Safety Harbor

[Bow Only]

I know there are some nomenclature differences these days but remember, I learned point typology 40 years ago. I didn't change my thinking because someone made a pretty book and decided to change what we call things. This is a nice Safety Harbor.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Love that material, too.

 

[mamatried]

I didn't change my thinking because someone made a pretty book and decided to change what we call things.

Sounds like an ole case of lumpers and splitters, but mainly splitting. Curious, do you think point typology for the southeast is well defined by now? Has there been any legit newer types from what you learned 40 years ago? How many points of the same type showing a particular variance would be required to definitively classify it as a new point type?

 

[Bow Only]

Sounds like an ole case of lumpers and splitters, but mainly splitting. Curious, do you think point typology for the southeast is well defined by now? Has there been any legit newer types from what you learned 40 years ago? How many points of the same type showing a particular variance would be required to definitively classify it as a new point type?

Typing points can be looked at in two ways. 1. Which culture made the point and 2. Point characteristics that we use today to describe a point, usually shape.

An example, if we say Bolen Beveled, we know the shape and characteristics of the point mentioned. We ASSUME it was made by the Bolen peoples. Often, we can describe a point's characteristics and shape but we don't know what culture made the point. The guy that made it is only making what his Dad taught him to make. He may put a little individual trait, but it is basically what he was taught. This is why we can see point types slightly change over time. One point type could morph into another point type over time.

Take the Cottonbridge point. It's not a new point, it's a first stage Abbey. How many people find first stage Abbey's,.......not a lot. People often use shape more often to type points because that is what we see, what we know. Old time collectors that have experience in finding points will use shape, material, flaking patterns, basal configuration and also knowledge of where it's found and how it compares to other points found at that site. I've got a Bolen Beveled that was made during Woodland times. The site it came from has no Bolen component and the patination is the same as the Woodland points. I can say that because I have well over 1,000 points from that site and no Bolen aged material. It would be mis-typed as a Bolen if it were an isolated find, but I know where it came from and know it is Woodland. I suspect a Woodland guy found a Bolen Beveled and said "Hey, I can make one of those."

I also have a straight based Bolen. This one is much more controversial, but I know where it came from and it's a Bolen site. We will never know for sure, but experience means a lot when holding and typing points. Son Anderson is the best typologist in the SE, but even he is wrong from time to time. I'd still bet money on what he says because he is so experienced. I have a lot of experience as well and I am sometimes wrong too. Looking at points is not the same as finding points. Context means a lot.

 

[ancienttrails]

Bow only you got that point thing going on.nice finds.