Calcasieu Point: A Formal Description

Archaeological Explorations of the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend: Collected Papers, Vol. 1, 2013

The eastern Trans-Pecos/Big Bend is home to a daunting array of stone projectile point styles, many of which are inadequately studied with respect to technology, chronology, and cultural affiliation. When working with point assemblages from the region, archaeologists have tended historically to assign point types on the basis of interpolation from better studied adjoining regions-particularly west-central Texas, south Texas, and the Lower Pecos River. An intensification of regional research during the past decade, however, has resulted tangentially in the refinement of typological categories. Moreover, enhanced data sets have allowed identification of two previously unrecognized arrow point types, the formalization of a third arrow point type, and the resurrection of a dart point style that had fallen into general disuse. A past proclivity on the part of researchers to "force" these point styles into pre-existing interregional typological categories is duly noted.

Lithic technology, 1993

Plumet, Patrtck (compiler) 1979 Enregistrement et Analyse de Donnees Archeologiques: Essais sur l'Analyse Descriptive d 'Industries Ll.thiques Americaines. Paleo-Quebec, No 9.

1996

Technical Report No. 26, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series present the findings of archaeological surveys and test excavations completed by the RLA between 1983 and present.

1990

Technical Report No. 19, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series present the findings of archaeological surveys and test excavations completed by the RLA between 1983 and present.

This file is the full volume, also now available at no charge from Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.

1988

South Carolina Antiquities, 2019

As in the rest of the Southeast, researchers of South Carolina prehistory use projectile point typologies to organize sequences of culture history and frame questions about change through time. For the Early Archaic a general temporal distinction between earlier side notched points (such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Hardaway side notched) and later corner notched points (generally referred to as Kirk) has been accepted for the last five decades (Coe 1964; Michie 1966; Charles and Moore 2018:21-30). The shift from side notching to corner notching in the Southeast was part of a wider pattern of technological change that extended across much of the Eastern Woodlands (see Tuck 1974). The recognition that side notched and corner notched points tend to differ in age across the Eastern Woodlands is based on several lines of evidence: (1) the radiocarbon record; (2) stratigraphic relationships between the two point forms; and (3) the existence of “closed” assemblages that contain either side notched or corner notched points rather than a mixture of the two forms.

PaleoAmerica, 2019

Significantly smaller-than-average projectile points have been observed in many Folsom weaponry assemblages. However, while several hypotheses have been put forth suggesting the role these miniature items may have played in Paleoindian toolkits, none of these hypotheses have been explicitly tested. To make matters more confusing, a universal definition of what constitutes a miniature point has not been agreed upon. Utilizing morphological data obtained from the Smithsonian's collection of projectile points from the Lindenmeier Folsom site in northern Colorado, this paper seeks to fill in some of these gaps in knowledge by (a) suggesting an explicit definition based on a statistical analysis of assemblages throughout the Folsom region; and (b) testing expectations derived from the hypotheses that suggest miniature points in the Folsom toolkit represent toys, ceremonial objects, raw-material conservation, or simply variation in the acceptable morphological attributes of Folsom weaponry.

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 81-105, 1994

Investigators in southern California often employ Great Basin and Mojave Desert projectile point chronologies to date their prehistoric assemblages. This approach is tested using atlatl darts from five Newport Coast sites. In an attempt to partition the Orange County Middle Holocene into discrete temporal segments, the projectile points are classified, where possible, using Great Basin and Mojave Desert point typologies. The Middle Holocene occurrence of a great variety of forms, a consequence of rejuvenation and other factors, complicates the effort. No clear, precise temporal markers emerged from the study, and the data do not support the atlatl point chronology proposed by Koerper and Drover (1983). On the basis of these results, it is concluded that Great Basin and Mojave Desert atlatl dart types cannot be applied indiscriminately to projectile points for chronological control in coastal southern California.