Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:41:03.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic Flint Points

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 1940

Robert McCormick Adams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several valuable classifications of flint points have been formulated but few of these have attempted to distinguish between those points having diagnostic value, and the numerous forms which are found rather indiscriminately over a large series of cultures and which may or may not have value as cultural determinants. Points which have been used by archaeologists as diagnostic determinants seem to be inseparably connected with distribution studies of complexes and traits. An illustration of this is the small finely chipped isosceles projectile point so diagnostic of the Middle Mississippi phase. This identical point is found in the Southwest where unfortunately it is found among several different cultures and in several different time horizons so that it does not have diagnostic value in this general area. Or again we might consider the highly diagnostic laurel leaf blade so typical of many components of the Red Ochre phase.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , July 1940 , pp. 72 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Any trait or complex that aids in distinguishing one cultural unit from another is considered as diagnostic.

2 A point has a multiple trait index and may often be a sensitive indicator of a cultural unit. A classification of flint points might include a description of form, technique of chipping, type of chipping scars, and the nature of the flint or chert used in its manufacture. Four classifications that come to the author's mind are:

  1. a.

    a. from pp. 87–94 of An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology by W. D. Strong, Smith. Misc. Collections, vol. 93, no. 10, 1935.

  2. b.

    b. from chapter IV of Rediscovering Illinois, by F. C. Cole and T. Deuel, 1937.

  3. c.

    c. from an article on projectile point classification in the Jan. 1937 issue of American Antiquity, by J. J. Finkelstein.

  4. d.

    d. from an article in the Missouri Archaeologist in the June 1937 issue by J. A. Eichenberger.

3 The points illustrated in this article do not always represent the range of alternate forms existing in each instance.

4 Harrington, M. R. “Folsom Man in California,” The Master Key, vol. XII, no. 4, 1938 Google Scholar.

5 Campbell, E. W. and W. H., Antevs, E., Amsden, C. A., The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mohave, Southwest Museum Papers, no. 11, June 1937.

6 Fischel, Hans E. “Folsom and Yuma Culture Finds,” American Antiquity, vol. IV, no. 3, Jan. 1939.

7 Harrington, M. R. Gypsum Cave Nevada, Southwest Museum Papers, no. 8, 1933.

8 The discovery of a stray Folsom point in manifestations known to have been later than the Folsom culture does not necessarily mean that people responsible for the manifestation made the point. It is quite possible that such a point was picked up and reused.

9 Cole and Deuel, op. cit., p. 53. By a contracting base point is meant here a point the stem of which contracts from the bottom towards the tip.

10 Ibid., p. 55.

11 Ibid., p. 56.

12 Shetrone, H. C. The Mound Builders, 1931, p. 177.

13 Ibid., p. 438.

14 Cole and Deuel, op. cit., plate XXXII, B.

15 Bell, E. H. Chapters in Nebraska Archaeology, vol. I, 1936, p. 46. This form often has an irregular outline.