pluckhahn, thomas j., and sean p. norman 2011typological, functional, and comparative contextual...
Post on 05-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
1/36
The Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 64 Numbers 3-4
September-December 2011
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893
Table of Contents
From the Editors 137
Articles
On the Trail of the Panther in Ancient Florida 139
Ryan J. Wheeler
Excavation of a Mid-Nineteenth-Century Barrell Well and Associated Features
at Fort Brooke, Tampa, Florida 163
Robert J. Austin,. Hendryx, Brian E. Worthington, and Debra J. Wells
Swift Creek Paddle Designs from the Florida Gulf Coast: Patterns and Prospects 187
Neill J. Wallis and Amanda ODell
Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland Hafted Bifaces 207
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 241
Nancy Marie White
2011 Florida Field School Summaries 275
About the Authors 288
Cover: USF students shovel test during the 2011 eld school.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
2/36
The Florida AnthropologistVol. 64 (3-4) September-December 2011
Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses of Woodland
Hafted Bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1)
Thomas J. Pluckhahn1 and Sean P. Norman2
1Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Flowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-7200
(tpluckha@usf.edu)2Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Flowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-7200
(spn@mail.usf.edu)
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 straight-
and 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
identication challenging.
The problem is exacerbated by a rampant stateparochialism 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; ve 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
ve different types. Thus, these three guides alone describe a
combined 53 Middle and Late Woodland types. To this couldbe added two additional types described by Schroder (2006).
Finally, Baker (1995) has added a dizzying array of new types,
including eight specic 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
identication 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 identication. Baker
(1995), for example, routinely classies 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 identication 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
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 renements
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 functionspecically the differentiation
of dart and arrow points (e.g., Nassaney and Pyle 1999)
this task has rarely been attempted for the eastern Gulf Coastregion (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 specic
taxonomic categories, from clusters to types. We then examine
the clusters, types, and individual points for evidence of
functionspecically 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 variousresearchers 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, nally, the most recent investigations
by Pluckhahn (2003, 2011).
The focus on points from Kolomoki, to our minds, avoids
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
3/36
The Florida Anthropologist208 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
ome of the problems that plague discussions of hafted biface
types at a state or regional level. Specically, we think the
narrow focus satises 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 SwiftCreek 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 discussedherein reect 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 rst basic question in this paper is the following:
can typological assignments (whether types or clusters)
be justied 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 ner 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 difcult. We have triedto 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 nished bifaces relative to raw
material (although they are manufactured primarily from
various cherts of the Coastal Plain, there are also specimensmade 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 dened by Andrefsky (1998:179), with a few
exceptions. First, measurements of haft length and neck width
are reserved only for points with relatively well-dened hafting
Figure 1. Map of Kolomoki showing locations of Blocks A and D.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
4/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 209
elements, as delineated by shoulders. Thus, triangular points by
our denition 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 dened, proximally contracting stemmed andtriangular points lack necks. We would note that our method
also differs from Whatley (2002:10), who measures haft width
and length relative to an undened 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: specically, 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 rst modern studies in thisvein, Thomas (1978) examined a collection of still-hafted (and
thus securely identied) 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
tted into the equations; the equation producing the higher
value indicates the proper category.
Thomass (1978) discriminant analysis is not applicableto 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 one-
variable 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
classication 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 onlyshoulder 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 tted 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, thesame 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
inuence the size and form of projectile points are universal,
not somehow specic 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 thisregard 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 ve 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:
Figure 2. Illustration showing hafted biface dimensions that were measured for this study
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
5/36
The Florida Anthropologist210 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
arrow: (length < 36 mm) and (neck width < 10.5 mm)
and (thickness < 6 mm) and (weight < 3.0 g)
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 identication 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 functionedas hafted knives, for example. It is also likely that points were
used for a variety of purposes over the course of their use-
lives. 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 nal basic question we address in this paper
is the following: can we apply the typological and functionaldivisions 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 rst 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 aprepared central hearth. As argued elsewhere (Pluckhahn
et al. 2006), the pit house appears to have lled 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 reecting 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 thedatesfrom 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 sufciently complete for typological
classication, 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 ner 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.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
6/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 211
Selected examples of these points are illustrated in Figures 4
and 5.
The proximally contracting cluster can be broadly divided
rst on basis of the width of the blade relative to the lengthof 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 ve 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 rst group, with a with long haft area and narrowbase, is represented by two points we classify as the Little Bear
Creek type as dened by DeJarnette and colleagues (1962) and
summarized by Cambron and Hulse (1990:82).
More common, with 26 specimens identied, 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 classied as Florida
Copenas, again as described by Bullen (1975:23). We use this
term specically to refer to the variety of Florida Copenas with
forms that could be best described as trianguloid, lanceolate, or
perhaps pentagonal. In our classication 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 re-
sharpening. 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 classied 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 morefrequently employed. Nine points in this group are tentatively
identied 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 dened by pointsthat 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 rst 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 dened, these points would
Figure 3. Diagram illustrating the three basic
morphological clusters.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
7/36
The Florida Anthropologist212 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 1. Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Proximally Contracting Cluster (N>1).
Type Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
Ebenezer(N=5)
ML 5 40.6-48.5 44.6 3.4
MW 5 16.7-20.2 18.8 1.8
BLW 5 16.7-20.2 18.8 1.8
BLL 5 31.6-42.4 38.0 4.8
BW 5 5.3-8.7 6.9 1.3
HL 5 3.8-9.0 7.0 2.0
MT 5 4.2-8.8 7.3 2.0
WT 5 4.5-6.6 5.2 0.9
Florida Copena (Lanceolate Variety)(N=6)
ML 6 29.2-48.8 40.5 6.4
MW 6 18.3-26.6 21.6 3.1
BLW 6 18.3-26.6 21.6 3.1
BLL 6 20.6-38.0 30.3 5.7
BW 6 13.6-23.8 19.4 3.6
HL 6 9.2-12.7 11.1 1.3
MT 6 6.5-10.0 7.8 1.4
WT 6 4.0-8.0 6.2 1.5
Little Bear Creek(N=2)
ML 2 40.4-47.0 43.7 4.7
MW 2 17.9-20.7 19.3 2.0
BLW 2 17.9-20.7 19.3 2.0
BLL 2 26.6-31.3 29.0 3.3
BW 2 6.8-8.0 7.4 0.9
HL 2 15.9-17.1 16.5 0.9
MT 2 6.8-8.2 7.5 1.0
WT 2 4.0-6.0 5.0 1.4
New Market(N=21)
ML 17 23.6-58.2 39.5 10.1
MW 17 14.0-21.3 17.5 2.1
BLW 17 14.0-21.3 17.5 2.1
BLL 17 15.5-45.1 29.7 9.3
BW 17 5.5-13.7 9.2 2.3
HL 17 6.6-14.8 10.7 2.4
MT 17 5.0-8.6 7.0 0.9
WT 17 1.6-8.0 4.1 1.9
Spike (Variety 1)(N=26)
ML 25 31.1-71.7 45.4 8.4
MW 25 11.8-21.4 15.2 2.2
BLW 25 11.8-21.4 15.2 2.2
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
8/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 213
Type Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
BLL 25 19.9-54.1 32.7 6.7
BW 25 4.7-15.8 9.2 2.7
HL 25 9.1-23.5 14.0 3.5
MT 25 4.8-9.6 7.3 1.3
WT 25 2.0-9.0 4.5 1.9
Spike (Variety 2)(N=9)
ML 9 38.4-64.0 47.5 8.4
MW 9 14.2-18.5 16.0 1.3
BLW 9 14.2-18.5 16.0 1.3
BLL 9 30.3-54.3 39.1 8.0
BW 9 7.4-14.6 9.8 2.3
HL 9 8.2-10.8 9.6 1.1
MT 9 6.5-9.4 7.9 1.0
WT 9 3.0-9.0 5.0 1.8
Swannanoa(N=6)
ML 6 22.5-42.7 31.3 7.3
MW 6 13.5-23.8 17.1 4.2
BLW 6 13.3-23.8 17.1 4.2
BLL 6 11.8-32.9 22.6 7.7
BW 6 6.9-9.4 8.1 1.1
HL 6 8.8-12.3 10.2 1.4
MT 6 4.1-6.6 5.3 0.9
WT 6 2.0-6.0 3.0 1.6
Tampa(N=6)
ML 6 30.5-51.0 35.0 8.0
MW 6 14.6-26.6 18.7 4.6
BLW 6 14.6-26.6 18.7 4.6
BLL 6 21.8-35.4 26.1 4.8
BW 6 5.4-21.2 13.0 6.0
HL 6 4.6-15.5 9.4 3.6
MT 6 4.4-8.6 7.1 1.6
WT 6 2.0-12.0 4.2 3.9
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
9/36
The Florida Anthropologist214 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 2. Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Proximally Straight and ExpandingCluster (N>1).
Type Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
Bakers Creek (N=47) ML 38 28.8-52.3 40.8 5.4
MW 38 14.6-25.9 18.8 2.6
BLW 38 14.6-25.9 18.8 2.6
BLL 38 18.4-40.6 29.6 5.2
BW 38 10.8-22.8 14.9 2.5
HL 38 8.8-16.6 12.3 1.8
NW 38 10.7-19.5 13.4 1.9
NH 38 5.2-13.3 8.1 1.9
MT 38 4.4-11.7 7.1 1.3
WT 38 2.0-9.0 4.9 1.7
Bradford (N=10) ML 8 33.0-46.8 40.1 4.5
MW 8 13.5-23.7 19.2 3.2
BLW 8 13.5-23.7 19.2 3.2
BLL 8 25.9-37.0 30.8 4.8
BW 8 11.0-18.2 14.0 2.3
HL 8 8.0-14.8 11.6 2.4
NW 8 10.1-15.5 12.6 2.0
NH 8 4.0-7.6 6.0 1.2
MT 8 4.5-7.8 6.8 1.1
WT 8 1.0-6.0 4.3 1.5
Broward (N=16) ML 10 40.4-63.2 51.7 7.2
MW 11 20.1-26.5 23.0 2.2
BLW 10 20.1-26.5 23.0 2.2
BLL 11 31.7-52.1 40.2 6.6
BW 11 9.7-20.6 14.7 2.7
HL 11 8.3-15.4 12.4 2.3
NW 11 11.2-16.8 13.3 1.7
NH 11 5.9-10.3 7.8 1.4
MT 11 2.0-12.8 7.6 2.8
WT 11 5.0-11.0 8.0 1.8
Duval Type 2(N=7)
ML 6 40.7-56.5 45.7 5.9
MW 6 16.6-20.2 17.9 1.5
BLW 6 16.6-20.1 17.9 1.5
BLL 6 32.6-46.7 36.8 5.3
BW 6 6.1-13.0 9.9 2.2
HL 6 8.1-13.0 10.3 1.7
NW 6 8.7-16.6 10.8 2.9
NH 6 2.8-10.1 6.5 2.6
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
10/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 215
Type Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
MT 6 6.0-8.9 7.8 1.0
WT 6 3.0-7.0 5.4 1.5
Duval Type 3 (N=4) ML 3 45.4-55.4 51.1 5.1
MW 3 14.8-19.9 17.6 2.6
BLW 3 14.8-19.9 17.6 2.6
BLL 3 35.7-43.9 40.2 4.2
BW 3 11.4-14.8 12.9 1.7
HL 3 10.5-10.8 10.7 0.2
NW 3 9.9-15.0 12.1 2.6
NH 3 5.7-7.3 6.6 0.8
MT 3 5.2-9.7 7.4 2.3
WT 3 3.0-7.0 5.7 2.3
Florida Copena (Notched Variety)(N=14)
ML 12 31.8-46.0 35.6 4.7
MW 13 15.0-23.0 17.3 2.2
BLW 12 15.0-23.0 17.3 2.2
BLL 13 20.2-34.8 25.2 4.7
BW 13 13.9-23.0 16.0 2.3
HL 13 8.3-14.7 11.6 1.9
NW 13 12.6-22.4 14.9 2.6
NH 13 5.8-10.3 8.0 1.4
MT 13 5.3-10.2 7.3 1.6
WT 13 2.0-7.0 3.8 1.2
Mountain Fork(N=4)
ML 3 33.2-48.5 39.3 8.1
MW 3 14.2-18.8 16.2 2.4
BLW 3 14.2-18.8 16.2 2.4
BLL 3 23.7-34.4 27.7 5.9
BW 3 9.9-12.5 11.5 1.4
HL 3 11.3-14.7 12.4 2.0
NW 3 10.7-11.4 11.1 0.4
NH 3 5.7-7.5 6.7 0.9
MT 3 4.8-9.0 6.9 2.1
WT 3 2.0-6.0 4.0 2.0
Provisional Type 1(N=4)
ML 4 43.4-51.4 47.0 3.5
MW 4 19.2-21.9 20.5 1.4
BLW 4 19.2-21.9 20.5 1.4
BLL 4 35.2-44.5 39.6 4.2
BW 4 11.7-17.3 14.4 2.3
HL 4 6.4-10.4 8.0 1.7
NW 4 13.6-21.5 16.3 3.7
NH 4 3.4-7.4 5.0 1.8
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
11/36
The Florida Anthropologist216 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Type Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
MT 4 6.0-8.8 7.2 1.2
WT 4 5.0-8.0 6.5 1.3
Swan Lake
(N=5)
ML 5 36.4-41.5 39.2 2.3
MW 5 13.7-16.3 15.3 1.1
BLW 5 13.7-16.3 15.3 1.1
BLL 5 26.0-33.3 29.7 2.8
BW 5 12.4-14.8 13.5 1.1
HL 5 9.0-12.5 10.9 1.4
NW 5 10.4-13.1 11.5 1.2
NH 5 5.7-8.8 6.5 1.3
MT 5 5.7-7.7 6.6 0.8
WT 5 3.0-5.0 3.8 0.8
Weeden Island Straight Stemmed(N=11)
ML 10 32.5-48.6 39.0 5.3
MW 10 15.8-24.8 19.7 3.0
BLW 10 15.8-24.8 19.7 3.0
BLL 10 23.7-41.5 30.0 5.6
BW 10 8.8-14.1 10.8 1.5
HL 10 8.3-13.0 11.1 1.6
NW 10 9.1-24.8 18.1 5.2
NH 10 5.4-13.0 10.3 2.8
MT 10 1.0-14.5 6.9 3.4
WT 10 2.0-10.0 4.9 2.4
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
12/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 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 identied by number (see Appendix A).
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
13/36
The Florida Anthropologist218 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 identied by number (see Appendix A).
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
14/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 219
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 dened on the basis of unspecied nds. However,we have been unable to nd 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 quantifythis 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 ve examples identied. In
addition, two points exemplify Bullens (1975:13) Subtype 1
of the Duval type.
The second subdivision, dened 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 dened 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 condently
sort a small group of these (N=4) into a distinct type based ontheir wide but short hafting areas. We cannot nd 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 ner 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, unlesssignicant 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,
nally, Columbia (Bullen 1975:19) (N=1).
Figure 6. Diagram illustrating divisions of the proximally contracting cluster.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
15/36
The Florida Anthropologist220 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 identied 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 identied by number (see Appendix A)
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
16/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 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 identied
by number (see Appendix A).
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
17/36
The Florida Anthropologist222 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 identied by number (see
Appendix A).
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
18/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 223
Triangular Cluster
Our third and smallest cluster is composed of triangulars,
dened here as points lacking necks and clearly dened
hafting areas. Table 3 provides summary metric data for this
cluster and the two types we identied 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, twotriangular points have base widths greater than 28 mm. These
correspond most closely with the OLeno described by Bullen
(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 classied to more specic type names such as Pinellas
(Bullen 1975:8). All ve of these have widths less than 18
mm, and thus would be classied 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 andMississippian varieties at 17-20 mm, and all fall within this
range (one is smaller but falls in this range when breakage is
Figure 10. Diagram illustrating divisions of the proximally straight and expanding cluster.
Figure 11. Hafted bifaces of the triangular cluster. Top row: OLeno. Bottom row: Woodland/Mississippian triangulars.
Shown approximately actual size. Hafted bifaces are identied by number (see Appendix A)
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
19/36
The Florida Anthropologist224 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Figure 12. Diagram illustrating divisions of the triangular cluster.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
20/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 225
accounted for). In support of this assignment, three of the ve
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 identication 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 (75 percent) classied as arrows. These
include the New Market type and the notched variety of the
Florida Copena type.
The three-variable modication of Nassaney and Pyles
criteria produces very different results. Specically, this method
of differentiating function proves far more conservative in the
classication of arrows; only 4.8 percent of the points in theassemblage are so classied. Points of the triangular cluster
are classied 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 modied Nassaney and Pyle criteria, the only
type that is consistently (100 percent of specimens) classied
as arrowheads are the Late Woodland and Mississippian
Triangulars. A limited percentage of a few other types are also
classied 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 classication
criteria produce divergent results, some general patterns are
apparent. Only points of the triangular cluster are regularly
classied as arrows under all three methods. However, there
is obvious diversity in functional classication 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 classication of the
Kolomoki assemblage. Moreover, if we divide our triangularcluster 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 classied as arrows under all three methods. This
consistency suggests that these bifaces were manufactured
specically to function as arrow points, as others have
suggested (see Table 5). A reduced percentage of points of
Figure 13. Comparison of the relative frequencies of point clusters in the assemblages from Blocks A and D.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
21/36
The Florida Anthropologist226 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 4. Summary Data for Functional Classification of Hafted Bifaces (based on restrictedsample of complete points).
Type/Cluster N Shotts 1-variablediscriminant equation
Shotts 2-variablediscriminant equation
Nassaney and Pyles 3-variable classification
dart % arrow % dart % arrow % dart % arrow %
Ebenezer 5 60.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 100.0 0
Florida Copena 6 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 100.0 0
Florida Adena 1 100.0 - 100.0 - 100.0 0
Little Bear Creek 2 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 0
New Market 17 23.5 76.5 23.5 76.5 94.1 5.9
Spike (Variety 1) 25 8.0 92.0 8.0 92.0 96.0 4.0
Spike (Variety 2) 9 0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 0
Swannanoa 6 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 66.7 33.3
Tampa 6 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7 83.3 16.7
Total Proximally Contracting Cluster 77 24.7 75.3 24.7 75.3 93.5 6.5
Bakers Creek 38 44.7 55.3 44.7 55.3 100.0 0
Bradford 8 62.5 37.5 62.5 37.5 87.5 12.5
Broward 11 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
Columbia 1 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
Duval Type 1 1 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
Duval Type 2 6 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 100.0 0
Duval Type 3 3 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 100.0 0
Florida Copena (notched) 13 15.4 84.6 15.4 84.6 100.0 0
Jacks Reef 1 0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 0
Leon 1 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
Mountain Fork 3 0 100.0 0 100.0 66.7 33.3
Provisional Type 1 4 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
Swan Lake 5 0 100.0 0 100.0 100.0 0
Weeden Island Straight Stem 10 40.0 60.0 40.0 60.0 90.0 10.0
Total Proximally Expanding Cluster 105 48.6 51.4 46.7 53.3 97.4 2.6
Woodland/Mississippian Triangular 5 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0
OLeno 2 100.0 0 100.0 0 100.0 0
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
22/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 227
seven other types also match all three criteria for classication
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 thecriteria employed here), the fact that they were often classied
as darts suggests that they were not specically manufactured
as arrows. Another possibility is that these, as well as other
points classied as darts, served as knives or similar cutting
tools.
It is perhaps worth noting that the single specimen of the
Jacks Reef narrowly misses classication 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 theKolomoki assemblage.
Comparative Contextual Analysis
In our nal 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,
Table 5. Comparison of This and Previous Functional Classifications of Woodland HaftedBiface Types.
Type Previous Functional Classifications Functional Classification Proposed Here(Using modified Nassaney and Pyle method)
Bakers Creek dart (Baker 1995:393) dart
Bradford mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
Broward dart
Columbia dart
Duval dart
Ebenezer dart
Florida Adena dart
Florida Copena dart
Jacks Reef arrow (Baker 1995:452) dart?
Woodland Triangular arrow (Sassaman et al. 1990:167) arrow
Leon dart
Little Bear Creek dart (Baker 1995:274) dart
Mississippian Triangular arrow (Sassaman et al. 1990:167) arrow
Mountain Fork arrow (Baker 1995:442) mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
New Market arrow (Baker 1995:443) mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
OLeno dart
Swan Lake arrow (Baker 1995:446) dart
Swannanoa mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
Tampa mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
Weeden Island Straight Stemmed mostly darts, some possibly used as arrows
Woodland Spike arrow (Bradley Spike) (Baker1995:439)
Variety 1: mostly darts, some possibly used as arrowsVariety 2: darts
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
23/36
The Florida Anthropologist228 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
Table 7. Comparison of the Relative Frequencies of Point Types in the Assemblages fromBlocks A and D.
Type Block A(N=31)
Block D(N=38)
Bakers Creek 25.8 13.2
Broward 12.9 2.6
Duval Type 1 3.2 0
Duval Type 2 6.5 7.9
Duval Type 3 3.2 2.6
Ebenezer 3.2 10.5
Florida Copena 6.5 0
Florida Copena (notched variety) 9.7 0
Jacks Reef 0 2.6
Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular 0 13.2
New Market 3.2 15.8
Provisional Type 1 3.2 0
Spike (variety 1) 9.7 5.2
Spike (variety 2) 0 7.9
Swan Lake 3.2 7.9
Swannanoa 3.2 5.2
Tampa 0 2.6
Weeden Island Straight Stemmed 6.5 2.6
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
24/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 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 signicant 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 nished ornaments of exotic stone in the
Block A assemblage.
Although additional dating of earthworks is needed, thereare 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 rst time, signicant
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 signicant 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). Specically, 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 calA.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 ner 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 difcult. 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 difcult. Again, one change is clear; as noted
above, Late Woodland/Mississippian triangulars are the only
type that consistently meets all three crtiteria for classicationas 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 classication 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 moreapparent 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 signicant change in
hunting technology involving more efcient arrows. Points of
the proximally contracting cluster, which our analysis suggest
may also have been used as arrows in some cases, increasemarkedly 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 signicant 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. Specically, the comparison
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
25/36
The Florida Anthropologist230 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 identication 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, thebow and arrow is generally credited with improved hunting
efciency 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; McElrathet 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. Specically, 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 pressuresto 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 ll 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-householdinstitutions 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 ofmaterial 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
signicant 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 andhistorical 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 aked 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,
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
26/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 231
another impeding factor may be the diversity of hafted biface
typologies, which makes comparative analyses difcult.
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 classication 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 benetted 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 Classication of Some of the Flaked
Stone Projectiles, Tools and Ceremonials fromthe 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
Classication of Projectile Points. In Miscellaneous
Studies in Typology and Classication, 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 Identication 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 Staneld-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.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
27/36
The Florida Anthropologist232 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 3-36. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
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 Pyle1999 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.
2010 Gulzation 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, Aikenand 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 Chipped-
Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity62(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.
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
28/36
Woodland Hafted BifacesPluckhahn and Norman 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).
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
29/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
30/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
31/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
32/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
33/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
34/36
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
35/36
The Florida Anthropologist240 2011 Vol. 64(3-4)
#
Type
Provenience
Investigator
ML
MW
BLLBLW
BW
HL
NW
NH
MT
WT
Material
Color
Diapheneity
Comments
273Wood-Misstriangular
X
UD12EL3
Pluckhahn
17.0
13.3
17.0
13.3
13.3
3.0
0.5
CPchert
red-brown
opaque
s
lightdistal,majorproximal
b
reaks
275Wood-Misstriangular
X
UD20EL1
Pluckhahn
24.7
16.7
24.7
16.7
16.1
5.5
2.3
RVchertblack-grey
opaque
277Wood-Misstriangular
F
147B
Pluckhahn
22.6
14.6
22.6
14.6
14.6
4.5
1.1
CPchert
yellow-brown
opaque
s
lightdistal,proximal
b
reaks
279Wood-Misstriangular
F
194
Pluckhahn
27.1
17.0
27.1
17.0
14.5
5.0
1.8
RVchertblack-grey
opaque
Note:CP=CoastalPlain,F=Feature,L=Level,MD=Mound,MV=Metavolcanic,RV=Ridgeand
Valley,ST=ShovelTest(E=East,N=North),S=Section,SQ=Square,T=Tallahatta,TR=Trench,TU=TestUnit,XU=ExcavationUnit
-
7/31/2019 Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Sean P. Norman 2011 Typological, Functional, and Comparative Contextual Analyses o
36/36
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 Variable Sample Size Range Mean Standard Deviation
OLeno (N=2) ML 2 38.6-41.4 40.0 2.0
MW 2 28.4-34.1 31.3 4.0
BLW 2 28.4-34.1 31.3 4.0
BLL 2 38.6-41.4 40.0 2.0
BW 2 28.4-34.1 31.3 4.0
MT 2 6.4-8.8 7.6 1.7
WT 2 8 .0 8.0 0
Woodland/Mississippian Triangular (N=5) ML 4 22.6-27.1 25.1 2.0
MW 5 13.3-17.0 15.6 1.6
BLW 5 13.3-17.0 15.6 1.6
BLL 5 17.0-27.1 23.5 4.0
BW 4 14.5-16.6 15.5 1.1
MT 5 3.0-5.5 4.4 1.0
WT 5 0.5-2.3 1.4 0.7
top related