A Preliminary Examination of Quantitative Methods for Classifying Small Triangular Points From Late Prehistoric Sites: A Case Study From the Ohio River Valley

ABSTRACT Several classification [i]modus operandi[/i]s have been proposed for allowing tighter chronological command of small triangular points regained from Late Prehistoric sites in the Ohio River Valley. In this paper, we expand upon these by introducing quantitative way s for metric measurements of small triangular points. The use of quantitative processs allows for a less subjective means of classifying the points. The propos [i]modus operandi[/i] is applied to specimens regained from several Fort Ancient sites in the external Bluegrass and Appalachian Foothills Regions of Kentucky The courses used here can be applied to determine the relative temporal placement of small triangular points and restore some of the subjective ultimate part inherent in earlier studies.

Several researchers have examined small triangular points associated with the Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric periods in the attempt to make known tighter chronologies for specific regions (eg Geier 1983; Graybill 1981; Peacock 1986; Railey 1992; Seeman 1980; Shott 2003) Here, we examine small triangular points dating to the Fort Ancient period in the Bluegrass Region of Kentucky Relevant to the general discussion is the work guidanceed by Railey (1992) for sites dating to the Fort Ancient period; circa A.D. 1000-1750 in Kentucky (Pollack and Henderson 2000) Railey (1992) guidanceed a seriation of triangular points and demonstrated that several marks had a more restricted temporal range within the larger Fort Ancient period. Small triangular projectile points were subdivided into eight emblems five of which exhibited a restricted time range and were engrossed to provide finer resolution for temporal associations within the Fort Ancient framework (Table 1)

Our close attention builds on Railey's work with sum of two units basic goals. First, we wanted to quantitatively define the impressed signs using non-subjective criteria, allowing us to assess the validity of the previous typological categories. Embedded within this goal is the disclosure of a typological method that allows for systematic replicability between analysts working with small triangular points. next to the first we were interested in examining the mechanisms related to changing projectile point morphology [i]or[/i] part of to the other time. This paper serves as a pilot research and consequently will address the first goal stated above. The sample used for the not away analysis consisted of 56 points get backed from several late prehistoric Fort Ancient sites in northeastern Kentucky (Figure 1) The sites include Snag cove (15Bk2), Augusta (15Bk200), Fox Farm (15Ms1) Laughlin (15Lw13) and Thompson (15Gp27) These are the same sites used in Railey's original inquiry (Railey 1992).

Background

The use of hafted bifaces for cultural-historical aims has been, and continues to be, important for lithic analysts (eg Gunn and Prewitt 1975; Hall 1992; Henton and Durand 1991 ; Thomas 1981) This is because temporally sensitive impressed signs often provide a temporal connection for subsequent analyses. Such stamps however, should routinely be re-examined as of recent origin methods of analysis become available and of recent origin specimens are recovered. The continued use of pre-existing emblems without scrutiny can have several pitfalls. First, fresh specimens are more often placed into the original marks without consideration of how the data may provide additional information upon those types. Secondly, new technologies and modes of analysis may provide different insights into the original emblems or provide a classification a whole that better addresses the final cause for which it was created.

Typology ofttimes does not receive the scrutiny it be entitled tos in contemporary archaeological method and theory (Thom 1993; diocese Prewitt and Tomka 1993 for a certain number of lithic analysis exceptions). Critical issues in typology include: unclear emblem definitions (Beck and Jones 1989; Sullivan and Rozen 1985) stamps that are defined for individual purpose being used for another intent (Dunnell 1986), analyst bias in artifact classification (Beck and Jone 1989; Fish 1978; Odell 1996; Whittaker et al. 1998) and the failure to re-examine a emblem once defined even after of recent origin data become available.

In an interesting inquiry by Railey (1992), a sample of small triangular points was examined to determine if there were temporal patterns exhibited by the agency of the points within the sample that could be used to define a tighter chronological direction for the Fort Ancient period. The data were obtained from five Fort Ancient sites in Kentucky An initial sorting of the specimens was managemented using such criteria as: stage of refinement, outline shape, relative thickness, general size, and the neighborhood or absence of serrations (Railey 1992:152) In an effort to characterize the points, a series of metric measurements was taken upon each point. While these metric variables were recorded, Railey (1992) predominantly relied upon the discrete variables to define eight point emblems The distinguishing characteristics of these stamps are presented in Table 2

Of the eight stamps five (Types 2-6) exhibited tighter temporal rule Type 2 points were rest to date early in the Fort Ancient period (ca. A.D. 1000-1300) mark 3 dated in the middle Fort Ancient period (ca. A.D. 1200-1400) stamps 4-6 dated to the late Fort Ancient (post- A.D. 1400) period. emblem 4 was thought to possibly exhibit a resharpened form of stamp 5 or 6, and could sole be dated to the late Fort Ancient. impressed sign 5 points were thought to date earlier than stamp 6, reaching their height of popularity circa A.D. 1400 mark 6 became the dominant impressed sign after circa A.D. 1500. As noted by dint of Railey (1992), the points used in the original sample (N = 133) were "subjectively separated into eight types" For example, this typology included of the like kind terms as incurvate base, thick, etc However, individual might ask, how incurvate does the base ne to be in order for it to be considered incurvate as oppos to straight? Or, in what manner thick is thick?