (length < 36 mm) and (neck width < 10.5 mm) and (thickness < 6 mm) and (weight < 3.0 g)
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Dart points are those measuring equal or greater than any one of these attribute values. As with Thomass equations, the inclusion of neck width makes it impossible to apply these criteria in their entirety to the Kolomoki assemblage. However, since this is not a statistical equation, we can here simply omit neck width to form a three-variable solution for the identification of arrow and dart points: arrow: (length < 36 mm) and (thickness < 6 mm) and (weight < 3.0 g) dart: (length < 36 mm) or (thickness < 6 mm) or (weight < 3.0 g) Our analysis of function has several limitations. First and foremost, we focus on the discrimination of darts and arrow points, but other functions are obviously possible. Some of the bifaces in the Kolomoki assemblage undoubtedly functioned as hafted knives, for example. It is also likely that points were used for a variety of purposes over the course of their uselives. Analysis of edge damage and fracture patterns could provide a useful complement to our consideration of form in the discrimination of hafted biface function but is beyond the cope of this paper. Moreover, our intention here is to suggest which points and point types could have functioned as arrows, based on attributes of form. Comparative Contextual Analysis The third and final basic question we address in this paper is the following: can we apply the typological and functional divisions to a comparison of sub-assemblages from two different contexts in order to identify social process? Each of these sub-assemblages represents the hafted bifaces associated with an archaeological household; one dating to the early or middle Late Woodland and the other to the late or terminal Late Woodland. The first subset is from Block A, a small block excavation north of Mound A (see Figure 1), as previously reported by Pluckhahn (2003). Including a nearby 1-x-2-m test unit (Unit 10), Block A included 29 m2, of which 19 m2 formed a single contiguous block (Pluckhahn 2003:148-165). Within the contiguous block we excavated a small pit structure measuring about 3 m square, with a projecting entrance ramp and a prepared central hearth. As argued elsewhere (Pluckhahn et al. 2006), the pit house appears to have filled relatively rapidly and deliberately after the house was abandoned. Five radiocarbon assays have been taken on materials from Block A (Pluckhahn 2011). Two of the dates appear to be in error, probably reflecting the introduction of more recent roots into the material that was dated. The three remaining dates from Block A, taken on a maize kernel and Carya nutshell, are more precise and cluster closely together in time, with 2 sigma calibrated ranges extending from A.D. 420 to 660. The calibrated dates overlap between A.D. 570 and 610. In the
discussion to follow, we adopt cal A.D. 550 to 650 as a slightly more conservative estimate for the occupation of the Block A archeological household and its hafted biface assemblage. This range of time is generally described as the early or middle Late Woodland period. The other subset of the overall assemblage comes from more recent excavations in an area referred to as Block D, about 150 m south of Mound A (Pluckhahn 2011) (see Figure 1). Including one previously excavated 2-x-2-m test unit (Unit 18), Block D encompasses 52 m2. Of this, 38 m2 were contiguous 1-x-1-m units that together form a block about 8 m long (north-south) and 6 m wide (east-west) (Pluckhahn 2011). The evidence for domestic architecture was less conclusive here than in Block A, but an arcing patterns of post features suggest the presence of an oval structure of single set posts measuring about 7.3 m long and 5.2 m wide. Four radiocarbon dates have been retrieved from Block D. The two sigma ranges for the three youngest dates overlap between A.D. 890 and 980. On the other hand, the ranges for the three oldest dates overlap in the interval from A.D. 780 to 880 and two of the datesfrom separate features in or near the presumed house have nearly identical two sigma ranges that overlap between A.D. 780 and 980. These older ranges are more consistent with the ceramic assemblage from Block D, which would seem to place the Block D occupation before around cal A.D. 750 to 800when check stamped pottery begins to dominate assemblages in the area (Mickwee 2009; Milanich 1974). We adopt an estimate of cal A.D. 750 to 850 for the occupation of the archaeological household in Block D. We refer to this as the late and terminal Late Woodland. Cluster and Typological Analysis The Kolomoki hafted biface assemblage includes 216 specimens that are sufficiently complete for typological classification, and that appear consistent with Woodland types and forms. Appendix A lists these hafted bifaces with their measurements and other descriptive data. As noted above, our broadest division of the Kolomoki Woodland hafted bifaces is into three general clusters (Figure 3). The proximally expanding cluster (N=127), which includes expanding and straight stemmed and notched bifaces, is most common, forming slightly less than 60 percent of the assemblage. Proximally contracting forms (N=82), which include contracting stemmed, lanceolate, spike, and ovate bifaces, make up about another one-third of the assemblage. Triangular points (N=7) are the least common, making up only about 3 percent of the collection. We discuss each of these clusters and the finer divisions into types in turn. Proximally Contracting Cluster The proximally contracting cluster is composed of points with clearly discernible hafting areas but which lack true necks in the sense of points of constriction in the haft area that are less than or equal to the width of the base. Table 1 provides summary data for the point types that fall within this cluster.
211
Figure 3. Diagram illustrating the three basic morphological clusters. Selected examples of these points are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. The proximally contracting cluster can be broadly divided first on basis of the width of the blade relative to the length of the hafting area (Figure 6). At one extreme are group of points with blade width to haft length ratios generally greater than 2; in other words the blades on these points are more than twice as wide as the length of haft. Put even more simply, these have short but wide hafting areas. We use the Ebenezer type discussed by Cambron and Hulse (1990:42) to describe five such points in the contracting stemmed cluster, following a suggestion from Schroder and Whatley (personal communication 2008). At the opposite extreme are points with blades that are narrow relative to length of the hafting area. We further subdivided these based on the ratio of blade width to base width. The first group, with a with long haft area and narrow base, is represented by two points we classify as the Little Bear Creek type as defined by DeJarnette and colleagues (1962) and summarized by Cambron and Hulse (1990:82). More common, with 26 specimens identified, is a variety of spike (arbitrarily assigned as Variety 1) with long haft but relative wide base. We have opted not to assign these to one of the many varieties of named spikes and lanceolates. They would probably correspond best with lanceolate types such as Benjamin (Cambron and Hulse 1990:11) and Flint River Spike (Cambron and Hulse 1990:53; DeJarnette et al. 1962). Our third division of the proximally contracting cluster,
falling between the two extremes, are a number of points with blades of intermediate width relative to haft length. We divided these into three categories on the basis of the ratio of blade width to base width. One point, exhibiting a wide blade relative to base, is a good match for the Florida Adena type, described by Bullen (1975:22). As is typical for this form, the biface is long, slender, and well-made. The other extreme, with blade and base width nearly equal, is represented by six points we have classified as Florida Copenas, again as described by Bullen (1975:23). We use this term specifically to refer to the variety of Florida Copenas with forms that could be best described as trianguloid, lanceolate, or perhaps pentagonal. In our classification scheme, the notched form of this type falls into a completely different cluster, since the base expands instead of contracts (see discussion below). Between the extremes of the Florida Adena and Florida Copena lie a variety of points with intermediate blade width to base width ratios. We are unable to reliably sort these types based on metrics of the hafting area. We do not suggest that the range of variation should be subsumed into a single type. There are, for example, relatively obvious differences in the shape of the blade and shoulders. However, we reiterate that such differences are more likely to include the effects of resharpening. Based on our focus on hafting areas, we would suggest that these four types bear additional scrutiny. Most common in this group are points corresponding to the New Market type (N=21), as described by Cambron and Hulse (1990:96). We classified six points in this group as examples of the Swannanoa type described by Keel (1987). Consistent with the type description, these have weak shoulders and excurvate blades. Two of the points of this type are manufactured from cherts from the Ridge and Valley province of Tennessee and northern Georgia and Alabama, where the type name is more frequently employed. Nine points in this group are tentatively identified as a second variety of spikes (Variety 2), separated on the basis of their short hafting areas and wide bases. Finally, six points in this group have ovate forms resembling Bullens (1975:10) Tampa type. Bullen describes this as a Mississippian type, but there is no reason to believe this is the case at Kolomoki; several examples have been recovered from features dated to the Late Woodland period. Proximally Straight and Expanding Cluster Our second and largest cluster is designated as straight, expanding, notched. Recall that this cluster is defined by points that evidence conspicuous hafting areas set off by shoulders, as well as some semblance of a true neck in the sense of a constriction narrower than or roughly equal to the base. Table 2 presents summary data for the points of this cluster and its 14 constituent types. Selected examples of points assigned to this cluster appear in Figures 7-9. We divide this cluster first on the basis of the ratio of neck width to base width (Figure 10). On this basis, we can differentiate three groups. One group, represented by a single type, consists of points (N=11) with neck width to base width ratios of 1.7 or more; thus defined, these points would
212
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 1. Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Proximally Contracting Cluster (N>1).
Type Ebenezer (N=5) Variable ML MW BLW BLL BW HL MT WT Florida Copena (Lanceolate Variety) (N=6) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL MT WT Little Bear Creek (N=2) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL MT WT New Market (N=21) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL MT WT Spike (Variety 1) (N=26) ML MW BLW Sample Size 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 25 25 25 Range 40.6-48.5 16.7-20.2 16.7-20.2 31.6-42.4 5.3-8.7 3.8-9.0 4.2-8.8 4.5-6.6 29.2-48.8 18.3-26.6 18.3-26.6 20.6-38.0 13.6-23.8 9.2-12.7 6.5-10.0 4.0-8.0 40.4-47.0 17.9-20.7 17.9-20.7 26.6-31.3 6.8-8.0 15.9-17.1 6.8-8.2 4.0-6.0 23.6-58.2 14.0-21.3 14.0-21.3 15.5-45.1 5.5-13.7 6.6-14.8 5.0-8.6 1.6-8.0 31.1-71.7 11.8-21.4 11.8-21.4 Mean 44.6 18.8 18.8 38.0 6.9 7.0 7.3 5.2 40.5 21.6 21.6 30.3 19.4 11.1 7.8 6.2 43.7 19.3 19.3 29.0 7.4 16.5 7.5 5.0 39.5 17.5 17.5 29.7 9.2 10.7 7.0 4.1 45.4 15.2 15.2 Standard Deviation 3.4 1.8 1.8 4.8 1.3 2.0 2.0 0.9 6.4 3.1 3.1 5.7 3.6 1.3 1.4 1.5 4.7 2.0 2.0 3.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 10.1 2.1 2.1 9.3 2.3 2.4 0.9 1.9 8.4 2.2 2.2

Type

Variable BLL BW HL MT WT Sample Size 25 25 25 25 25 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Range 19.9-54.1 4.7-15.8 9.1-23.5 4.8-9.6 2.0-9.0 38.4-64.0 14.2-18.5 14.2-18.5 30.3-54.3 7.4-14.6 8.2-10.8 6.5-9.4 3.0-9.0 22.5-42.7 13.5-23.8 13.3-23.8 11.8-32.9 6.9-9.4 8.8-12.3 4.1-6.6 2.0-6.0 30.5-51.0 14.6-26.6 14.6-26.6 21.8-35.4 5.4-21.2 4.6-15.5 4.4-8.6 2.0-12.0 Mean 32.7 9.2 14.0 7.3 4.5 47.5 16.0 16.0 39.1 9.8 9.6 7.9 5.0 31.3 17.1 17.1 22.6 8.1 10.2 5.3 3.0 35.0 18.7 18.7 26.1 13.0 9.4 7.1 4.2 Standard Deviation 6.7 2.7 3.5 1.3 1.9 8.4 1.3 1.3 8.0 2.3 1.1 1.0 1.8 7.3 4.2 4.2 7.7 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.6 8.0 4.6 4.6 4.8 6.0 3.6 1.6 3.9
213
Spike (Variety 2) (N=9)
ML MW BLW BLL BW HL MT WT
Swannanoa (N=6)
Tampa (N=6)
214
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 2. Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Proximally Straight and Expanding Cluster (N>1).
Type Bakers Creek (N=47) Variable ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT Bradford (N=10) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT Broward (N=16) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT Duval Type 2 (N=7) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH Sample Size 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Range 28.8-52.3 14.6-25.9 14.6-25.9 18.4-40.6 10.8-22.8 8.8-16.6 10.7-19.5 5.2-13.3 4.4-11.7 2.0-9.0 33.0-46.8 13.5-23.7 13.5-23.7 25.9-37.0 11.0-18.2 8.0-14.8 10.1-15.5 4.0-7.6 4.5-7.8 1.0-6.0 40.4-63.2 20.1-26.5 20.1-26.5 31.7-52.1 9.7-20.6 8.3-15.4 11.2-16.8 5.9-10.3 2.0-12.8 5.0-11.0 40.7-56.5 16.6-20.2 16.6-20.1 32.6-46.7 6.1-13.0 8.1-13.0 8.7-16.6 2.8-10.1 Mean 40.8 18.8 18.8 29.6 14.9 12.3 13.4 8.1 7.1 4.9 40.1 19.2 19.2 30.8 14.0 11.6 12.6 6.0 6.8 4.3 51.7 23.0 23.0 40.2 14.7 12.4 13.3 7.8 7.6 8.0 45.7 17.9 17.9 36.8 9.9 10.3 10.8 6.5 Standard Deviation 5.4 2.6 2.6 5.2 2.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.7 4.5 3.2 3.2 4.8 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.5 7.2 2.2 2.2 6.6 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.4 2.8 1.8 5.9 1.5 1.5 5.3 2.2 1.7 2.9 2.6

Type

Variable MT WT Sample Size 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Range 6.0-8.9 3.0-7.0 45.4-55.4 14.8-19.9 14.8-19.9 35.7-43.9 11.4-14.8 10.5-10.8 9.9-15.0 5.7-7.3 5.2-9.7 3.0-7.0 31.8-46.0 15.0-23.0 15.0-23.0 20.2-34.8 13.9-23.0 8.3-14.7 12.6-22.4 5.8-10.3 5.3-10.2 2.0-7.0 33.2-48.5 14.2-18.8 14.2-18.8 23.7-34.4 9.9-12.5 11.3-14.7 10.7-11.4 5.7-7.5 4.8-9.0 2.0-6.0 43.4-51.4 19.2-21.9 19.2-21.9 35.2-44.5 11.7-17.3 6.4-10.4 13.6-21.5 3.4-7.4 Mean 7.8 5.4 51.1 17.6 17.6 40.2 12.9 10.7 12.1 6.6 7.4 5.7 35.6 17.3 17.3 25.2 16.0 11.6 14.9 8.0 7.3 3.8 39.3 16.2 16.2 27.7 11.5 12.4 11.1 6.7 6.9 4.0 47.0 20.5 20.5 39.6 14.4 8.0 16.3 5.0 Standard Deviation 1.0 1.5 5.1 2.6 2.6 4.2 1.7 0.2 2.6 0.8 2.3 2.3 4.7 2.2 2.2 4.7 2.3 1.9 2.6 1.4 1.6 1.2 8.1 2.4 2.4 5.9 1.4 2.0 0.4 0.9 2.1 2.0 3.5 1.4 1.4 4.2 2.3 1.7 3.7 1.8
215
Duval Type 3 (N=4)
ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT
Florida Copena (Notched Variety) (N=14)
Mountain Fork (N=4)
Provisional Type 1 (N=4)
ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH
216
Type

Variable MT WT Swan Lake (N=5) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT Weeden Island Straight Stemmed (N=11) ML MW BLW BLL BW HL NW NH MT WT Sample Size 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Range 6.0-8.8 5.0-8.0 36.4-41.5 13.7-16.3 13.7-16.3 26.0-33.3 12.4-14.8 9.0-12.5 10.4-13.1 5.7-8.8 5.7-7.7 3.0-5.0 32.5-48.6 15.8-24.8 15.8-24.8 23.7-41.5 8.8-14.1 8.3-13.0 9.1-24.8 5.4-13.0 1.0-14.5 2.0-10.0 Mean 7.2 6.5 39.2 15.3 15.3 29.7 13.5 10.9 11.5 6.5 6.6 3.8 39.0 19.7 19.7 30.0 10.8 11.1 18.1 10.3 6.9 4.9
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Standard Deviation 1.2 1.3 2.3 1.1 1.1 2.8 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 5.3 3.0 3.0 5.6 1.5 1.6 5.2 2.8 3.4 2.4
217
Figure 4. Selected examples of the proximally contracting cluster. Top row: Ebenezer. Middle row, left two: Little Bear Creek. Middle row, center: Florida Adena. Middle row right: Florida Copena (Lanceolate variety). Bottom row: Spike (variety 1). Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A).
218
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 5. Selected examples of the proximally contracting cluster. Top row: New Market. Middle row, left three: Swannanoa. Middle row, right three: Tampa. Bottom row: Spike (Variety 2). Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A).
219
Figure 6. Diagram illustrating divisions of the proximally contracting cluster. technically have stems that are slightly contracting. However, visual inspection reveals that most are more or less straight or even expanding on one side, and slightly contracting on the other. Pluckhahn (2007) originally described these as an unnamed provisional type. However, Schroder and Whatley (personal communication, 2008) pointed out that these points match Bakers (1995) Weeden Island Straight Stemmed type. We have been reluctant to employ this type designation, in that it was defined on the basis of unspecified finds. However, we have been unable to find another corresponding published type, and thus have tentatively employed Bakers type name here. As an additionl caveat, we note that a few of the examples from Kolomoki may be reworked distal point fragments, and others may be re-sharpened. At opposite extreme within this cluster, we have a small number of points with neck width to base width ratios less than 0.85; these are side and corner notched. In the Kolomoki assemblage, these two types of notching can be reliably sorted on the basis of the ratio of blade width to haft length. For side notched types, this ratio is greater than 2.5. We see two types represented here, easily distinguished by the ratio of neck width to base width, although we have not attempted to quantify this because the sample size is so small. The Swan Lake type (Cambron and Hulse 1960, 1990:120) is the most numerous of the two side notched types, with five examples identified. In addition, two points exemplify Bullens (1975:13) Subtype 1 of the Duval type. The second subdivision, defined by blade width to haft length ratios less than 1.5, corresponds with corner notched points. Again, we see two types which could be differentiated on the basis of the ratios of blade width to neck or base width. But again, the sample size is far too small to justify this for the Kolomoki assemblage. Included here is one example of Bullens (1975:12) Leon type and one possible example of the Jacks Reef Corner Notched type as originally defined by Ritchie (1961:26-27) and subsequently described by Cambron and Hulse (1990:68). More problematic are the great number and variety of expanding stemmed points with neck width to base width ratios a little above, to a little below, one. In other words, these points are more or less straight stemmed. We can confidently sort a small group of these (N=4) into a distinct type based on their wide but short hafting areas. We cannot find a published name for these points, however, and thus refer to them here simply as Provisional Type 1. They bear some resemblance to the previously described Weeden Island Straight Stemmed type. However, these are differentiated by their minimal stems. We have been less successful justifying finer divisions in the rest of the expanding stemmed points. We sorted these into a number of distinct types based on size, blade, and base morphology. While these types may hold up well at the level of ideal individual specimens, however, they break down with the range of variation exhibited by larger samples, at least in regard to the metric dimensions of hafting areas. We suggest that some of these types may need to be collapsed, unless significant differences in other attributes---such as blade shape or length---can be demonstrated to be independent of resharpening. Included here, in order of decreasing frequency, are eight types: Bakers Creek (Cambron and Hulse 1990:8; DeJarnette et al. 1962) (N=47); Broward (Bullen 1975:15) (N=16); Florida Copena (Bullen 1975:23) (notched variety) (N=14); Bradford (Bullen 1975:14) (N=10); Duval Types 2 and 3 (Bullen 1975:13) (N=7 and N=4, respectively); Mountain Fork (Cambron and Hulse 1990:93) (N=4); and, finally, Columbia (Bullen 1975:19) (N=1).
220
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 7. Selected examples of the proximally straight and expanding cluster. Top row, left four: Weeden Island Straight Stemmed. Top row, right three: Swan Lake. Middle row, left two: Duval Type 1. Middle row, right center: Leon. Middle row, right: Jacks Reef. Bottom row: Provisional Type 1. Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A) Figure 7. Selected examples of the proximally straight and expanding cluster. Top row, left four: Weeden Island Straight Stemmed. Top row, right three: Swan Lake. Middle row, left two: Duval Type 1. Middle row, right center: Leon. Middle row, right: Jacks Reef. Bottom row: Provisional Type 1. Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A)
221
Figure 8. Selected examples of the proximally straight and expanding cluster. Top row: Bakers Creek. Middle row: Broward. Bottom row: Florida Copena (notched variety). Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A).
222
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 9. Selected examples of the proximally straight and expanding cluster. Top row: Bradford. Middle row, left three: Duval Type 2. Middle row, right three: Duval Type 3. Bottom row, left two: Mountain Fork. Bottom Broward. Bottom row: Florida Copena (notched variety). Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A).
223
Figure 10. Diagram illustrating divisions of the proximally straight and expanding cluster. (1975:11). The remaining triangulars (N=5) have base widths less than 17 mm. We have lumped these under the generic categories of Woodland/Mississippian triangular, although they could easily be classified to more specific type names such as Pinellas (Bullen 1975:8). All five of these have widths less than 18 mm, and thus would be classified as Mississippian triangulars under the rule of thumb devised by Sassaman and colleagues (1990:165) for the Savannah River Valley. Whatley (2002:64), however, puts the threshold between the Late Woodland and Mississippian varieties at 17-20 mm, and all fall within this range (one is smaller but falls in this range when breakage is
Triangular Cluster Our third and smallest cluster is composed of triangulars, defined here as points lacking necks and clearly defined hafting areas. Table 3 provides summary metric data for this cluster and the two types we identified within it. Points of this cluster are illustrated in Figure 11. We make one simple division of this cluster based on an absolute measure of base width (Figure 12). First, two triangular points have base widths greater than 28 mm. These correspond most closely with the OLeno described by Bullen
Figure 11. Hafted bifaces of the triangular cluster. Top row: OLeno. Bottom row: Woodland/Mississippian triangulars. Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identified by number (see Appendix A)
224
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 12. Diagram illustrating divisions of the triangular cluster.
225
Figure 13. Comparison of the relative frequencies of point clusters in the assemblages from Blocks A and D. accounted for). In support of this assignment, three of the five points were found in pits dated to the Late Woodland period. Notably, two of the four points are manufactured from Ridge and Valley chert, suggesting these might have been introduced from the north. Functional Analysis Recall that the second basic question we ask in this paper regards the differentiation of hafted bifaces by function. The three criteria described above for the identification of dart and arrow points were applied to a limited sample of 189 points in the Kolomoki assemblage for which the necessary metric attributes were not only reasonably completeallowing for slight (<2 mm) apparent breakagebut also adequately recorded. The results are presented in Table 4 Table 5 compares our functional classifications against those of other researchers. Shotts one- and two-variable solution produced similar results, classifying a relatively large fraction (61.9 and 63.0 percent, respectively) of the points in assemblage as arrows. Comparing the results by clusters, a slightly higher percentage of proximally contracting bifaces are classified as arrows (75.3 percent) than are triangular bifaces (71.4 percent). The relative frequencies of proximally expanding bifaces classified as arrows under Shotts one and two variable solutions are lower (61.9 and 63.0 percent, respectively). Only five types are consistently (100 percent) classified as arrows under Shotts one and two variable solutions. These include Variety 2 of the Spike type, Jacks Reef, Mountain Fork, Swan Lake, and Woodland/Mississippian triangulars. It should be noted, however, that sample sizes are small for each of these types, particularly for the Jacks Reef (N=1) and Mountain Fork (N=3) types. Two additional types are slightly less consistently (>75 percent) classified as arrows. These include the New Market type and the notched variety of the Florida Copena type. The three-variable modification of Nassaney and Pyles criteria produces very different results. Specifically, this method of differentiating function proves far more conservative in the classification of arrows; only 4.8 percent of the points in the assemblage are so classified. Points of the triangular cluster are classified as arrows with much greater regularity (71.4 percent) than those of the proximally contracting (6.5 percent) or proximally expanding (2.6 percent) clusters. Using the modified Nassaney and Pyle criteria, the only type that is consistently (100 percent of specimens) classified as arrowheads are the Late Woodland and Mississippian Triangulars. A limited percentage of a few other types are also classified as arrows. These types include, in order of descending frequency of arrow points: Swannanoa and Mountain Fork (each with 33.3 percent), Tampa (16.7 percent), Bradford (12.5 percent), Weeden Island Straight Stemmed (10.0 percent), New Market (5.9 percent), and Spike (Variety 2) (4.0 percent). While the Shott and Nassaney and Pyle classification criteria produce divergent results, some general patterns are apparent. Only points of the triangular cluster are regularly classified as arrows under all three methods. However, there is obvious diversity in functional classification within each cluster, particularly under the Shott methods. This could be taken as evidence that the cluster approach (or at least our approach to clusters in this assemblage) subsumes too much functional variability. However, less variability is apparent within clusters using the Nassaney and Pyle criteria, and for this reason we see this as the preferred method for functional classification of the Kolomoki assemblage. Moreover, if we divide our triangular cluster into large and small triangular clusters (using the clear breaks in ML and BLW described above), the results would be quite consistent within clusters using the Nassaney and Pyle method: small triangular (100.0 percent arrows), proximally contracting (6.5 percent arrows), proximally expanding (2.6 percent arrows), and large triangulars (no arrows). Woodland/Mississippian Triangulars are the only points unfailingly classified as arrows under all three methods. This consistency suggests that these bifaces were manufactured specifically to function as arrow points, as others have suggested (see Table 5). A reduced percentage of points of
226
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 4. Summary Data for Functional Classification of Hafted Bifaces (based on restricted sample of complete points).
Type/Cluster N Shotts 1-variable discriminant equation dart % Ebenezer Florida Copena Florida Adena Little Bear Creek New Market Spike (Variety 1) Spike (Variety 2) Swannanoa Tampa Total Proximally Contracting Cluster Bakers Creek Bradford Broward Columbia Duval Type 1 Duval Type 2 Duval Type 3 Florida Copena (notched) Jacks Reef Leon Mountain Fork Provisional Type 1 Swan Lake Weeden Island Straight Stem Total Proximally Expanding Cluster Woodland/Mississippian Triangular OLeno Total Triangular Cluster TOTAL 5 6 1 2 17 25 9 6 6 77 38 8 11 1 1 6 3 13 1 1 3 4 5 10 105 5 2 7 189 60.0 66.7 100.0 50.0 23.5 8.0 0 33.3 33.3 24.7 44.7 62.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7 66.7 15.4 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 40.0 48.6 0 100.0 28.6 38.1 arrow % 40.0 33.3 50.0 76.5 92.0 100.0 66.7 66.7 75.3 55.3 37.5 0 0 0 33.3 33.3 84.6 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 60.0 51.4 100.0 0 71.4 61.9 Shotts 2-variable discriminant equation dart % 60.0 66.7 100.0 50.0 23.5 8.0 0 33.3 33.3 24.7 44.7 62.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7 66.7 15.4 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 40.0 46.7 0 100.0 28.6 37.0 arrow % 40.0 33.3 50.0 76.5 92.0 100.0 66.7 66.7 75.3 55.3 37.5 0 0 0 33.3 33.3 84.6 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 60.0 53.3 100.0 0 71.4 63.0 Nassaney and Pyles 3variable classification dart % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.1 96.0 100.0 66.7 83.3 93.5 100.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 100.0 90.0 97.4 0 100.0 28.6 95.2 arrow % 0 0 0 0 5.9 4.0 0 33.3 16.7 6.5 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.3 0 0 10.0 2.6 100.0 0 71.4 4.8
227
Table 5. Comparison of This and Previous Functional Classifications of Woodland Hafted Biface Types.
Type Bakers Creek Bradford Broward Columbia Duval Ebenezer Florida Adena Florida Copena Jacks Reef Woodland Triangular Leon Little Bear Creek Mississippian Triangular Mountain Fork New Market OLeno Swan Lake Swannanoa Tampa Weeden Island Straight Stemmed Woodland Spike arrow (Bradley Spike) (Baker 1995:439) arrow (Baker 1995:446) dart (Baker 1995:274) arrow (Sassaman et al. 1990:167) arrow (Baker 1995:442) arrow (Baker 1995:443) arrow (Baker 1995:452) arrow (Sassaman et al. 1990:167) Previous Functional Classifications dart (Baker 1995:393) Functional Classification Proposed Here (Using modified Nassaney and Pyle method) dart mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows dart dart dart dart dart dart dart? arrow dart dart arrow mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows dart dart mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows Variety 1: mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows Variety 2: darts
seven other types also match all three criteria for classification as arrows; these types include New Market, Spike (Variety 1), Swannanoa, Tampa, Bradford, Mountain Fork, and Weeden Island Straight Stemmed. While points of these types could have functioned as arrow points (at least according to the criteria employed here), the fact that they were often classified as darts suggests that they were not specifically manufactured as arrows. Another possibility is that these, as well as other points classified as darts, served as knives or similar cutting tools. It is perhaps worth noting that the single specimen of the Jacks Reef narrowly misses classification as an arrow under the Nassaney and Pyle criteria due to the fact that it is about 2 mm longer than the threshold of 36.0 mm for maximum length. Seeman (1992) has argued that this point type was used as an arrow. He has further suggested that the type was
introduced to the Midwest from the Northeast during the Late Woodland. While it would obviously be premature to make this case for Kolomoki, the possible Jacks Reef point from Block D is manufactured from what appears to be an exotic chert and is very much unlike most of the other points in the Kolomoki assemblage. Comparative Contextual Analysis In our final analysis, we compare the sub-assemblages from two distinct contexts at Kolomoki: Blocks A and D. This analysis has two distinct but related goals. As noted above, Blocks A and D represent the remains of temporally and spatially distinct archaeological households. Block A, located to the north of Mound A, dates to around cal A.D. 550 to 650, or the early and middle Late Woodland period. Block D,
228
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 7. Comparison of the Relative Frequencies of Point Types in the Assemblages from Blocks A and D.
Type Bakers Creek Broward Duval Type 1 Duval Type 2 Duval Type 3 Ebenezer Florida Copena Florida Copena (notched variety) Jacks Reef Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular New Market Provisional Type 1 Spike (variety 1) Spike (variety 2) Swan Lake Swannanoa Tampa Weeden Island Straight Stemmed Block A (N=31) 25.8 12.9 3.2 6.5 3.2 3.2 6.5 9.7 0 0 3.2 3.2 9.7 0 3.2 3.2 0 6.5 Block D (N=38) 13.2 2.6 0 7.9 2.6 10.5 0 0 2.6 13.2 15.8 0 5.2 7.9 7.9 5.2 2.6 2.6
229
located to the south of Mound A, dates to approximately cal A.D. 750 to 850, or the late or terminal Late Woodland. Thus, the two excavation blocks span the Late Woodland period, an interval marked by significant changes in settlement and social organization. In archaeological terms, these changed are marked by a general decline in mound construction, a diminishment in long-distance exchange, and a more dispersed or balkanized settlement system (McElrath et al. 2000). Previous research suggests that many of these same changes took place at Kolomoki (Pluckhahn 2003). Carbon dates indicate that mound construction continued into the early Late Woodland period, coeval with the Block A occupation. Exotic goods such as copper and shell are relatively common in mound contexts from this time period. Swift Creek ceramicspresumably mainly of local manufacture dominate the domestic ceramic assemblages from this era, but continued exchange of exotics is evident in the presence of mica debris and finished ornaments of exotic stone in the Block A assemblage. Although additional dating of earthworks is needed, there are presently no indications of mound construction during the late and terminal Late Woodland, when Block D was occupied (Pluckhahn 2003). The occupation of the site may have become less permanent, as evidenced in Block D by more ephemeral house construction and greater seasonality in botanical remains (Pluckhahn 2011). Domestic ceramic assemblages become more diverseincluding, for the first time, significant proportions of Weeden Island types (Pluckhahn 2010, 2011). However, the Block D assemblage contains few or no exotic artifacts, consistent with the notion that long-distance exchange declined during the late Late Woodland. Thus, the assemblages from Blocks A and D would appear to straddle an interval marked by significant social change. Are these social changes also manifested in hafted biface form and function? Could changes in biface form and function perhaps most obviously changes associated with a switch from dart to arrow technologyhave played a role in the wider social changes evident at Kolomoki? Building a general chronology of Woodland hafted bifaces is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, because the Block A and D assemblages are relatively large and well-dated, it bears mentioning some implications of these collections for hafted biface chronology more generally (Table 7). Specifically, point types that are present elsewhere at Kolomoki but not in the assemblages from these blocks can be assumed to have been used primarily before approximately cal A.D. 550, when Block A was occupied. Those that are found in Block A but are comparatively rare or absent from Block D can be assumed to have been used primarily or exclusively before cal A.D. 650. Conversely, those types that appear in the Block D assemblage but not in Block A or elsewhere at Kolomoki can be assumed to have been used primarily or exclusively after cal A.D. 750. Comparison of the assemblages from Blocks A and D (Table 8) provides finer temporal resolution and permits greater inference regarding function. As noted in the introduction to our paper for Woodland hafted biface assemblages in
general, the diversity of points and related the low counts and relative frequencies for many types makes systematic statistical comparison difficult. Still, some trends are obvious. The frequency of the Woodland/Mississippian Triangular type increases dramatically, from zero in Block A to over 10 percent in Block D, strongly suggesting the introduction of this type in the late Late Woodland. There are also relatively steep increases in the relative frequencies of Ebenezer, New Market, and Spike (Variety 2), and Swan Lake types, suggesting points of these types were more frequently manufactured and used during the late Late Woodland at Kolomoki. Conversely, Block D witnessed dramatic declines in the relative frequencies of the Bakers Creek, Broward, and Florida Copena types. Points of these types would thus seem to date primarily to the Middle and early Late Woodland periods. Identifying variation in hafted biface function through an analysis of the types represented in Blocks A and D is somewhat difficult. Again, one change is clear; as noted above, Late Woodland/Mississippian triangulars are the only type that consistently meets all three crtiteria for classification as arrow points, and this type is only represented in Block D. This suggests the introduction of a new, or at least improved, bow and arrow technology during the late or terminal Late Woodland. As noted above, however, several other types also meet the criteria for arrows, albeit with less consistency. With these, the patterns are less clear. A few of these types New Market, Swannanoa, and Tampaincrease in relative frequency through time from Block A to Block D. However, several other types that meet the classification as arrows in at least some cases (Spike (Variety 1), Bradford, Mountain Fork, and Weeden Island Straight Stemmed) show no such increase, or are not represented at all in the Block D assemblage. The contrasts between the two assemblages are more apparent in a comparison of clusters. Here, based on the analyses presented above, we use a combined morphological and functional approach that recognizes four clusters: small triangular (arrows), proximally contracting (mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows), proximally expanding (mostly darts, rarely used as arrows), and large triangulars (darts). Figure 13 compares the relative frequencies of these four clusters in Blocks A and D. Points of the small triangular cluster increase from zero in Block A to 13 percent in Block D, again consistent with the notion of a significant change in hunting technology involving more efficient arrows. Points of the proximally contracting cluster, which our analysis suggest may also have been used as arrows in some cases, increase markedly in relative frequency. On the other hand, there is a pronounced decline in the relative frequency of points of the proximally expanding cluster, which seem to have rarely been used as arrows. Large triangulars, which our analysis suggests functioned only as darts, are unrepresented in either assemblage. It is clear from the comparison of both types and clusters that there were significant changes in hafted biface technology in the transition between the early/middle Late Woodland occupation of Block A and the late/terminal Late Woodland habitation of Block D. Specifically, the comparison
230
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
suggests that the Block D occupation was coincident with the introduction of new, or at least much improved, arrow technology at Kolomoki. This new or improved technology was not adopted until around A.D. 750 at Kolomoki and at least judging from the low relative frequency of small triangular pointsfor the next 50-100 years remained a relatively minor addition to the long-established tradition of spear-thrown darts and generalized cutting tools. Judging from work elsewhere in the region, households at Kolomoki appear to have been relatively slow and reluctant in adopting improved bow and arrow technology. Milanich and colleagues (1997:188) argue that arrow points (resembling those in Block D) were present at McKeithen by A.D. 500several centuries earlier than the Block D occupation. The identification of a triangular arrow point in the bone of a woman buried on top of one of the mounds at McKeithen provides evidence that these arrow points were not used solely for hunting game. Various authors have discussed the advantages of the bow and arrow for hunting. Relative to the spearthrower, the bow and arrow is generally credited with improved hunting efficiency owing to its greater range, velocity, and accuracy (Blitz 1993; Muller 1997:129; Seeman 1992:42; but see Shott 1993). Given the apparent superiority of the bow and arrow, why were households at Kolomoki slow to adopt the new technology? Seeman (1992:42) notes that there are costs associated with bow and arrows relative to spearthrowers; they have more component parts, require a wider range of materials to manufacture, require more skill to produce, and have higher maintenance costs (due primarily to the higher rate of arrow loss). None of these costs precluded the rapid adoption of the bow and arrow in most areas of eastern North America by around A.D. 700, however (Blitz 1988; McElrath et al. 2000:5; Nassaney and Pyle 1999; Shott 1993). Rarely considered in previous discussions of the adoption of the bow and arrow are the potential social costs of this new technology for communally-organized societies. For the Great Basin, Bettinger (1999) has argued that the introduction of the bow and arrow around 1500 BP had dramatic and far-reaching effects on the organization of production. Specifically, he argues that the greater accuracy of the bow and the ability it conferred to hunters to stay more still during release facilitated individual hunting and negated the advantages of hunting in cooperative groups. Bettinger further proposes that while larger game may still have been shared, the higher returns on individual hunting would have reduced the social pressures to share less valued resources, including plants. Hence, the social relations of production were transformed from a system in which all resources were treated as public goods, to one in which some resources, notably plant resources...were regarded as private property (Bettinger 1999:73). There is evidence for such a transformation from public to private goods during the Late Woodland period at Kolomoki, around the time small triangular arrow points appear in the archaeological record. The faunal assemblage from the early Late Woodland archaeological household in Block A displays high minimum number of individuals (MNI) for white-
tailed deerparticularly the meaty cuts. Because most of the assemblage was recovered from the fill of the house pit, which appeared to have been deposited rapidly, Pluckhahn et al. 2006) suggest that the assemblage represents one or two episodes of communal hunting and small-scale feasting. Also in keeping with the notion that production and consumption were publicly organized, this household included very few storage pits, all of which were small and located external to the structure. The MNI for white-tailed deer is similarly high for the late/terminal Late Woodland household in Block D, but here the faunal remains are dispersed across a number of features and a longer time interval, consistent with more individual hunting (Pluckhahn 2011). At the same time, there appears to have been a dramatic increase in storage; pits in Block D are more numerous, much larger on average, and located both within and outside the structure. We suggest that the social costs associated with the adoption of the bow and arrow may have discouraged the adoption of this technology at Kolomoki while supra-household institutions were still strong, in the Middle and early Late Woodland periods. However, as community-level structures waned and households began to assert greater autonomy over production and consumption during the late/terminal Late Woodland, the bow would have been an attractive option for households faced with provisioning themselves in the absence of supra-household task groups. It is worth emphasizing here that we are reversing the order of causality in the relationship between the bow and arrow and household autonomy as discussed by most previous authors (e.g., Muller 1997:127). Given that arrows form a decided minority of the points in Block D, even while there is evidence for increased household autonomy in other aspects of material culture (from storage to ceramics) (Pluckhahn 2011), it would appear to us that households chose to adopt the new technology only after they had achieved greater independence from the supra-household institutions that bound them together in the Middle and early Late Woodland periods. Conclusion Nassaney and Pyle (1999:244) have argued that ...there is significant historical variation in the timing, rate, and direction of the transmission of the bow and arrow in eastern North America. To address the meaning of this variation, they call for additional quantitative studies set within comparative and historical contexts (Nassaney and Pyle 1999:260). To date, however, such studies have been slow in coming, at least for the Woodland societies of the Gulf Coast. There are probably many reasons for this. First, there appear to be relatively few large and well-provenienced Woodland period hafted biface assemblages from the region, or at least few that are well-reported. In addition, hafted bifacesand flaked stone assemblages in generalhave been overshadowed by ceramics in the excavation reports of some of the most prominent Woodland sites in the region (e.g., Milanich et al. 1997; Sears 1956). As we suggest in this paper,
231
another impeding factor may be the diversity of hafted biface typologies, which makes comparative analyses difficult. The Kolomoki assemblage represents one of the largest collections of Middle and Late Woodland hafted bifaces from a single site in the Southeast. We hope our classification system--while far from perfect---may serve as a guide to bring some consistency to hafted biface nomenclature for Kolomoki and the surrounding area. We need more contextual comparative studies from the Gulf Coast to identify the timing, tempo, and context of changes in Woodland hafted biface technology, particularly the important transition to arrow points. Acknowledgments The hafted bifaces described in this paper are curated at the University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology in Athens. This paper benefitted from the comments and suggestions of John Whatley, Lloyd Schroeder, and two anonymous reviewers. References Cited Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bacon, W.S. 1977 Projectile Point Typology: The Basic Base. Archaeology of Eastern North America 5:107-121. Baker, Winston H. 1995 A Hypothetical Classification of Some of the Flaked Stone Projectiles, Tools and Ceremonials from the Southeastern United States. Williams Printing, Quincy, Massachusetts. Bettinger, Robert L. 1999 What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millennium, edited by C. Beck, pp. 62-74. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Binford, Lewis R. 1963 A Proposed Attribute List for the Description and Classification of Projectile Points. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, edited by Anta M. White, Lewis R. Binford, and Mark L. Papworth, pp. 193-221. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 19., Ann Arbor. Blitz, John H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9:123-145. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile
Points. Revised edition. Kendall Books, Gainesville, Florida. Cambron, J.W., and D.C. Hulse 1990 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I Point Types. Alabama Archaeological Society, Huntsville. 1960 The Transitional Paleo-Indian. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 6(1). Cobb, Charles R., and Michael S. Nassaney 1995 Interaction and Integration in the Late Woodland Southeast. In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by M.S. Nassaney and K. Sassaman, pp. 205-226. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. DeJarnette, David L., Edward B. Kurjack, and James W. Cambron 1962 Excavations at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 8(1-2):1-124. DeJarnette, David L., Edward B. Kurjack, and Bennie C. Keel 1973 Archaeological Investigations of the Weiss Reservoir of the Coosa River in Alabama, Part II. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 19(2):102-201. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1946 The Kolomoki Mound Group, Early County, Georgia. American Antiquity 11(4):258-260. Farr, Grayal Earle 2006 A Reevaluation of Bullens Typology for Preceramic Projectile Points. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Hall, Robert 1980 An Interpretation of the Two-Climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. In Early Native Americans: Prehistoric Demography, Economy, and Technology, edited by David Broman, pp. 401-462. Mouton, The Hague. Keel, Bennie C. 1987 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Kneberg, Madeline 1957 Chipped Stone Artifacts of the Tennessee Valley Area. Tennessee Anthropologist 13(1):55-66. McElrath, Dale L., Thomas E. Emerson, and Andrew C. Fortier 2000 Social Evolution or Social Response? A Fresh Look at the Good Gray Cultures After Four Decades of Midwest Research. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T.E. Emerson, D.L.
232
The Florida Anthropologist McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 3-36. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 2010
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Mickwee, Christopher L. 2009 Wakulla in the Sandhills: Analysis of a Late Weeden Island Occupation in the Northwest Florida Interior Uplands. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Pensacola. Milanich, Jerald T. 1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, a Weeden Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:1-44. Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle 1997 Archaeology of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, New York. Originally published 1984. Muller, Jon 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Nassaney, Michael S. 2000 The Late Woodland Southeast. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 713-30. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Nassaney, Michael S., and Kendra Pyle 1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64(2):243-263. OBrien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman 1999 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dating. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. (editor) 2011 The Household and the Making of Prehistory: Household Change in the Late Woodland Period at Kolomoki (9ER1). Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Submitted to Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, A.D. 350-750. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2007 Getting to the Point (Finally): Analysis of PPKs from Kolomoki (9ER1). Paper presented at the 2007 Symposium on Southeastern Coastal Plain Archaeology, Douglas, Georgia.
Gulfization Revisitied: Household Change in the Late Woodland Period at Kolomoki (9ER1). Early Georgia 38(2):207-220.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J., J. Matthew Compton and Mary Theresa Bonhage-Freund 2006 Evidence of Small-Scale Feasting from the Woodland Period Site of Kolomoki, Georgia. Journal of Field Archaeology 31(3):263-284. Richie, William A. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Bulletin No. 384, New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson 1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Bamwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Sears, William H. 1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final Report. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Seeman, Mark F. 1992 The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jacks Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 41-51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Shott, Michael J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58(3):425-443.1997Stones and Shaft Redux: The Metric Discrimination of ChippedStone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62(1):86-101. Schroder, Lloyd E. 2006 The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades (Revised). Cafe Press, San Mateo, California Ste. Clair, Dana 1996 A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points. The Florida Anthropologist 49(4):189-200.
233
Thomas, David Hurst 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43(3):461-472. Whatley, John S. 2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia 30(1).
234
Appendix. Measurements and Other Descriptive Data for Hafted Bifaces Included in the Typological and Cluster Analyses.
Provenience contracting stemmed cluster XUA25 L1 XUD10N L2 F141A F141C F141A misc materials misc materials misc materials XUA21 L1 F57A U2 SQ3 L3 U2 SQ90R100 L2 U2 SQ90R100 L1 unknown MDH ST E1640 N1420 U4 S24 U4 S4 misc materials XUA21 L1 unknown TU18 L1 TU18 L2 MDB SQ60L20 L1 U2 SQ320R100 L1 unknown unknown unknown U4 S22 L1 U2 SQ90R100 grab collection XUD13W L2 F185 XUD10S L2 Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Blanton Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears 52.6 16.9 43.1 16.9 8.5 11.9 Pluckhahn 36.6 18.6 25.9 18.6 8.5 11.6 Sears 32.9 17.5 23.8 17.5 11.4 11.8 Sears 49.3 22.3 38.3 22.3 9.8 11.4 Sears 34.1 18.5 22.7 18.5 11.3 11.3 8.0 6.3 7.9 6.0 7.0 6.3 10.0 5.0 7.3 5.9 8.6 7.8 12.4 38.9 17.3 29.2 17.3 7.7 50.6 16.6 40.9 16.6 6.0 58.2 21.3 45.1 21.3 7.8 23.6 14.0 15.5 14.0 7.9 37.0 17.7 29.6 17.7 7.5 34.1 17.8 25.0 17.8 7.4 9.6 10.7 14.6 7.6 9.2 9.1 7.2 6.6 7.5 7.8 6.0 7.0 6.9 Pluckhahn 37.1 20.4 22.7 20.4 10.1 14.0 7.8 5.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1.6 3.1 3.5 Sears 38.8 21.7 27.9 21.7 11.2 11.1 7.9 6.0 Sears 40.4 17.9 26.6 17.9 8.0 15.9 8.2 4.0 Sears 47.0 20.7 31.3 20.7 6.8 17.1 6.8 6.0 CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert MV? CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert Sears 40.0 22.8 30.7 22.8 20.5 11.3 7.7 7.0 CP chert Sears 29.2 18.3 20.6 18.3 16.9 10.5 6.8 4.0 CP chert brown brown white red red-brown brown red-brown Pluckhahn 48.8 26.6 38.0 26.6 23.8 12.7 6.5 7.0 CP chert Pluckhahn 41.9 22.0 31.7 22.0 20.0 12.3 10.0 8.0 CP chert yellow-red Sears 42.5 18.3 28.7 18.3 13.6 10.6 7.0 5.0 CP chert brown opaque opaque slight distal break slight distal break translucent semi-translucent opaque opaque opaque semi-translucent CP chert? yellow-brown opaque translucent yellow-brown translucent brown opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow grey brown white brown brown yellow-red yellow-red semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque translucent semi-translucent semi-translucent opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent translucent opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent red-brown opaque slight distal break slight distal break major distal break slight distal break slight distal break/rework major distal break major distal break major distal break Sears 40.7 21.3 31.9 21.3 21.3 9.2 8.8 6.0 CP chert Sears 73.9 30.7 57.0 30.7 13.5 18.0 8.3 17.0 CP chert white opaque Pluckhahn 48.5 16.7 42.4 16.7 6.2 6.7 6.6 4.5 CP chert yellow-brown opaque Pluckhahn 40.6 19.8 31.6 19.8 7.3 9.0 8.7 4.5 CP chert? grey opaque Pluckhahn 47.7 17.0 40.5 17.0 7.0 7.2 8.3 5.5 CP chert yellow-brown opaque Pluckhahn 42.3 20.2 34.0 20.2 5.3 8.3 8.8 6.6 CP chert yellow-brown opaque Pluckhahn 43.9 20.2 41.3 20.2 8.7 3.8 4.2 5.0 CP chert yellow-red opaque slight breaks both ends slight distal break Investigator ML MW BLL BLW BW HL NW NH MT WT Material Color Diapheneity Comments
Type
234 Ebenezer
255 Ebenezer
256 Ebenezer
257 Ebenezer
274 Ebenezer
209 Florida Aden
61 Florida Copena (lanceolate)
yellow-brown semi-translucent
yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown opaque
44 Little Bear
45 Little Bear
39 New Market
40 New Market
41 New Market
42 New Market
48 New Market
53 New Market
75 New Market
130 New Market
33.9 16.0 25.2 16.0 11.3 11.4 33.2 14.6 23.3 14.6 9.3 41.2 16.3 33.2 16.3 10.0 7.9 43.2 17.9 36.9 17.9 13.7 6.6 57.4 20.3 43.6 20.3 12.0 14.8 35.7 19.4 25.4 19.4 12.0 11.5 27.4 15.7 16.0 15.7 9.0
131 New Market
132 New Market
133 New Market
135 New Market
136 New Market
138 New Market
139 New Market
140 New Market
141 New Market
248 New Market
250 New Market
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
252 New Market
# Pluckhahn Sears Sears Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn 41.0 16.9 30.0 16.9 4.7 42.0 15.5 28.7 14.9 5.3 39.1 13.6 33.4 13.6 5.5 52.5 15.2 45.4 15.2 7.6 32.8 14.4 19.9 14.4 12.5 11.0 52.0 20.1 34.1 20.1 12.9 16.2 12.7 13.3 9.1 9.0 33.0 13.0 22.8 13.0 7.6 10.7 71.7 21.4 54.1 21.4 15.8 23.5 47.6 15.0 33.6 15.0 8.9 20.8 31.1 12.5 21.1 12.5 8.7 10.9 7.6 8.3 7.4 5.6 6.0 9.2 6.6 8.8 9.2 6.2 8.2 7.7 64.0 18.5 54.3 18.5 11.3 10.7 40.5 16.6 30.7 16.6 9.9 38.4 14.9 30.3 14.9 9.8 10.8 8.7 39.5 14.2 31.0 14.2 11.0 8.2 48.6 16.3 42.4 16.3 7.4 42.1 15.7 36.0 15.7 7.9 48.0 15.7 39.7 15.7 8.7 10.4 9.8 8.3 8.9 6.7 7.1 6.5 9.4 8.5 8.2 50.0 18.4 37.0 18.4 9.1 13.0 7.3 6.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 5.0 5.5 3.3 5.0 6.0 9.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 44.9 16.7 32.5 16.7 10.8 14.1 7.6 4.0 41.8 14.0 28.2 14.0 7.6 13.8 7.8 4.0 42.3 11.8 33.1 11.8 7.2 12.3 7.3 3.0 MV? CP chert CP chert CP chert 46.8 13.3 37.1 13.3 8.6 12.2 7.1 3.0 CP chert grey 32.0 12.8 19.9 12.8 10.0 11.8 5.8 3.0 42.4 13.0 35.8 13.0 6.4 11.4 4.8 2.0 CP chert brown 46.9 14.6 34.9 14.6 9.5 12.3 6.4 3.0 CP chert 48.9 16.5 32.7 16.5 10.4 15.8 9.6 6.0 CP chert yellow opaque 49.5 15.1 35.6 15.1 10.7 13.9 6.1 4.0 CP chert brown 47.3 14.8 31.8 14.8 7.5 17.0 7.2 6.0 CP chert red semi-translucent semi-translucent 51.5 14.5 30.3 14.5 7.5 20.4 9.0 5.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque slight distal break 54.6 15.3 38.5 15.3 8.6 15.9 8.5 7.0 CP chert yellow-brown semi-translucent 45.4 14.8 35.1 14.8 9.8 11.3 6.5 3.0 CP chert yellow-red opaque 48.6 14.1 35.8 14.1 12.7 12.6 7.2 5.0 CP chert red-brown semi-translucent 34.8 14.6 25.3 14.6 9.7 10.3 5.9 3.0 T white Quartzite semi-translucent 25.0 14.6 16.3 14.3 5.5 8.7 7.0 2.0 CP chert yellow opaque slight distal break-rework
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
253 New Market
F141A
47 Spike 1
unknown
65 Spike 1
Mound H
66 Spike 1
TU10 L3
67 Spike 1
U4 S15 L1
68 Spike 1
U14 S19 L1
70 Spike 1
U2 SQ3 L2
72 Spike 1
unknown
73 Spike 1
unknown
74 Spike 1
unknown
yellow-brown semi-translucent opaque opaque opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent brown semi-translucent slight distal break major distal break
76 Spike 1
unknown
77 Spike 1
U1 SQ2R1-1R1-0C1-2R2
RV chert black-grey red-brown
79 Spike 1
U4 S4
80 Spike 1
unknown
81 Spike 1
XUA21 L2
187 Spike 1
U4 S17
189 Spike 1
F13
191 Spike 1
TU16 L1
RV chert black-grey CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert
opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown opaque white white white yellow yellow-red RV chert black-grey yellow brown semi-translucent opaque opaque opaque opaque opaque semi-translucent semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque white yellow brown white white yellow opaque yellow-brown opaque opaque opaque semi-translucent opaque opaque slight break at stem slight break at stem slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break
192 Spike 1
U4 S15 L1
193 Spike 1
U4 S4
194 Spike 1
SQ290R100 L1
195 Spike 1
unknown
197 Spike 1
unknown
198 Spike 1
unknown
201 Spike 1
XUA20 L1
49.4 16.4 34.9 16.4 12.0 16.1
249 Spike 1
XUD3S L2
259 Spike 1
F155
69 Spike 2
U2 SQ220R165 L1
71 Spike 2
unknown
53.5 17.0 42.2 17.0 14.6 10.7
78 Spike 2
MDF TR2 L2
196 Spike 2
unknown
199 Spike 2
misc materials
200 Spike 2
unknown
260 Spike 2
XUD7W L3
266 Spike 2
F165
280 Spike 2
F194
235
# Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn straight-expanding stemmed cluster Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn 41.1 22.2 29.2 22.2 14.2 13.3 12.8 8.7 40.1 18.6 28.0 18.6 14.8 13.4 13.4 8.0 42.3 16.5 33.1 16.5 14.1 10.2 13.3 6.4 36.8 18.2 27.0 18.2 13.5 10.4 12.0 5.9 40.8 18.5 28.7 18.5 15.4 11.8 14.6 7.3 37.6 22.6 28.4 22.6 17.5 12.7 15.6 9.2 36.4 15.6 26.1 15.6 11.7 11.6 11.1 7.4 40.4 16.6 28.9 16.6 12.0 12.5 11.4 5.2 38.6 18.0 29.0 18.0 12.7 12.2 11.9 6.6 6.4 7.2 8.3 8.3 6.4 7.0 6.6 6.6 6.6 48.4 20.1 33.9 20.1 15.1 14.3 14.9 11.2 6.8 7.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 7.8 NR 34.4 15.3 23.3 15.3 11.6 11.0 11.2 6.8 7.2 43.5 25.0 31.0 25.0 16.7 14.2 16.8 11.0 7.1 39.0 14.9 27.3 14.9 13.0 12.7 11.3 8.3 38.1 14.6 28.7 14.6 11.6 11.9 11.1 7.4 38.2 19.4 24.6 19.4 14.8 14.6 11.5 7.5 38.5 18.0 26.3 18.0 15.3 12.1 14.6 8.3 41.4 16.8 32.0 16.8 15.8 10.1 14.8 8.3 5.8 5.9 6.6 7.2 8.2 6.0 NR 3.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 39.7 17.3 28.6 17.3 15.2 12.8 14.5 7.2 7.9 5.0 40.3 20.0 24.7 20.0 16.0 13.9 15.1 9.1 9.0 5.0 39.6 16.3 27.0 16.3 14.7 15.0 13.6 11.7 6.1 4.0 CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert brown semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow grey brown red-brown red semi-translucent semi-translucent opaque opaque semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent RV chert? grey CP chert MV? CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque brown brown white opaque semi-translucent semi-translucent semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent CP chert? red-brown RV chert grey CP chert CP chert CP chert red opaque semi-translucent opaque yellow-brown opaque brown semi-translucent major distal break slight distal break major distal break major distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break 30.8 14.6 25.9 14.6 5.4 4.6 6.5 2.2 CP chert 33.2 18.5 24.5 18.5 7.6 10.1 8.6 4.0 CP chert 51.0 26.6 35.4 26.6 18.3 15.5 8.3 12.0 CP chert white 33.9 21.1 21.8 21.1 21.1 9.7 4.4 2.0 CP chert red opaque opaque 30.6 16.4 24.3 16.4 12.8 8.3 6.6 2.0 CP chert? grey 30.5 15.0 24.5 15.0 12.6 8.1 8.1 3.0 CP chert red opaque semi-translucent 27.7 13.5 19.8 13.3 6.9 9.3 6.6 2.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque 22.5 13.5 11.8 13.5 7.5 11.6 5.6 2.0 RV chert black-grey opaque 25.9 14.8 17.2 14.8 7.1 8.8 4.8 2.0 RV chert black-grey opaque slight distal break slight proximal break 34.8 16.8 26.9 16.8 8.8 9.8 4.1 3.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent 42.7 23.8 32.9 23.8 9.0 12.3 5.9 6.0 CP chert white opaque 34.0 20.3 27.2 20.3 9.4 9.4 5.0 3.0 CP chert white opaque
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
142 Swannanoa
TU18 L1
143 Swannanoa
U2 SQ50 L1
144 Swannanoa
unknown
145 Swannanoa
unknown
146 Swannanoa
XUA17 L1
258 Swannanoa
XUD6W L3
217 Tampa
unknown
218 Tampa
unknown
219 Tampa
unknown
220 Tampa
unknown
222 Tampa
TU7 L6
yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque
281 Tampa
F147B
Bakers Creek
TU14 L1
Bakers Creek
TU15 L3
Bakers Creek
F33
Bakers Creek
U2 SQ225R130
Bakers Creek
U2 SQ3
Bakers Creek
unknown
11 Bakers Creek
unknown
12 Bakers Creek
unknown
13 Bakers Creek
unknown
14 Bakers Creek
unknown
15 Bakers Creek
unknown
16 Bakers Creek
unknown
17 Bakers Creek
unknown
19 Bakers Creek
misc materials
32.8 20.4 20.2 20.4 16.1 15.2 14.5 10.6 6.1 45.9 19.8 34.3 19.8 16.3 12.3 13.7 9.4 44.1 22.4 32.1 22.4 16.2 13.2 13.3 9.5
20 Bakers Creek
U1 SQ2R1-1R1-0C1-2R2
21 Bakers Creek
ST E1100 N960
22 Bakers Creek
XUA29 L1
23 Bakers Creek
XUA29 L1
24 Bakers Creek
XUA25, L1
25 Bakers Creek
F57A
26 Bakers Creek
F57B
27 Bakers Creek
XUA23 L2
28 Bakers Creek
XUA5 L2
# Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Sears Pluckhahn Sears Sears Pluckhahn Sears 41.1 21.0 35.1 21.0 18.4 9.8 33.6 19.1 25.6 19.1 12.6 8.8 38.0 18.7 27.7 18.7 13.0 9.0 11.3 6.5 12.0 8.8 16.3 7.2 46.7 18.9 36.3 18.9 12.5 12.3 11.2 5.3 43.3 19.8 30.5 19.8 17.7 13.9 12.7 9.3 6.6 9.0 4.9 6.6 6.0 6.7 40.4 21.0 30.2 21.0 15.6 11.1 13.3 7.8 NR NR 5.0 7.0 4.0 3.5 4.7 4.8 8.6 5.3 5.9 7.3 7.8 4.5 7.5 35.8 19.8 25.9 19.8 13.2 11.2 11.1 6.5 43.2 18.8 35.4 18.8 18.2 8.2 14.8 5.8 45.3 20.4 33.9 20.4 17.3 13.0 13.8 7.2 39.8 16.0 28.3 16.0 13.1 13.2 10.8 7.6 33.0 13.5 26.6 13.5 11.0 8.0 10.1 4.0 42.5 21.8 27.7 21.8 13.1 13.3 11.2 8.2 7.1 6.9 NR 7.5 5.8 8.9 4.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 NR 4.0 1.0 6.0 39.5 18.2 28.0 18.2 17.2 12.5 12.8 13.3 6.6 5.0 30.8 17.5 18.4 17.1 17.5 15.0 13.3 11.1 5.6 3.0 52.3 25.9 38.9 25.9 22.8 16.6 19.5 8.9 7.6 8.0 CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert white 40.7 18.2 27.5 18.2 16.0 13.3 14.5 8.8 7.8 6.0 CP chert white brown brown yellow 36.1 18.0 25.2 18.0 14.1 11.2 12.1 8.3 4.8 3.0 CP chert brown 35.7 23.0 24.9 23.0 18.7 10.6 16.4 7.3 4.4 5.0 CP chert 41.1 17.6 25.4 17.6 14.4 15.4 13.3 7.4 7.2 5.0 CP chert 34.6 22.2 23.4 22.2 15.6 18.5 13.9 10.4 NR 5.0 CP chert brown opaque 46.8 22.8 36.1 22.8 13.3 11.8 12.8 6.2 11.7 9.0 CP chert red opaque slight distal break slight distal break semi-translucent semi-translucent semi-translucent semi-translucent opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow brown semi-translucent semi-translucent yellow-brown translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent CP chert? yellow-red semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow-red opaque opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent T grey Quartzite 38.8 21.1 28.6 21.1 16.1 12.3 15.5 6.3 CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert 49.8 24.8 36.1 24.8 14.6 11.4 14.4 10.3 12.8 11.0 CP chert white T Quartzite? opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow semi-translucent slight distal break slight proximal break major distal break slight distal break major distal break distal rework slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break 48.4 19.9 37.3 19.9 13.0 12.8 13.0 7.2 7.2 7.0 CP chert yellow opaque 50.4 18.9 40.6 18.9 14.2 10.7 13.6 6.0 7.3 6.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque 33.6 15.3 23.7 15.3 10.8 10.4 10.7 5.7 6.3 2.0 CP chert red-brown opaque slight distal break 23.9 19.3 15.2 19.3 15.1 11.6 14.8 3.8 6.0 3.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent 29.1 18.9 17.5 18.9 16.8 13.3 14.8 8.4 NR 3.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent major distal break 28.8 17.7 19.2 17.7 13.2 10.4 12.1 7.8 5.5 3.0 CP chert red opaque 49.7 19.3 36.5 19.3 15.0 13.2 13.1 7.9 8.5 6.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
29 Bakers Creek
ST E1560 N760
34 Bakers Creek
TU16 L1
35 Bakers Creek
MD B Fill
37 Bakers Creek
U2 SQ225R135 L1
46 Bakers Creek
unknown
55 Bakers Creek
TR2 S2
87 Bakers Creek
U2 SQ4 L2
92 Bakers Creek
unknown
98 Bakers Creek
unknown
105 Bakers Creek
TU18 L1
yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent
106 Bakers Creek
MD H SQ22R9
108 Bakers Creek
unknown
110 Bakers Creek
unknown
111 Bakers Creek
unknown
114 Bakers Creek
unknown
117 Bakers Creek
MDD submound
119 Bakers Creek
TU6 L2
127 Bakers Creek
XUB8 L4
151 Bakers Creek
U2 SQ315R100 L1
242 Bakers Creek
TU10 L4
243 Bakers Creek
XUD1N L1
267 Bakers Creek
XUD16S L1
269 Bakers Creek
F147B
45.1 21.0 36.8 21.0 14.5 10.1 12.7 7.4
282 Bakers Creek
ST
45.4 23.7 32.3 23.7 19.8 14.5 15.9 11.9 9.1 31.4 15.0 21.7 15.0 10.3 10.0 9.9
82 Bradford
TU9 L7
83 Bradford
TU13 L3
39.0 20.1 27.3 20.1 14.6 14.8 13.9 6.9 44.3 20.5 36.9 20.5 12.2 12.5 11.6 4.6 46.8 23.7 37.0 23.7 13.4 12.6 13.0 6.3
93 Bradford
unknown
95 Bradford
MDD SQW35R10
97 Bradford
unknown
101 Bradford
XUB10 L4
116 Bradford
unknown
121 Bradford
ST E1460 N940
152 Bradford
unknown
230 Bradford
unknown
84 Broward
TU14 L1
85 Broward
MDH SQ16R13
237
238
# Sears Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Blanton, Snow, Trowell Blanton, Snow, Trowell Pluckhahn Sears Pluckhahn Sears Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears 48.3 20.2 38.9 20.1 10.2 10.2 9.9 52.4 18.0 41.0 18.0 11.4 10.7 9.9 42.7 16.6 32.6 16.6 6.1 6.0 7.3 56.5 19.3 46.7 19.3 13.0 13.0 8.7 8.9 7.8 8.6 9.7 7.4 7.7 5.2 6.9 7.2 15.9 8.9 8.8 6.9 38.6 17.3 29.0 17.3 16.4 9.4 15.4 6.6 32.7 17.5 21.4 17.5 15.2 11.0 13.8 6.2 34.0 16.1 21.7 16.1 14.8 12.6 14.0 8.6 32.5 17.0 23.4 16.2 15.5 11.1 15.1 5.8 36.3 15.0 26.2 15.0 14.1 10.9 12.6 7.1 7.7 9.8 6.0 35.9 17.2 22.2 17.2 17.2 14.7 16.0 10.3 7.5 7.2 7.6 52.2 21.8 21.8 9.6 14.6 10.7 7.2 8.2 42.9 16.8 34.5 16.8 9.5 9.3 9.8 5.3 6.0 3.0 9.0 7.0 5.5 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 43.2 17.2 33.4 17.2 10.8 10.9 10.4 6.0 7.6 5.0 40.7 17.3 34.4 17.3 10.0 8.1 9.5 2.8 7.6 5.0 CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert yellow-brown opaque brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent grey opaque slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break major distal break 57.2 22.0 44.8 21.8 22.0 14.5 18.9 11.3 7.5 8.0 49.7 22.2 38.7 22.2 9.7 13.1 11.5 7.0 10.7 7.5 CP chert grey 61.0 21.6 49.0 21.6 16.3 14.6 13.8 7.4 8.4 9.0 CP chert grey 42.6 27.9 29.3 27.9 19.2 13.8 15.9 8.0 15.8 8.0 CP chert brown 50.6 23.5 37.2 23.5 15.5 14.8 13.9 8.4 7.1 7.0 CP chert yellow 49.6 21.1 36.7 21.1 15.0 13.1 12.8 9.2 7.7 8.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque opaque opaque opaque opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent brown brown red brown CP chert? black-grey red white opaque semi-translucent opaque opaque semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent semi-translucent semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque red red opaque opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent major distal break slight proximal break slight distal break lateral break slight distal break major distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight proximal break 43.3 22.1 30.3 22.2 15.1 13.6 13.7 9.3 6.0 6.0 CP chert 54.2 24.2 42.5 24.2 14.2 12.5 12.3 7.0 6.8 8.0 CP chert yellow-red semi-translucent 42.6 20.8 32.7 20.8 11.8 9.9 11.4 6.5 7.3 7.0 RV chert? black-grey opaque 52.2 26.5 37.9 26.5 20.6 14.2 16.8 9.7 8.0 11.0 CP chert red semi-translucent 63.2 20.9 52.1 20.9 13.8 15.4 11.2 8.7 7.8 8.0 CP chert yellow-brown opaque 54.2 26.0 43.5 26.0 15.2 11.1 13.9 6.5 5.2 7.0 CP chert white opaque slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break distal rework slight distal break major distal break major distal break slight distal break major distal break 40.2 24.4 23.8 24.4 22.1 15.1 16.3 10.3 8.6 8.0 CP chert? grey semi-translucent major distal break 40.4 20.1 31.7 20.1 15.8 10.9 14.2 7.8 2.0 5.0 CP chert yellow-brown semi-translucent 41.7 22.1 33.1 22.1 14.0 8.3 13.2 5.9 7.1 7.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
90 Broward
unknown
99 Broward
XUA7 L3
128 Broward
MDF TR2 S3 L1
149 Broward
MDF TR2 S1 L1
150 Broward
U4 S6
155 Broward
MDD SQ40R0 L1
157 Broward
U2 SQ90R100
163 Broward
XUA26 L2
164 Broward
XUA24 L1
yellow-brown semi-translucent
165 Broward
F57B
166 Broward
XUB2 L2
172 Broward
unknown
210 Broward
unknown
246 Broward
XUD2N L3
212 Columbia
XUC1 L2
CP chert? grey
54 Duval Type 2
F37
56 Duval Type 2
U2 SQ90R100 L2
58 Duval Type 2
XUA16 L1
59 Duval Type 2
XUA29 L1
161 Duval Type 2
unknown
251 Duval Type 2
F141B
10.1 16.6 10.1 8.9
263 Duval Type 2
F163
148 Duval Type 3
TU18 L1
159 Duval Type 3
grab collection
55.4 19.9 43.9 19.9 14.8 10.8 15.0 5.7 49.8 16.6 39.0 16.6 13.0 12.0 11.5 7.7 45.4 14.8 35.7 14.8 12.6 10.5 11.5 6.8 47.5 19.6 34.1 19.6 18.0 15.1 12.2 9.9 57.1 20.4 45.0 20.4 19.0 12.7 14.5 7.7 43.4 15.9 32.1 15.9 14.5 8.9
160 Duval Type 3
grab collection
162 Duval Type 3
XUA7 L4
32 Duval Type 1
unknown
33 Duval Type 1
F57A
31 Florida Copena (notched)
MDH
U4 S4
31.8 17.0 22.5 15.8 15.9 12.0 14.8 8.2
TU15 L2
TU15 L3
MDF TR2 S3 L1
unknown
unknown
2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
unknown
# Blanton, Snow, Trowell Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Fairbanks, Wauchope Sears Sears Blanton Sears Sears Pluckhahn Blanton, Snow, Trowell Sears Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Sears Pluckhahn Sears Sears Sears Sears Fairbanks, Wauchope Pluckhahn Pluckhahn 39.4 23.5 30.9 23.5 9.7 40.6 15.6 30.8 15.6 12.4 12.5 10.4 5.7 36.4 14.8 27.9 14.6 14.8 10.5 13.1 5.9 40.3 16.3 30.3 16.3 12.8 9.0 10.6 6.2 41.5 13.7 33.3 13.7 13.0 10.7 11.0 6.1 7.7 6.4 6.2 5.7 37.0 16.1 26.0 16.1 14.6 11.9 12.4 8.8 6.8 5.0 4.0 3.9 3.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 10.6 5.8 10.7 9.1 5.4 8.5 6.8 6.0 4.0 3.0 10.6 19.0 10.6 5.8 3.0 5.0 43.1 23.8 33.3 23.8 14.1 12.9 23.8 12.9 1.0 33.4 16.6 23.8 16.6 10.6 11.8 16.6 11.8 6.5 32.5 15.8 23.7 15.8 10.4 8.8 triangular cluster Sears Sears Pluckhahn 38.6 34.1 38.6 34.1 34.1 41.4 28.4 41.4 28.4 28.4 26.1 16.6 26.1 16.6 16.6 8.8 6.4 4.0 8.0 8.0 1.3 CP chert CP chert CP chert yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent yellow-brown semi-translucent 15.8 8.8 5.7 6.0 3.0 2.0 51.4 21.9 44.5 21.9 14.0 6.4 13.8 3.4 7.0 8.0 47.9 21.5 41.4 21.5 11.7 7.4 21.5 7.4 6.0 6.0 CP chert 45.1 19.5 35.2 19.5 17.3 10.4 16.4 5.2 8.8 7.0 CP chert 43.4 19.2 37.3 19.2 14.5 7.6 13.6 3.9 7.1 5.0 CP chert yellow yellow white 48.5 18.8 34.4 18.8 12.0 14.7 11.3 7.5 9.0 6.0 CP chert 33.2 15.5 23.7 15.5 12.5 11.3 11.4 6.9 4.8 2.0 CP chert white 36.1 14.2 24.9 14.2 9.9 11.3 10.7 5.7 6.9 4.0 RV chert black-grey 35.3 18.6 23.4 18.6 10.1 14.0 10.7 7.9 7.4 4.0 CP chert yellow-red opaque opaque opaque 41.9 25.8 34.1 25.8 12.0 10.1 10.2 7.3 7.8 7.0 CP chert red-brown opaque 37.6 16.7 31.5 16.0 13.3 6.2 10.6 6.1 3.9 2.8 CP chert? brown semi-translucent slight distal break major distal break 33.3 23.0 27.8 23.0 23.0 8.3 22.4 8.3 5.3 4.0 CP chert white opaque 46.0 20.2 34.8 20.2 16.0 12.6 12.8 6.5 10.2 7.0 CP chert red opaque 31.8 15.8 20.2 15.8 14.9 13.2 12.7 8.8 6.7 3.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent 35.5 18.0 24.9 18.0 16.8 12.8 15.3 9.2 5.4 3.0 CP chert red opaque 39.3 18.3 24.9 18.3 14.6 18.4 14.1 12.8 NR NR CP chert? grey opaque 32.2 15.4 22.1 15.4 13.9 13.8 12.9 9.2 6.0 2.0 CP chert brown semi-translucent
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
grab collection
ST E1360 N1000
XUA11 L2
XUA21 L2
XUA19 L2
MDH fill
276 Jacks Reef Corner Notched
XUD4E L1
241 Leon
XUB10 L4
50 Mountain Fork
unknown
86 Mountain Fork
U2 SQ15
94 Mountain Fork
unknown
96 Mountain Fork
grab collection
yellow-brown opaque opaque opaque opaque semi-translucent slight proximal break opaque distal rework? slight distal break slight distal break
229 Provisional Type 1
unknown
unknown
XUA9 L3
grab collection
CP chert? grey CP chert? red CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert brown yellow-red
112 Swan Lake
unknown
122 Swan Lake
F57A
semi-translucent semi-translucent yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent T white Quartzite semi-translucent CP chert CP chert yellow opaque yellow-brown opaque white CP chert? grey CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert CP chert opaque opaque yellow-brown opaque red-brown red-brown semi-translucent opaque yellow-brown opaque yellow-brown semi-translucent white semi-translucent slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break slight distal break major distal break slight distal break
247 Swan Lake
F147A
261 Swan Lake
XUD9N L1
265 Swan Lake
F153
43 WI Straight Stemmed
U4 S4
12.7 23.5 12.7 5.8
unknown
48.6 24.8 41.5 24.8 10.1 12.8 24.8 12.8 7.1 43.2 18.2 34.9 18.2 11.2 8.3 36.4 17.8 27.4 17.8 9.3
U2 SQ325R100
XUA13 L2
43.8 22.0 32.8 22.0 10.9 13.0 22.0 13.0 14.5 10.0 CP chert 36.6 19.2 27.0 19.2 11.3 10.8 19.2 10.8 5.2 34.9 19.0 26.0 19.0 8.8
U2 SQ49
unknown
unknown
U4 S4 L1
37.4 20.1 29.7 20.1 11.7 11.5 20.1 11.5 7.5
MDL fill
XUA23 L1
F141B
223 O'Leno
unknown
226 O'Leno
unknown
272 Wood-Miss triangular
F147B
239
240
# Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn Pluckhahn 27.1 17.0 27.1 17.0 14.5 5.0 1.8 RV chert black-grey opaque 22.6 14.6 22.6 14.6 14.6 4.5 1.1 CP chert yellow-brown opaque 24.7 16.7 24.7 16.7 16.1 5.5 2.3 RV chert black-grey opaque 17.0 13.3 17.0 13.3 13.3 3.0 0.5 CP chert red-brown opaque
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML MW BLL BLW BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments slight distal, major proximal breaks slight distal, proximal breaks
XUD12E L3
XUD20E L1
F147B
F194
Note: CP=Coastal Plain, F=Feature, L=Level, MD=Mound, MV=Metavolcanic, RV=Ridge and Valley, ST=Shovel Test (E=East, N=North), S=Section, SQ=Square, T=Tallahatta, TR=Trench, TU=Test Unit, XU=Excavation Unit
The Florida Anthropologist 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Errata Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomok (9ER1)i Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Sean P. Norman Volume 64 (3-4) September - December 2011 Table 3, page 224 Appendix, page 236
Table 3 Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Triangular Cluster.

Type OLeno (N=2) Variable ML MW BLW BLL BW MT WT Sample Size 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Range 38.6-41.4 28.4-34.1 28.4-34.1 38.6-41.4 28.4-34.1 6.4-8.8 8.0 Mean 40.0 31.3 31.3 40.0 31.3 7.6 8.0 Standard Deviation 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.7 0
Woodland/Mississippian Triangular (N=5)
ML MW BLW
4 5 5
22.6-27.1 13.3-17.0 13.3-17.0
25.1 15.6 15.6
2.0 1.6 1.6
BLL
17.0-27.1
23.5
4.0
BW
14.5-16.6
15.5
1.1
MT
3.0-5.5
4.4
1.0
WT
0.5-2.3
1.4
0.7

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1). The Florida Anthropologist 64(3-4):207-240.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1). The Florida Anthropologist 64(3-4):207-240.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Florida Anthropologist

Volume 64 Numbers 3-4 September-December 2011 Table of Contents

163 187 207

241 275 288

Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893

The Florida Anthropologist

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

Spike (Variety 2) (N=9)

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

Duval Type 3 (N=4)

Florida Copena (Notched Variety) (N=14)

Mountain Fork (N=4)

Provisional Type 1 (N=4)

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Figure 12. Diagram illustrating divisions of the triangular cluster.

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

2011 Vol. 64(3-4)

Pluckhahn and Norman

Woodland Hafted Bifaces

209 Florida Aden