pluckhahn, thomas j., and sean p. norman 2011typological, functional, and comparative contextual...

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.


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

([email protected])2Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Flowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL 33620-7200

([email protected])

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


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.


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


5/36


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.


6/36


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.


7/36


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


8/36



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


9/36


Table 2. Summary Data for Constituent Types of the Proximally Straight and ExpandingCluster (N>1).


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


10/36



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


11/36



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


12/36


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).


13/36


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).


14/36


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.


15/36


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)


16/36


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).


17/36


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).


18/36


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)


19/36


Figure 12. Diagram illustrating divisions of the triangular cluster.


20/36


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.


21/36


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


22/36


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


23/36


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


24/36


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


25/36


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,


26/36


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.


27/36


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.


28/36


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).


29/36


30/36


31/36


32/36


33/36


34/36


35/36


#

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


X

UD20EL1

Pluckhahn

24.7

16.7

24.7

16.7

16.1

5.5

2.3

RVchertblack-grey

opaque


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


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


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.


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

pluckhahn, thomas j., and sean p. norman 2011typological, functional, and comparative contextual...

Documents