Maney Publishing

Flintknapping Skill, Communal Hunting, and Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology

Author(s): Douglas B. Bamforth
Source: Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 36, No. 137 (November 1991), pp. 309-322
Published by: Maney Publishing on behalf of the Plains Anthropological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25669063 .
Accessed: 02/09/2014 22:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Plains Anthropological Society and Maney Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Plains Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Flintknapping Skill,
Communal Hunting, and Paleoindian
Projectile Point Typology
by
Douglas B. Bamforth

ABSTRACT
Archaeologists reconstruct culture-historical patterns on thePlains during thePaleoindian period
primarily by studying the appearance and technology of projectile points, particularly projectile points
recovered from communal kill sites. TJiispaper discusses some of the implications of this emphasis on
communal kill assemblages for the interpretation of morphological and technological variation in
Paleoindian projectile points. It then considers three temporal and spatial patterns inPaleoindian point
typeswith these issues inmind, focusing on thedistribution offluted and non-fluted points during the
Folsom period, thepattern of variation inCody complex points, and the nature of theFirstview Com
plex.

INTRODUCTION searches for cultural-historical markers, and

current typological practices essentially assume
Although there are many reasons for the
that any and all differences we can see among
level of amateur and professional interest in
Paleoindian one undoubted Paleoindian projectile points are equally
archaeology,
reason is that Paleoindian sites produce really relevant to this search, an assumption which is
incorrect. Like all archaeological research,
nice artifacts, the nicest of which are usually
typological studies require an explicit problem
projectile points. The excellence of Paleoindian
orientation which defines the kinds of data
stone-working, which ismanifest most clearly in
needed to solve the problem: ifwe are interested
projectile points, is regularly cited as an impor
in patterns of artifact use, we need one kind of
tantand distinctive aspect of the early human oc
of North America information; ifwe hope to identify culture/his
cupation (i.e., Goodyear
toricalmarkers, we generally need another. The
1989;Hayden 1982;Kelly andTodd 1988).The
purpose of thispaper is to consider some of the
beauty and technical sophistication of Paleoin
documented patterns of variation inPaleoindian
dian points, along with the fact that they ob
projectile point morphology on the Plains from
viously vary substantially in time and space, have
this perspective.
led archaeologists to study these artifacts inten
sively, and our current understanding of time SOURCES OF VARIATION IN
space systematics on the Plains during the PROJECTILE POINT MORPHOLOGY
Paleoindian period rests almost entirely on The major assumption underlying most
analyses of the temporal and spatial distribution
of distinctive kinds of points. typological studies of Paleoindian projectile
points is that consistent, observable differences
The studies which have documented theun
among groups of points indicate differences in
doubted variation inPaleoindian points, though,
have told us littleabout themeaning of thisvaria community-level standards (Deetz's [1967:45]
"mental templates") governing what points
tion:we know that these artifacts look different,
should look like and how they should be made:
but we know very little about why they look dif
thus, groups of points which share a consistent
ferent. Archaeological typology in general

309

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST
set of morphological and/or technological
characteristics are generally designated as
"types". Community-level standards, though,
are not the only factorswhich structure variation
inartifact appearance and production, as a num
ber of authors (Bradley and Stanford 1987; Flen
niken and Raymond 1986; Knudson 1973;
Wheat 1972) have pointed out. For the pur
poses of this discussion, it is possible to divide
these other factors into those which affect the
appearance of an artifact (in the case at issue
here, a projectile point) when it isproduced and
those which alter this appearance over the
course of itsuseful life.
Among the most important factors in the
firstgroup are idiosyncratic knapping habits and
the level of knapping skill of individual
stoneworkers. These factors are likely to be
manifest inmany aspects of point morphology:
for example, good knappers are more likely than
poor knappers to produce symmetrical points
with regular patterns of finishing flaking and in
dividual stone-workers may develop their own
methods of platform preparation or subtle dif
ferences in pressure flaking techniques through
their own experimentation (Young and Bon
nichsen 1984). More accomplished knappers
are also more likely to rely on complex, staged
reduction strategies than less accomplished
knappers.
the discussion below will em
Although
phasize these two potential sources of variation,
it is important to note that their effects can be
modified by other factors. In particular, the
ability of even themost accomplished flintknap
per to express his or her individual styleof finish
ing flaking, for example, is constrained by the
more
quality of the raw material being worked:
granular or intractable stone is less likely to
allow for such expression and ismore likely to
result in less neatly flaked, less symmetrical
products than less granular stone.
Once a tool is produced, other factorsmay
alter its appearance over the course of itsuseful
life. In the case of projectile points, themost im
portant of these is likely to be the process of
resharpening or rejuvenation which occurs after
a point breaks. Points may be resharpened at
either the tip or the base, altering flaking pat
310
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 36, No. 137,1991
terns, outline shape, and cross-sectional sym
metry, as many archaeologists have noted (Flen
nikenandRaymond1986; Wilmsen
Wheat 1979;
and Roberts 1978).
The appearance of any given artifact when
itreaches the hands of an archaeologist is there
fore the result of a complex interplay between a
wide range of forces, potentially including cul
tural expectations/mental templates, individual
preferences and production habits, rawmaterial
constraints, and that artifact's life history.
Typological studies focused on the recognition
of cultural-historical markers therefore need to
be able to factor these variables out.
Archaeologists interested specifically in
Paleoindian projectile points have been aware
of the effects of use-related changes in artifact
appearance for some time (see, forexample, dis
cussions of thePlainview/Meserve distinction by
Davis [1954]andWormington[1957]),and this
awareness has been increasingly explicit inmore
recent typological studies, which virtually always
attempt to control for the effects of such proces
ses as resharpening (i.e., Bradley and Frison
1987;Wheat 1979). The effects of rawmaterial
differences are less widely acknowledged, but
are likely tobe minimized in the case of Paleoin
dian points by thewell-known emphasis on very
high-quality stone inPaleoindian assemblages.
Archaeological approaches to Paleoindian
ex
projectile point typology have therefore
or at least some
plicitly implicitly controlled for
of the factors which may blur our ability to dis
cern reliable cultural-historical types. My goal
here is to expand on these emphases and focus
on thelikely
specifically effects fac
of individual
tors on typological variation in Paleoindian
points.
PROJECTILE POINT TYPOLOGY
AND COMMUNAL BISON HUNTING
It is important to account explicitly for in
dividual differences in flint-knapping skill and
technique in typological studies of Paleoindian
ar
projectile points for two reasons. First, the
tifacts which have been emphasized in such
studies are usually thosewhich show evidence of
the highest levels of flint-knapping skill: the
points taken as "typical" of the various divisions
Douglas B. Bamforth]
of the period are generally those which are the
most symmetrical, themost carefully flaked, and
themost difficult to produce, and points which
deviate from these are generally considered to
be "atypical" or "non-diagnostic" in some way;
such points are sometimes not even illustrated
inpublished reports. Thus, existing studies tend
to emphasize a limited portion of the full of
variation in the artifacts we study, a practice
which has the potential to blind us to the impor
tance of this variation.
Second, although it is likely thatvariation in
theskilllevelsandknappinghabitsof individual
flint-knappers "average out" in some sense for
most typological problems, an unusual aspect of
Paleoindian archaeology on the Plains has the
potential tomake such variation a problem for
us. Virtually all collections of Paleoindian
points which provide large enough samples of
artifacts for systematic analysis derive from
communal kills, and there are good reasons for
supposing that assemblages from such sites are
extremely likely to show us systematic patterns
in both individual and community-level varia
tion. Thisis because communal kill sites often
represent what is essentially a single moment
from the past, in contrast to other types of ar
chaeological sites, which often preserve the
remains of a number of occupations which may
have involved different social groups visiting a
locale over long periods of time. Individual
communal kills correspond to the actions of a
single group of people over a very short period
of time, and artifact assemblages from such kills
therefore represent the tools in use for a single
activity at what is close to a single moment in
time.
Although there can be no doubt that com
munal hunting was an important aspect of the
Paleoindian adaptation to thePlains, it iscertain
that itwas not the onlymeans by which Paleoin
dian groups provisioned themselves: communal
kills were apparently carried out most often
during the winter (Frison 1982; McCartney
1990), and non-communal kills are well-known
(Bamforth 1985; Hester 1972). Communal
hunts therefore represent only one portion of
the overall pattern of Paleoindian activities on
thePlains, making it interesting to consider how
311
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT
the organization of such hunts might affect the
kinds of artifacts recovered from communal kill
sites.
For present purposes, it is particularly im
portant to consider how projectile points might
have been produced for a communal hunt. To
conduct such a hunt, it is necessary to have suf
ficient tools on hand to accomplish all of the
taskswhich will be necessary, including killing a
large number of animals and processing their
carcasses. Reher and Frison (1980) emphasize
this, pointing out that prehistoric communal
hunters tended to "gear up" for thehunt, acquir
ing raw material and producing an adequate
stock of weapons and other tools in advance of
the kill.
Although advance preparation may not al
ways have included special trips to quarries for
raw material (Ingbar and Hofman 1989), there
can be no doubt that itwas necessary to have an
adequate stock of tools prepared before the
hunt began. The archaeologically visible
aspects of this preparation are often limited to
stone tools, but getting ready for a communal kill
clearly required the production or repair of
many other implements and (in at least some
times and places) facilities as well. For example,
when herds were taken in corrals or other
humanly-built or modified traps, itwas neces
sary to construct or repair them. In addition,
projectile points cannot be used without shafts,
or at least foreshafts, and, ifthesewere not avail
able in sufficient numbers before a kill, itwould
have been necessary to manufacture them as
well. Processing meat and hides inbulk required
facilities such as drying racks, which meant that
wood had tobe gathered and racks constructed.
Conducting the ceremonies which, at least in
recent times, were an important part of com
munal hunting, would also require advance
preparation of ritual items and facilities.
Overall, then, to prepare for a communal
kill it must usually have been necessary to
produce a relatively large number of projectile
points at a time when there were many other
items to manufacture and tasks to carry out.
Under these conditions, the most efficient
means of accomplishing everythingwhich had to
be done would have been to allocate tasks to in
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST
dividuals on the basis of their special skills and
knowledge.If thisiscorrect,itis likelythatthe
most accomplished flint-knappers available
would have produced the stone tools needed,
both to ensure that an adequate number of ef
fectiveweapons would be available when itwas
time to carry out the kill and also to free other
individuals for other important tasks.
This possibility has two important implica
tions. First, itsuggests thatcollections ofprojec
tilepoints from communal killsmay represent a
restricted portion of the total variation in the
kindsofprojectilepointsproducedbyanygiven
social group over the course of their annual ac
tivities.Communal kill collections thusmay be
dominated by the products of themost skillful
stone-workers in thatgroup. There may, then,be
systematic seasonal or other variations between
projectile point assemblages produced for com
munal kills and those produced in other con
texts. Second, it implies that thepoints from any
one communal kill are likely to have been
produced by a very small number of individuals,
and sometimes by only one individual, as other
researchers have suggested (Hester and Grady
1977;Knudson 1973). This impliesthat the
idiosyncratic knapping habits of individual
stone-workers are likely tobe particularly visible
in communal kill assemblages.
It is therefore important to distinguish
variation in projectile point form due to dif
ferences in community standards from variation
due to differences in the habits and preferences
of individual flintknappers. Typological studies
of Paleoindian points have generally not at
tempted to do this.However, Bradley and Stan
ford (1987) have recently outlined a perspective
which helps tomake such a distinction possible.
Archaeologists divide Paleoindian points
into types on thebasis of two fundamental kinds
of variation: variation in overall morphology,
particularly in outline form, and variation in
production techniques, including overall reduc
tion strategies and patterns of finishing flaking.
Bradley and Stanford (1987:411-412) point out
that variation in these areas is caused by more
than one factor, and particularly argue that
major typological features (such as basic reduc
312
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 36, No. 137,1991
tion strategies and overall point morphology)
probably reflect community/cultural standards,
while minor features (such as small variations in
retouch patterns and minor shape differences)
probably reflect variation in the habits of in
dividual stone-workers.
Given the importance in all scientific re
search of studying variables which are relevant
to theproblems we are tryingto solve, the incor
poration of both "major" and "minor" features
into Paleoindianprojectile point typologies has
the potential of creating serious interpretive
problems: types defined for culture-historical
purposes presumably should reflect variation in
artifactmorphology which is determined at the
community rather than the individual level, and
the variables used to define Paleoindian point
types probably measure both of these.
The difficulty, then, lies in identifyingmajor
and minor features archaeologically. Bradley
and Stanford (1987:412) rely on their extensive
experimental experience in drawing thisdistinc
tion,but it is also possible to identifypatterns in
the archaeological record which may support
their arguments. Particularly, if projectile
points from any one communal kill site do rep
resent thework of a very small number of stone
workers, it is reasonable to argue that patterns
which are widespread from site to site (such as
outline form) are likely to represent "major"
typological features, while characteristics which
are found at only one or two sites (such as small
differences in the depth of flake scars) are like
ly to represent "minor" typological features.
SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMPLES
The remainder of this paper considers the
implications of these arguments for three
some adaptive
specific topics. First, it suggests
implications of the distribution of fluted and un
fluted points during theFolsom period. Second,
it considers the implications of the distinction
between major and minor typological features
for our understanding of the differences among
Cody Complex projectile points on the Plains.
Finally, it examines the geographic pattern of
variation inCody projectile points, with a focus
on the concept of the Firstview complex.
Douglas B. Bamforth] PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT

Table 1: Frequencies of fluted and unfluted points in Folsom period archaeological sites on the Great Plains.

Site_Type_Fluted_Unfluted_Reference_

Lindenmeier 48camp 38 Wilmsen andRoberts 1978

Blackwater Draw camp/small kill 52 27Hester
1972
communal kill
Folsom 19 0
Wormington 1957
communalkill
Linger 16 1943
0Hurst
communal
Zapata kill? 2 0 Wormington 1957
MacHaffie 2 camp 1 Wormington1957,
Forbis and Sperry1952
Sharbauer 7 camp 21 Wendorf et al. 1955
Elida 15 camp 3 Hester 1962,Warnica 1961
Hanson 12 camp 4 FrisonandBradley 1980
Agate Basin 4camp 2 Bradley 1982
communal kill 22 1 Hofman et al. 1988
Lipscomb
Sands
Shifting 19
camp Hofman
59 et al. 1990

To Flute or Not to Flute? number of sites, and recent work byHofman et

al. (1990) suggests strongly that theywere made
Archaeological treatment of Folsom points
and used side by side. Unfluted projectile
perhaps best illustrates the effects of our
on the "best" points and points were, then, a common component of the
typological emphasis
concomitant neglect of patterns of variation. weaponry of hunters on theGreat Plains during
For most archaeologists, the Folsom period is
the Folsom period (cf. Ingbar and Hofman
1989). Similarly, unfluted points were relatively
typifiedby itscharacteristic point, and thispoint common in the Clovis levels at Blackwater
isbest-known from the collection at theLinden
Draw, the type site for the fluted Clovis point
meier site: replication of the "Lindenmeier
Folsom" is the explicit goal ofmany experimen (Hester1972).
I have
argued elsewhere (Bamforth
tal studies of fluted points. This emphasis,
1988:187-188) that fluted and unfluted points
though, obscures the fact that only 48 of the 86 in the skill needed to
differ substantially
finished points recovered from theLindenmeier
produce them: extensive experimentation (i.e.,
site are fluted: 17 are "pseudo-fluted" points, in
Akerman and Fagan 1986; Frison and Bradley
which large portions of the unworked surface of
the flake blank were leftvisible tomimic the ap 1982; Crabtree 1968; Flenniken 1978; Sollberger
1985; Tunnell 1977) indicates unambiguously
pearance of a flute, and another 21 are simply
thatmanufacturing a fluted point may involve
unfluted lanceolate points (Wilmsen and
the use of special equipment to remove the flute
Roberts 1978:105, 159). Similarly, 4 of the 16
and is certainly a complex process involving
finished points from theHanson site and 2 of the
6 finished points from theAgate Basin site are many stages and a high degree of skill inprepar
unfluted (Bradley 1982; Frison and Bradley ing preforms. Although unfluted points may
also be the result of relatively long sequences of
1980).
In fact, a survey of the published sites on the production(Bradleyand Frison 1987;Bradley
and Stanford 1987), finishing a point by pressure
Great Plains which date to the Folsom period
flaking is generally a skill which apprentice
(Table 1) indicates that fully79 of the 270
knappers learn farmore easily than fluting.
projectile points they produced, or nearly 30
Following the arguments above, if points
percent, are unfluted. This total includes
used in communal kills are mainly the products
"Midland" points, which some authors (i.e.,
of themost skillful knappers in a social group,
Gunnerson 1987) have suggested represent an
Folsom period communal kills should be
occupation of the Plains which is distinct from
dominated by fluted rather than unfluted points.
Folsom. However, Midland points are found in
Table 2 summarizes the frequencies of fluted
close association with fluted Folsom points at a

313

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST
Table 2: Frequencies of fluted and unfluted points in communal kill
and other Folsom period archaeological sites on the Great Plains.
Site
type_Fluted_Unfluted_Total_
communalkill 136 *
37 -
(26.0)
other 154 79 233
(164.0)
total_191_79_270_
*
observed value
~
expected value
and unfluted points in communal kill sites and
other sites of Folsom-age (with the latter includ
ing campsites such as Hanson and Agate Basin
and non-communal kills such as Blackwater
Draw), using the data inTable 1. "Communal
kills" for present purposes are sites which
produced large quantities of bison bone, often
including articulated skeletal units, along with
projectile points, and few or no other categories
of stone tools or features (Fawcett 1986). Sites
which do not fall into this category?that is, sites
with small numbers of bison represented or with
numerous features, such as hearths, or a wide
range of artifacts present?are classified here as
"other". This table indicates that only one un
fluted point, a pseudo-fluted point from the
Lipscomb site, has been recovered from a Fol
som period communal kill, and that this absence
is not likely to have occurred by chance (chi
= = =
square 15.0, df 1, .001> p, Yule's Q 0.9).
There are relatively few Folsom period
communal kills in the available sample, and it is
therefore important to consider this pattern
cautiously. However, these data do suggest that
Folsom period hunters participating in com
munal huntsmade and used a restricted portion
of the range ofweaponry on which they relied in
other circumstances, and that this portion in
cluded only those items which were the most
labor-intensive and difficult to produce. Fol
lowing the arguments above, thismay reflect the
efficient use of time and labor during the gear
ing-up phase prior to a communal hunt, al
though there are certainly other possibilities.
For example, Frison and Bradley (1982) have
suggested that there may have been important
ceremonial activities associated with fluted
314
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 36, No. 137,1991
(11.0)
(69.0)
point production, and any ritual significance
such points may have had may also have led them
to be used preferentially in communal hunts.
Regardless of the specific interpretation of
the pattern inTable 2, thispattern suggests that
there was more than one context of projectile
point production inFolsom period society, and
this possibility leads us into a number of inter
esting topics. Gearing-up for recent communal
hunts appears to have taken place in the context
of a seasonal pattern of population aggregation
and dispersion, with communal hunting carried
out during periods of aggregation. The data in
Table 2 are at least consistent with such a pat
tern,although theyclearly do not prove that such
a pattern existed. However, the possibility that
Folsom hunters had a seasonal or other pattern
of population aggregation which provided the
labor for communal hunts is a potentially criti
cal aspect of Folsom period adaptations. It is,
for example, difficult to reconcile with Kelly and
Todd's (1988) recent arguments that fluted
point adaptations in North America involved
frequent and unpredictable moves by small
groups of people from communal kill to com
munal kill: such a pattern requires social groups
tomaintain the labor needed for the kill at all
times and also would make itdifficult to plan ag
gregations of dispersed groups with any success.
How Many Kinds of Cody Points Are There?
A second major topic in Paleoindian ar
chaeology is the analysis of differences among a
set of square-based, slightly stemmed, lanceo
late projectile points which are found
throughout the western and northern portions
of the Plains and date between approximately
Douglas B. Bamforth] PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT

Table 3:RawMaterials used byProjectilePointType at theHorner Site

and Frison 1987, Tables 6.1 and
_(after Bradley 6.2)._
TYPE
Alberta/ Alberta/
Cody I Cody II Scottsbluff Eden Other
Material_n %_n %_n %_n %_%_n

Phosphoria 10 28.6 0 0.0 4 33.366.7

10 1 11.1
Porcellanite 13 37.1 3 75.0 1 213.3
8.3 3 33.3
Morrison 7 20.0 0 0.0 1 16.7
8.3 0 0.0
Quartzite
Morrison 1 2.9 1 25.0 1 6.7
3 25.0 2 22.2
Chert
4 Other
11.4 0 0.0 1 6.7
3 25.0 3 33.3

Total
35 4 9
1215

10,000 and 8000 BP. Varieties of these points
are often grouped into three complexes with dis
tinctive temporal and/or spatial distributions:
Alberta, dating between 9500 and 9000 BP and
found in themore northern Plains; Cody, dating
between 9000 and 8500 BP in the same area; and
datingbetween 10,000and 8000 BP
Firstview,
and found in the central and southern Plains
(i.e., Agenbroad 1978; Irwin-Williams et al.
1973;JohnsonandHolliday 1981;
Wheat 1972).
For reasons which will become clear over the
course of the next two sections, this paper sub
sumes the material in all three of these com
plexes under the general term "Cody".
The general trend in typological studies of
Cody points over the past 20 years has been to
name increasing numbers of more and more
finely distinguished "types". From a basic
dichotomy between Scottsbluff and Eden points
(i.e., Sellards 1952), archaeologists divided the
Scottsbluff category into two classes and defined
a set of similar but larger and somewhat less fine
ly flaked points as the Alberta type (Wor
mington 1957; also see Howard 1943;
Satterthwaite 1957). More recently, Wheat
(1972,1979) has defined three new types (Ker
sey, Firstview, and San Jon) and Bradley and
Frison (1987) have recognized two typeswhich
are "intermediate" between Alberta and Scot
tsbluff I; in addition, these authors refer to
"Cody intermediate" and "Eden/Scottsbluff"
points. There are, then, a minimum of 11 dif
ferent kinds of Cody period projectile points
defined in the literature at present.
Considered in light of Bradley and
Stanford's (1987) distinction between major and
minor typological features, this array of
categories is extremely interesting. Bradley's
experimental work indicates quite clearly that
Eden points represent the end-product of a very
specialized multi-stage production sequence,
with theirdistinctive medial ridge and long, nar
row outline form resulting from multiple se
quences of pressure flaking. This work also
indicates that simply terminating this sequence
after fewer stages of pressure flaking produces
many of the other formswhich have been iden
tified inCody period collections; that is, the ex
istence of a single reduction sequence which was
terminated at different stages can account for
many of the differences among Cody period
point types.
In fact, itmay be that decisions regarding
where to terminate this sequence relied, at least
in part, on rawmaterial considerations. For ex
ample, of themany Cody types defined by Brad
ley and Frison (1987) at theHorner Site, only
Eden points show any strong tendency to be as
sociated with a specific raw material (Table 3):
fully two-thirds of these are made from Phos
phoria chert. In contrast, Phosphoria chert was
used for only one-fourth to one-third of the
other reasonably numerous classes of points.
Many of the differences on which typologi
cal distinctions among Cody point types rely are
in "minor" typological features: Firstview and
Kersey points, for example, are stemmed by
grinding rather than by flaking, and other types

315

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST
aredistinguished inthe
bydifferences
primarily
width and depth of the last round of pressure
flaking represented. Similarly, differences in
the degree of stemming of Cody points, such as
thoserecently
emphasizedbyEbell (1988),may
result from the individual preferences of dif
ferent stoneworkers or simply from the need to
haft a standardized set of points made by one
person to a standardized set of shaftsmade by
someone else. In addition, many types are also
found only or primarily at one site (i.e., Kersey
points), and virtually all of the sites which have
been studied are communal kills.
Typological studies of Cody period points,
then, rely primarily on communal kill as
semblages and regularly incorporate minor
morphological and technological featureswhich
are likely to represent idiosyncratic differences
among individual flintknappers. Furthermore,
many aspects of the differences among types
show patterns which would be expected ifthe as
semblages from single kills are dominated by the
products of very small numbers of flintknappers;
that is, there are many minor variations between
the assemblages from individual sites. These
patterns suggest that the often bewildering
diversity of distinct categories of points which
have been defined for the Cody period may
reflect the number of differentpeople who made
them in the past and not the number of distinct
community/cultural standards which existed.
That is,many of the varieties of Cody-period
points which have been identified probably rep
resent individual rather than cultural variation
(cf.Knudson 1973:151).
Following Bradley and Stanford, then, this
implies that the Cody "cultural" pattern in
cluded production of slightly stemmed, square
based, lanceolate points using a fairly
standardized multi-stage reduction strategy,
and that individual stone-workers interpreted
thisbasic pattern in terms of theirown individual
skills and preferences. These skills and
preferences are simply visible to us in this con
text because of the emphasis on communal kill
sites in Paleoindian archaeology. A number of
authors (i.e., Bradley and Frison 1987; Bradley
and Stanford 1987; Ebell 1988), in fact,quite ex
plicitlynote that
manyCody periodpointtypes
316
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 36, No. 137,1991
seem to form a continuous range of variation in
both technology and morphology, and Wheat's
(1972) plots show such continua clearly. The ex
ception to this generalization may be in theAl
berta category, which is finished by percussion
rather than pressure flaking and which may date
somewhat earlier than the other Cody types
(Agenbroad 1978), but there are so few dated
Alberta sites that it is difficult to put much con
fidence in this conclusion.
I hasten to add that such an interpretation
in no way implies that each typewhich has been
recognized represents a specific prehistoric in
dividual: none of the minor features which
define the various types seems so esoteric that it
could not have been developed independently
by a number of different people. It simply im
that the occurrence of a similar
plies widespread
point shape and reduction strategy the pattern
is
which we would expect formajor, or culturally
determined, variation, and the much more
restricted distributions of innumerable tiny
variations in shape and technology conform to
the pattern we would expect forminor, or in
dividually determined, variation. Following the
arguments above, the visibility of individual
level variation in this context results from the
fact thatmost of theprojectile points which have
been studied derive from communal kills.
The Firstview Complex
ViewingCodyperiodprojectilepointsfrom
thisperspective also illuminates a potentially im
portant spatial pattern on the Plains during the
Late Paleoindian period. Although we clearly
do not understand in any detail how prehistoric
people maintained uniform styles of artifact
production over large areas or long periods of
time, it seems safe to infer that the existence of
such styles indicates some kind of contact or in
teraction. The geographic extent of a given
style, then, provides a rough indication of the
spatial scale of this interaction. It is therefore
useful to examine a major distinction which has
been drawn between Northern and Southern
Plains projectile points during theLate Paleoin
dian period.
Wheat (1972) distinguishes a series of point
types from theSouthern and Central Plains from
Douglas B. Bamforth] PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT

Table 4: Characteristics of Projectile Points from the Plainview and Milnesand Sites.

Plainview Milnesand

Flake Blank Visible

no 4 22.2 4 40.0
one face 9 50.0 2 20.0
both faces 5 27.8 4 40.0

Number of Finished Edge Surfaces

1 0 0.0 2 20.0
2 0 0.0 2 20.0
3 2 103 1 10.0
4 17 89.5 5 50.0

the classic Cody types of the more northern
areas, and refers to the former as the Firstview
Complex. This complex includes two stemmed,
Cody-style types (Firstview and San Jon), along
with Milnesand and Plainview points (also see
Johnson and Holliday 1981). As the previous
section discusses, the key distinctions between
Firstview and San Jon points and other types of
stemmed, lanceolate points made during Cody
times lie inwhat seem tobe minor features; these
types can, arguably, be subsumed within the
general range of Cody technological and mor
phological variation. Milnesand and Plainview
points, however, show a number of important
differences from theCody material, particularly
in the fact that they are unstemmed, a charac
teristicwhich Wheat (1972) stresses. Further
more, points which can clearly be placed into
these two unstemmed types are largely or com
pletely restricted to the Southern Plains
(Johnson and Holliday 1980; Wheat 1972), in
contrast to the stemmed Cody material, which
occurs fromTexas toCanada.
The absence of any kind of stemming on
Plainview and Milnesand points indicates that
they lack the first of the two major typological
features defining Cody points. As I noted above,
following Bradley and Frison (1987), the other
major typological feature defining Cody points
is the complex, multi-stage reduction strategy
used to produce them. It is difficult to argue that
Plainview and Milnesand points are uniformly,
or even usually, the end products of such a
strategy.
For present purposes, I define Plainview
points as the points recovered from the Plain
view type site and Milnesand points as thepoints
recovered from theMilnesand type site. The
sample of material I consider here includes all
Plainview(n = 21) and 11of
of thepointsfrom
thepoints recovered during the initial investiga
tion of theMilnesand site 1, all of which are
presently stored at the Texas Archaeological
Research Laboratory. The typological affilia
tions of these points have been discussed exten
sively(Johnsonand Holliday 1980;Knudson
1983;Krieger1947;Sellards1955;Sellardset al.
1947; Warnica and Williamson 1968; Wheat
1972).
One hallmark of the Cody reduction
strategy is the extremely regular pattern of
finishing flaking, which, in most cases, com
pletely obscures evidence of previous stages of
flaking. At Northwestern Plains Cody sites, for
example, points which show traces of the flake
blanks fromwhich theywere made are extremely
rare or entirely absent (i.e., Bradley and Frison
1987; Ebell 1988; Satterthwaite 1957). In con
trast, a very large proportion of both the Plain
view and theMilnesand points (Table 4) show
traces of their original flake blanks, and many of
them show extensive traces; many of these tools
are essentially marginally-worked flakes, al
though themarginal flaking is often quite well
executed (i.e., Knudsen 1973, Figure D-4).
That is,neither of the two principal identify
ing characteristics of Cody points can be seen in
either the Plainview or theMilnesand material,
while both of these characteristics can be seen

317

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST
inboth theFirstview and San Jon types. Includ
ing all four of these types together in a single
complex which is seen as distinct from more
northern Cody materials, then, is somewhat
problematic. An alternative view implies that
identifiable Cody material can be found
throughout thewestern Plains, but that a distinct
class of unstemmed and, often,minimally staged
points ismore or less confined to the Southern
Plains. The chronological relationships be
tween the Cody and more purely Southern
Plains types are, however, not clear. Johnson
andHolliday (1980) indicatethattheradiocar
bon dates on Plainview points cluster around
10,000 BP, somewhat earlier thanmost accept
able dates for Cody points. Milnesand points
were recovered in association with Cody-style
points from deposits dated between 10,000 and
8500 BP at Blackwater Draw (Haynes 1975; Sel
lards 1952), but there are only very limited
provenience data on these artifacts (Hester
1972),making thespecificage of thetwopoint
types at the site impossible to determine.
The interpretation of this pattern in human
terms is also not clear. A traditional view might
identify two distinct "traditions" of projectile
point production, one found throughoutmost of
the Plains and one confined to the Southern
Plains. Such a view might then lead us into
problems of ethnicity and artifact style and the
conditions under which mobile hunter
gatherers might exploit overlapping territories
while still retaining distinctive technological pat
terns. However, we could also infer that com
munity standards of projectile point production
were simply more variable on the Southern
Plains than elsewhere during the Cody period;
while most or all flintknappers in other areas
seem to have held a single "mental template" in
common, those in the south seem sometimes to
have worked towards this template and some
times to have neglected it.Given thispossibility,
we might consider the conditions affecting the
degree of standardization of artifact appearance
and production in different societies.
Given the small number of documented
communal kills on the Southern Plains and the
poor chronological control over some of those
which are known, we are clearly not in a position
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 36, No. 137,1991
to look at either of these possibilities, or any
others, in any detail. However, they both sug
gest thatunderstanding variation within and be
tween the unstemmed point types should be a
major focus of research.
Although most definitions of the Plainview
type rely primarily on the most completely
worked points from the site (i.e., Krieger 1947;
Wormington 1957), variability within the collec
tion iswell-documented. For example, although
such authors as Wormington (1957:265)
describe Plainview points as "lanceolate... with
parallel or slightly convex sides and concave
bases", the type collection includes two points
with clearly concave edges, producing a slightly
flared base (Knudson 1973, Fig. D-5, D-6).
Technologically, Knudsen (1973) argues
that there are three distinct kinds of points in the
Plainview collection, each made on flake blanks
of differingthickness
which requirediffering
degrees of reduction: thicker blanks must be
more extensively worked and therefore show
more complete flaking. However, it is also pos
sible to view these "varieties" as divisions of a
continuum, with knappers accepting a range of
blank sizes and working each blank as much as
necessary to produce a useable point. It is likely
that a similar continuum underlies some of the
technological variation in the Milnesand
material as well, as both collections show similar
proportions of incompletely flaked points
(Table 4).
However, there are also interesting dif
ferences between the two collections. First, the
margins of the points fromMilnesand generally
show less carefulfinishingflakingthan those
from Plainview; while 89.5 percent of the Plain
view points show careful regularization of the
edges by removing tinyflakes from the ridges left
on both edges of both faces during the last round
of pressure flaking,only 50.0 percent of theMil
nesand points show such removals (Table 4). In
addition, all but one of thePlainview points show
similar flake scar patterns on both faces, with
this pattern usually being parallel collateral
(Table 5). In contrast, 50.0 percent of theMil
nesand points show different scar patterns on
different faces, often combining parallel col
318
Douglas B. Bamforth]
Table 5: Correspondence Between Flake
PLAINVIEW Face 1
Face 2:
Oblique 0 10 1
Collateral 0 19
Irregular 0 0
MILNESAND Face 1
Face 2:
Oblique 0
Collateral 60 15
Irregular 0
Total 1
lateral on one face with oblique or irregular scar
patterns on the other.
In addition to these distinctions, ithas been
recognized formany years that the basal con
figurations of Plainview and Milnesand points
differ from one another, with Plainview points
showing a concave base thinned by the removal
of a small number of relatively long flakes, and
Milnesand points showing straight bases
finished with many short, steep flakes, resulting
inwhat has been described as a "wedge-shaped"
base. This generalization holds strongly for the
points fromPlainview, all ofwhich show at least
slightly concave bases and only one of which
shows a basal configuration which might be
described as wedge-shaped. However, theMil
nesand material is, again, fairly variable; all of
the 7 points at TARL with intact bases show es
sentially straight bases, four (59.1 percent) do
not show a stronglywedge-shaped base while
the remaining three (40.9 percent) do.
Overall, then, thepoints fromPlainview and
Milnesand differ from the classic Cody pattern
in a more "opportunistic" selection of blanks
and accommodation of reduction strategies to
blank types. Furthermore, the points fromMil
nesand show less extensive finishing flaking and
less standardized flaking patterns and basal
design than those fromPlainview, and thePlain
view collection shows interesting variations in
outline form that are not incorporated into the
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM
PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT
Scar Patterns on Opposite Faces of Single Points from Plainview and Milnesand.
Oblique_Collateral_Irregular_Total
19 0
0 0
Total 020 0 20
Oblique_Collateral_Irregular_Total
2 2 0
3 3 0
10 11 0
descriptions of the Plainview type.Whether the
collections from the two sites represent a single
"tradition" of production or not, it is quite clear
that they differ considerably from one another
in stylistically and technologically interesting
ways, and that each collection includes a fairly
variable set of implements.
We currently have very few conceptual tools
for understanding variation such as this, in part
because we very rarely attempt to identify it.
One possible tool is in the hypothesis that some
aspects of Paleoindian projectile point produc
tionmay be linked to the environmental and so
cial conditions which allow the development of
part-time craft specialists (Bamforth 1988). If
this is correct, the greater variability in point
styles on the Southern Plains suggests a degree
of geographical variation inPaleoindian adapta
tions,with more southern groups existing under
conditions which hindered reliance on a small
number of highly skilled stoneworkers. If a
greater proportion of individuals within a
society make their own tools, for example, we
might expect to see more variation in form,
reduction strategies, and skill levels. We clear
ly do not presently have sufficient data to
evaluate hypotheses such as this,but we cannot
even consider them ifwe continue to rely ex
clusively on traditional approaches to point
typology.
319
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST [Vol. 36, No. 137,1991

CONCLUSIONS theMilnesand accession number at TARL, 23

ofwhichwere reportedby Sellards (1955).Of
The fundamental points of this paper are
these 30, sixwere not actually from the bone bed
that studies of Paleoindian projectile points,
itself, nine were returned to the landowner,
first, have emphasized a limited portion of the
three are either on display or still inplaster jack
total range of the variation in point form and
ets, and one was lost (D. Creel, pers. comm.
technology and, second, have often failed to con
sider the relevance of the attributes they ex 1989).
amine to the problems they generally hope to REFERENCES CITED
solve. These problems both limit the range of
Agenbroad, L.
questions we can study and obscure important 1978 TheHudson-MengSite:An AlbertaBisonKill in
patterns of variation, often by creating a nearly
theNebraska High Plains. University Press of
America, Washington, D.C.
impenetrable thicket of "types".
Like other artifacts, Paleoindian projectile Akerman, K., and J. Fagan

points often fall into obvious categories: Cody

1986 FlutingtheLindenmeierFolsom:A Simpleand
Economical Solution to the Problem, and its
points really do not look likeAgate Basin points, Implications for Other Fluted Point Tech
and archaeologists have recognized this. nologies. Lithic Technology 15:1-7.

However, we have gone beyond this recognition Bamforth, D. B.

inmaking that all variation in
the assumption 1985 The Technological Organization of Paleoin
and technology can dian Small-Group Bison Hunting on the Llano
projectile point morphology
Estacado. Plains Anthropologist 23:1-16.
be organized into such categories, which we call
"types". This is not the case, and assuming that
on theGreat
1988 Ecology and Human Organization
Plains. Plenum Press, New York.
it isblinds us to the existence and significance of
other kinds of variation, such as themore or less Bradley, B.
1982 Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. In The
continuous pattern of differences among Cody
Agate Basin Site: A Record of Paleoindian Oc
points. cupation of theNorthwestern High Plains, edited
As is the case for all other aspects of ar by G. Frison and D. Stanford, 181-208.
Academic Press, New York.
chaeological research, typological studies must
be guided by clear statements about thepurpose Bradley, B., and G. Frison
forwhich artifacts are being classified, careful 1987 Projectile Points and Specialized Bifaces from
the Horner Site. In The Horner Site: The Type
consideration of the kinds of data which should
Site of theCody Cultural Complex, edited by G.
be gathered to accomplish thatpurpose, and sys Frison and L. Todd, 199-232. Academic Press,
tematic analysis of the patterning of those data. New York.

a rich
Projectile points can provide us with Bradley, B., and D. Stanford
source of insight into Paleoindian ways of life, 1987 The Claypool Study. In Tlie Horner Site: The
edited
but only ifwe study themwith care and rigor. Type Site of tlieCody Cultural Complex,
405-434. Academic
by G. Frison and L. Todd,
Press, New York.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research Crabtree, D.
Darrell Creel of the Texas Archaeological
1968 A Stoneworker's Approach to Analyzing and
Laboratory of theUniversity of Texas atAustin allowed me
Replicating theLindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9:
to examine the Plainview and Milnesand collections; I am
3-39.
version of this
grateful for his time and assistance. The final
paper has also benefited from comments on earlier drafts Davis, E. M.
by Eric Ingbar and an anonymous reviewer, although 1954 The Culture History of the Central Great Plains
iswholly my Prior to the Introduction of Pottery. Ph.D. diss.,
responsibility for its strengths and weaknesses
own. of Anthropology, Harvard
Department
University, Cambridge.
NOTE
Deetz, J.
The 11 points fromMilnesand include all of 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History
Press, Garden City.
those at TARL which are currently available for
examination. A total of 30 points are listed under

320

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Douglas B. Bamforth] PALEOINDIAN PROJECTILE POINT

Ebell, S. Haynes, C.
1988 The Dunn Site. Plains Anthropologist 33: 505 1975 Pleistocene and Recent Stratigraphy. In Late
530. Pleistocene Environments of the Llano Es
tacado, edited by F. Wendorf and J.Hester, 57
Fawcett, W. 96. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Ranchos de
1986 Variation on the Lithic from
Assemblages Taos, New Mexico.
Bison Kills and Associated Camp and Process
29:9-28. J.
ingAreas. Wyoming Archaeologist Hester,
1962 A FolsomLithicComplex fromtheElida Site,
Flenniken, J. Roosevelt 69:
County, New Mexico. El Palacio
1978 Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A 92-113.
Replication Experiment in Lithic Technology.
American Antiquity 43:474-480. 1972 BlackwaterLocalityNo. 1:A Stratified
Early
Man Site inEastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin
Flenniken, J., and A. Raymond Research Center, Ranchos de Taos, New
1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Mexico.
Replication Experimentation and Technologi
cal Analysis. American Antiquity 51: 603-614. Hester, J., and J. Grady
1977 Paleoindian Social Patterns on the Llano Es
Forbis, R., and J. Sperry tacado. Museum Journal 17: 78-96.
1952 An Early Man Site inMontana. American An
J.,D. Amick, and R. Rose
tiquity 18:127-132. Hofman,
1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-Midland As
Frison, G. semblage from a Campsite inWestern Texas.
1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 35: 221-254.
Academic Press, New York.
Hofman, J., L. Todd, and C. Schultz
1982 Paleoindian Winter Subsistence Strategies on 1988 The Lipscomb Bison Quarry. Continuing In
theHigh Plains. InPlains Indian Studies: A Col Site on
vestigation at a Folsom Kill-Butchery
lection ofEssays inHonor of John C. Ewers and the Southern Plains. Paper presented at the
Waldo Wedel, edited by D. Ubelaker and D. 46th Annual Plains Conference, Wichita, Kan
Stanford, 193-201. Smithsonian Contributions sas.
toAnthropology, No. 30, Smithsonian Institu
tion,Washington, D.C. Howard, E.
1943 The Finley Site: Discovery of Yuma Points in
Frison, G., and B. Bradley situ, Near Eden, Wyoming. American Antiquity
1980 Folsom Tools and Teclmology at theHanson 8: 224-234.
Site. University of New Mexico Press, Albu
querque. Hurst, C.
1943 A Folsom Site in a Mountain Valley of
1982 Fluting Folsom Points. In The Agate Basin Site: Colorado. American Antiquity 8:250-253.
A Record of Paleoindian Occupation of the
Northwestern High Plains, edited by G. Frison Ingbar, E., and J.Hofman
and D. Stanford, 209-212. Academic Press, New 1989 Folsom Fluting Fallacies. Paper presented at
York. the 47th Annual Plains Conference, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota.
Frison, G., and D. Stanford, eds.
1982 The Agate Basin Site: A Record of Paleoindian Irwin-Williams, C, H. Irwin, G. Agogino, and C. Haynes
Occupation of the Northwestern Plains. 1973 Hell Gap: Paleoindian Occupation on theHigh
Academic Press, New York. Plains. Plains Anthropologist 19: 40-53.

Goodyear, A. Johnson, E., and V. Holliday

1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline 1980 A Plainview Kill-Butchering Locale on the
Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups of Llano Estacado?The Lubbock Lake Site.
North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Plains Antliropologist 25: 89-111.
Resource Use, edited by C. Ellis and J.Lothrop,
1-10.Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1981 Late Paleoindian Activity at the Lubbock Lake
Site. Plains Anthropologist 26:173-193.
Gunnerson, J.
1987 Archaeology of theHigh Plains. Bureau of Land Kelly, R., and L. Todd
Denver. 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian
Management,
Hunting Mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231
Hadyen, B. 244.
1982 Interaction Parameters and the Demise of
Paleoindian Plains Knudson, R.
Craftsmanship.
27:109-123. 1973 Organizational Variability inLate Paleoindian
Anthropologist
Assemblages. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Anthropol
ogy,Washington State University, Pullman.

321

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLAINS ANTHROPOLOGIST [Vol. 36,No. 137,1991]

Krieger, A. Warnica, J.
1947 Artifacts from the Plainview Bison Bed. Bul 1961 The Elida Site: Evidenc of a Folsom Occupa
letinof theGeological SocietyofAmerica 58: tion in the Roosevelt County, Eastern New
938-954. Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological
Socitety 30:209-215.
McCartney, P.
1990 Alternative Hunting Strategies in Plains Warnica, J., and T. Williamson
Paleoindian Adaptations. In Hunters of the 1968 The Milnesand Site-Revisited. Transactions
Recent Past, edited by L. Davis and B. Reeves, of theRegionalArchaeologicalSymposium
for
111-121. Unwin Hyman, Ltd., London. Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas 3:
21-22.
Reher, C, and G. Frison
1980 The Vore Site,48CK302:A Stratified
Buffalo Wendorf, F., A. Krieger, C. Albritton, and T. Stewart

Jump in theWyoming Black Hills. Plains 1955 TheMidland Discovery.Universityof Texas

Antliropologist 25(88, pt. 2), Memoir 16. Press, Austin.

Satterthwaite, L. Wheat, J. B.
1957 Stone Artifacts at and Near theFinley Site, Near 1972 The Olsen-Chubbock Site: A Paleoindian
Eden, Wyoming. University Museum, Univer Bison Kill. Society for American Archaeology
sity of Pennsylvania. 37(1,pt. 2),Memoir 26.
Sellards, E. 1979 The Jurgens Site. Plains Anthropologist 24(84,
1952 of Texas pt. 2), Memoir 15.
Early Man in America. University
Press, Austin.
Wilmsen, E., and F. Roberts
1955 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts fromMil 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding Report on
nesand, New Mexico. American Antiquity 20: Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions in
336-344. Anthropology No. 24, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Sellards, E., G. Evans, and G. Meade
1947 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from Wormington, H.
Plainview, Texas. Bulletin of the Geological 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver
Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No.
Society ofAmerica 58: 927-938.
4, Denver.
Sollberger, J.
1985 A Technique for Fluting Folsom. Lithic Tech Young, D., and R. Bonnichsen
nology 14: 41-50. 1984 Understanding Stone Tools: A Cognitive Ap
proach. Center for the Study of Early Man. The
D.
Thomas, University of Maine, Orono.
1986 Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and
Raymond. American Antiquity 51: 619-628. Department ofAnthropology
Tunnell, C. Campus Box 233
1977 FlutedPoint Production as Revealed by Lithic University of Colorado at Boulder
from the Adair-Steadman Site in
Specimens Boulder, Colorado 80309-0233
Northwest Texas. Museum Journal 17:140-168.

March 1991

322

This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:33:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions