FINAL REPORT THE PROJECTILE POINT CLASSIFICATION PROJECT:

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT THE PROJECTILE POINT CLASSIFICATION PROJECT: The Classification of Projectile Points in Existing Archaeological Collections from North Carolina (Phase I) by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Principal Investigator (Technical Report No. 19) Research Laboratories of Anthropology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill March, 1990 Report prepared under a Survey and Planning Grant from the United States Department of the Interior and administered by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History

2 FINAL REPORT PROJECTILE POINT CLASSIFICATION PROJECT: The Classification of Projectile Points in Existing Archaeological Collections from North Carolina by R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. and I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Principal Investigator Research Laboratories of Anthropology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill March, 1990 Report prepared under a Survey and Planning Grant from the United States Department of the Interior and administered by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History

3 ABSTRACT Typological classification of projectile points found on prehistoric archaeological sites has long been recognized and employed by archaeologists as a reliable means of assessing site age and cultural affiliation. The purpose of this study was to classify projectile points from prehistoric sites in North Carolina recorded by early archaeological surveys in order to provide more detailed cultural and chronological information about those sites. Most of the analyzed artifacts were collected prior to about 1960, and are curated at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. This study resulted in the classification of 22,244 projectile points and 105 other artifacts, and provides important new information for 1,313 presently-known archaeological sites in 50 separate North Carolina counties. This information should greatly assist efforts directed toward historic preservation planning, archaeological site prediction and evaluation, and research. It is also hoped that this project has demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of enhancing the quality of North Carolina's archaeological site files through the systematic analysis of extant artifact collections. i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (original pagination not preserved) SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION...1 BACKGROUND...1 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS...3 Site Number...3 Catalog Number...3 Projectile Point Type Descriptions...4 Other Artifact Type Descriptions...11 Raw Material Types...12 Modification Types...12 RESULTS...12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...17 REFERENCES CITED...18 APPENDIXES (on file at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology and Office of State Archaeology) Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned Before 1980, With Analyzed Samples Identified...A-1 Appendix 2. Inventory of Analyzed Artifacts by Site... A-103 Appendix 3. Summary of Analyzed Artifacts by Site... A-220 Appendix 4. Summary of Cultural Components by Site.... A-305 ii

5 INTRODUCTION The Projectile Point Classification Project was undertaken to provide more detailed cultural and chronological information about numerous prehistoric archaeological sites recorded during early archaeological surveys of North Carolina. Although the locations of these sites have been known for many years, the cultural components at these sites were largely unknown or poorly recognized. The project's goal was accomplished by the systematic classification of culturally and chronologically sensitive lithic artifacts (namely, projectile points and a few other tool types) and the subsequent compilation of a classified artifact inventory. Although the primary purpose of this inventory is to upgrade the State's archaeological site files housed at the Office of State Archaeology, the data contained in this inventory also comprise an important source of information for future research and will allow the Research Laboratories of Anthropology (RLA) to manage and utilize its collections more effectively. This study was partially funded by a survey and planning grant from the United States Department of the Interior and administered by the Office of State Archaeology, North Carolina Division of Archives and History. These funds were matched by cash and in-kind support from the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The study also was conducted at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology. Artifact classification was performed by I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., in consultation with R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Ms. Heather Pearcy assisted with entering data onto computer files. All computer analyses were conducted by Davis using microcomputers at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology and the mainframe computers at the University of North Carolina. BACKGROUND Background research and preparation was undertaken in four phases. First, an analysis format was developed for coding projectile points and selected other artifacts by site number, catalog number, formal type, raw material type, and type of modification (if any). This format closely follows a lithic artifact analysis format currently used by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology for its Siouan Project (Table 1). Second, comparative type collections were developed. Most of the artifacts in these collections are illustrated specimens that accompanied the original type descriptions (large defined by Coe 1964, Keel 1976, and Oliver 1981) and are on file at the RLA. Third, the accession records and specimen catalogs at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology were used to identify early survey collections that could be efficiently targeted for 1

6 Table 1. Coding Format Used for the Projectile Point Classification Project. ATTRIBUTE Attribute State I. SITE NUMBER II. CATALOG NUMBER III. TOOL TYPE 1 - Clovis 26 - Clarksville Small Triangular 2 - Hardaway Blade 27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal 3 - Hardaway-Dalton 28 - Randolph Stemmed 4 - Hardaway Side-Notched 29 - PPt. (Notched) 5 - Palmer Corner Notched 30 - PPt. (Stemmed) 6 - Kirk Corner-Notched 31 - PPt. (Triangular) 7 - St. Albans Side Notched 32 - PPt. Frag.(Notched/Stemmed) 8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem 33 - PPt. Frag. (Triangular) 9 - Kanawha Stemmed 34 - PPt. Frag. Indeterminate) 10 - Kirk Serrated 35 - End Scraper (Type I) 11 - Kirk Stemmed 36 - End Scraper (Type II) 12 - Stanly Stemmed 37 - End Scraper (Type III) 13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed 38 - Side Scraper (Type I) 14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed 39 - Side Scraper (Type II) 15 - Guilford Lanceolate 40 - Side Scraper (Type III) 16 - Halifax Side-Notched 41 - Pointed Scraper 17 - Savannah River Stemmed 42 - Oval Scraper 18 - Sm. Savannah River Stemmed 43 - Pisgah Triangular 19 - Gypsy Stemmed 44 - Haywood Triangular 20 - Swannanoa Stemmed 45 - Garden Creek Triangular 21 - Badin Crude Triangular 46 - Copena Triangular 22 - Yadkin Large Triangular 47 - Connestee Triangular 23 - Roanoke Large Triangular 48 - Madison 24 - Uwharrie Triangular 49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal 25 - Caraway Triangular 50 - Transylvania Triangular IV. RAW MATERIAL TYPE 1 - Metavolcanic 6 - Quartz Crystal 2 - Chert 7 - Quartzite 3 - Jasper 8 - Patinated (Indeterminate) 4 - Chalcedony 9 - Indeterminate 5 - Quartz V. TYPE OF MODIFICATION 0 - None 1 - Drill 2 - End Scraper VI. QUANTITY 2

7 3 study. It was decided that the project would focus initially on collections made prior to 1960 at sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. If completed within the time allotted for the study, additional collections made after 1960, as well as collections from both the mountains and coastal plain of North Carolina, would then be examined. The Piedmont was considered a logical starting point since most of the early surveys focused on this area, particularly the Uwharrie region of the south-central Piedmont. In addition, systematic coverage of this area would provide useful information for a study of late Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic adaptations by Daniel. Most collections lacking specific site provenience were omitted from the analysis, as were collections from major excavations at sites such as Town Creek (31Mg2, 31Mg3), Doerschuk (31Mg22), Hardaway (31St4), and Wall (31Or11). Most of these latter collections either had already been analyzed or are in the process of being analyzed by other researchers. Finally, all collections to be analyzed were physically located. This phase was by far the simplest since these artifacts, curated by the RLA, are filed together in wooden trays and arranged in sequential order by catalog number Actual classification of artifacts began in August, 1989 and was completed in January, ARTIFACT ANALYSIS Analysis of projectile points and other selected artifacts was limited to: (1) the identification of artifact provenience (e.g., State site number and UNC-RLA catalog number), (2) the classification by projectile point type (or scraper type), (3) the determination of general raw material type, and (4) the recording of any subsequent modification (other than simple resharpening or breakage). These data were originally recorded on computer coding sheets and subsequently entered into a computer file (see Table 1). Specific aspects of analysis, including the definition of projectile point and scraper types, are summarized below. Site Number State site designations were recorded for each analyzed artifact. Although the Research Laboratories of Anthropology's site numbering system differs with the official state system for sites recorded after about 1980, this did not pose a problem since most analyzed collections came from sites recorded before 1970 and all were recorded prior to A few artifacts were analyzed inadvertently from unidentified sites in Chatham, Montgomery, and Vance counties. The sites designations for these specimens are listed as 31Ch-Gen, 31Mg-Gen, and 31Vn-Gen, respectively. Catalog Number The Research Laboratories of Anthropology (RLA) catalog number also was recorded for each artifact. This tripartite designation consists of an accession number (which identifies a specific site, survey, excavation, or donated collection), a specimen type (this designation was

8 4 "a" [for artifact] for all analyzed specimens), and a specimen number (which identifies a specific provenience and category of artifact within the accession designation). It provides a reference to more detailed provenience and descriptive data on file at the RLA. A few artifacts, on loan from Mr. Robert Weaver of Raleigh, NC, were not cataloged into the RLA system and are simply identified as "WeaverColl." Projectile Point Type Descriptions Thirty-six previously defined types and six other general categories were used to classify projectile points. Descriptions of these are provided below in rough chronological order of their occurrence in the archaeological record. The cultural and chronological placement of these types is summarized in Table 2. Clovis. Suhm, Krieger, and Jelks (1954) describe this type as a medium to large, auriculate, fluted point with an incurvate base. Clovis projectile points are associated with the Paleo-Indian period (before 8,000 B.C.) in the Southeastern United States. Hardaway Blade. Coe (1964:64) describes this type as having "a broad, thin blade with a concave and thinned base." Hardaway Blades were recovered from basal deposits at the Hardaway site and are thought to date about 10,000 B.C. (Coe 1964). Hardaway-Dalton. Coe (1964:64) describes the Hardaway-Dalton projectile point type as having a "broad, thin blade with deeply concave bases and shallow side-notches. Bases and side-notches were ground and edges were frequently serrated." This projectile point type is associated with the late Paleo-Indian period in piedmont North Carolina (before 8,000 B.C.) (Coe 1964; Ward 1983). Hardaway Side-Notched. Coe (1964:67) describes the Hardaway Side-Notched type as having "a small, broad, thin blade with narrow side-notches and a recurved, concave base." This type is regarded a a specialized variant of the Hardaway-Dalton type and was found in basal deposits at the Hardaway site. Palmer Corner-Notched. Coe (1964:67) describes the Palmer Corner-Notched projectile point type as having "a small corner-notched blade with a straight, ground base and pronounced serrations." This type dates to the Early Archaic period (ca B.C.), and represents a transitional form from the Hardaway Side-Notched type to the Kirk Corner-Notched type. Kirk Corner-Notched. Coe (1964:69) describes the Kirk Corner-Notched projectile point type as having "a large triangular blade with a straight base, corner-notches, and serrated edges." This is a predominant type of the Early Archaic period (ca. 8,000-6,000 B.C.). St. Albans Side Notched. Broyles (1971:73) describes this type as a small triangular point with a side notched blade and a notched base. St. Albans Side Notched projectile points have been recovered from stratified, Early Archaic contexts (ca. 6,900-6,500 B.C.) at the Rose

9 Table 2. Cultural-chronological Placement of Projectile Point and Other Artifact Types. Artifact Type Cultural Period Projectile Points Clovis Paleo-Indian Hardaway Blade Late Paleo-Indian Hardaway-Dalton " Hardaway Side-Notched " Palmer Corner-Notched Early Archaic Kirk Corner-Notched " St. Albans Side Notched " LeCroy Bifurcated Stem " Kanawha Stemmed " Kirk Serrated " Kirk Stemmed " Stanly Stemmed Middle Archaic Morrow Mountain I Stemmed " Morrow Mountain II Stemmed " Guilford Lanceolate " Halifax Side-Notched " Savannah River Stemmed Late Archaic Small Savannah River Stemmed " Gypsy Stemmed " Swannanoa Stemmed Early Woodland Badin Crude Triangular " Transylvania Triangular " Garden Creek Triangular Middle Woodland Copena Triangular " Connestee Triangular " Haywood Triangular " Yadkin Large Triangular " Roanoke Large Triangular " Uwharrie Triangular Late Prehistoric Pee Dee Pentagonal " South Appalachian Pentagonal " Pisgah Triangular " Madison " Caraway Triangular " Clarksville Small Triangular " Randolph Stemmed " Proj. Point (Notched) Archaic (Indet.) Proj. Point (Stemmed) " Proj. Point Fragment (Notched/Stemmed) " 5

10 6 Table 2 Continued. Artifact Type Cultural Period Proj. Point (Triangular) Woodland (Indet.) Proj. Point Fragment (Triangular) " Proj. Point Fragment (Indeterminate) Indeterminate Other Artifacts End Scraper (Type I) L. Paleo/E. Archaic End Scraper (Type II) " End Scraper (Type III) " Side Scraper (Type I) " Side Scraper (Type II) " Side Scraper (Type III) " Pointed Scraper " Oval Scraper "

11 Island, Icehouse Bottom, and Bacon Farm sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1975, 1977, 1978), and at the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1966, 1971). 7 LeCroy Bifurcated Stem. Kneberg (1956:28) describes this type as follows: "The basic shape is trianguloid with straight or incurvate side edges. The blade edges are usually serrated, often deeply so, resulting in a series of several sharp barbs from the tip to the shoulders. The stem varies from straight to slightly flared, and is usually deeply bifurcated. The edges of the stem are finely chipped, and occasionally finished by being ground smooth. The majority are small, and have broad proportions. Even the medium-sized examples are relatively broad." LeCroy Bifurcated Stem points have been found in stratified, late Early Archaic contexts (ca. 6,500-5,800 B.C.) at the Rose Island, Icehouse Bottom, Patrick, Bacon Farm, and Calloway Island sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979) and at the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1966, 1971). Kanawha Stemmed. Broyles (1971:59) describes this type as having a "small triangular blade with a short rounded and shallow notched base." Points of this type have been recovered in stratified context at the Rose Island, Icehouse Bottom, Patrick, and Bacon Farm sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1975, 1977, 1978) and at the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles (1966, 1971), where they have been radiocarbon-dated to 6,100-5,800 B.C. No Kanawha Stemmed projectile points were identified in the study collection. Kirk Serrated. Coe (1964:70) describes this projectile point type as having "a long narrow blade with deep serrations and a broad square stem." The base usually is straight and blunt but may be thinned and concave. Kirk Serrated is regarded as a late Early Archaic (ca. 6,000 B.C.) type. Kirk Stemmed. Coe (1964:70) describes this projectile point type as having "a long daggerlike blade with deep serrations and a broad stem." The base typically is straight or slightly rounded. This type is similar to the Kirk Serrated type and probably dates to the late Early Archaic period (ca. 6,000 B.C.). Stanly Stemmed. This projectile point type is characterized by a broad, triangular blade and a small, squared stem with an indented base (Coe 1964:35). Stanly projectile points date to the early Middle Archaic period (ca. 6,000-5,500 B.C.) and have been recovered in stratified contexts at the Icehouse Bottom, Howard, and Calloway Island sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1977, 1979), and at the Doerschuk site in piedmont North Carolina. Morrow Mountain I Stemmed. Coe (1964:37) describes this projectile point type as having "a small triangular blade with a short pointed base." The blade usually is broad relative to the length. Points of this type have been recovered in stratified, Middle Archaic (ca. 5,500-5,000 B.C.) contexts at the Doerschuk site in piedmont North Carolina (Coe 1964), and at the Icehouse Bottom and Howard sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1977, 1979). Morrow Mountain II Stemmed. The Morrow Mountain II projectile point type is defined by a long, narrow blade and a tapered stem (Coe 1964:37). This projectile point type is

12 associated with the Middle Archaic period (ca. 5,500-5,000 B.C.) and has been recovered in stratified context at the Doerschuk site in piedmont North Carolina (Coe 1964), and at the Icehouse Bottom and Howard sites in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1977, 1979). 8 Guilford Lanceolate. The Guilford Lanceolate projectile point type is defined by "a long, slender, but thick blade with straight, rounded, or concave base" (Coe 1964:43). Coe (1964:44, 118), based upon excavations at the Doerschuk and Gaston sites in North Carolina, has suggested that the Guilford Lanceolate type dates from about 5,000-4,000 B.C. (i.e., Middle Archaic period). Halifax Side-Notched. The Halifax Side-Notched type is described by Coe (1964:108) as having a "slender blade with slightly restricted base. Shallow side-notches. Base and sidenotches were usually ground. The material most frequently used was vein quartz." The stratigraphic position of Halifax materials between Guilford and Late Archaic Savannah River strata at the Gaston site indicate a late Middle Archaic temporal association (Coe 1964:118). Savannah River Stemmed. Coe (1964:44) describes this projectile point type as having "a large, heavy, triangular blade with a broad stem." Savannah River Stemmed projectile points were recovered in stratified context at the Doerschuk site (Coe 1964) and have been radio-carbon dated to ca. 3,000-1,800 B.C. at the Bacon Bend site in southeast Tennessee (Chapman 1981). Small Savannah River Stemmed. This projectile point type is described by Oliver (1981:181) as "a small to medium sized, broad, triangular bladed point with a rectangular stem and a straight or slightly excurvate base. It is regarded as a late variant of the Savannah River Stemmed type. Gypsy Stemmed. Oliver (1981:188) describes this type as "a small, triangular bladed point with a square or rectangular straight stem, and a straight, slightly incurvate base, or excurvate base." It has been recovered from stratified, Early Woodland (ca. 1,000 B.C.-A.D. 1) contexts at the Warren Wilson, Doerschuk, Gaston, and Thelma sites (see Oliver 1981:189). Swannanoa Stemmed. Keel (1976:196) describes this projectile point type as "a small, thick, triangular-bladed point with a relatively long stem. This type was associated with the Early Woodland Swannanoa component (ca. 500 B.C. - A.D. 1?) at the Warren Wilson site. Badin Crude Triangular. Coe (1964:45) describes this type as "a large, crudely made triangular point" that was made solely by direct percussion. An Early Woodland context is assumed. Transylvania Triangular. This type is "a large, thick, straight-bladed point with an incurvate or straight base" (Keel 1976:130). An Early to Middle Woodland cultural association is suggested for this western North Carolina point type. Garden Creek Triangular. Keel (1976:130) defined this type as "a long, narrow, concavebased isosceles triangle usually made of quartzite," and considered it to be associated with the

13 late Pigeon and early Connestee phases of the Middle Woodland period in western North Carolina. 9 Copena Triangular. This type is defined as "a medium to large, trianguloid point. The sides of the hafting area are usually parallel" (Cambron and Hulse 1964:26). Projectile points of this type were recovered from the premound humus and primary mound fill at Garden Creek Mound No. 2 and are attributed to the Middle Woodland Connestee phase in western North Carolina. No Copena Triangular projectile points were identified in the study collection. Connestee Triangular. Keel (1976:131) defines this type as "a medium-sized isosceles triangle usually made of chert." Connestee Triangular points usually have straight to incurvate lateral edges and a straight to slightly excurvate base. This type is associated with the Middle Woodland Connestee phase in western North Carolina. Haywood Triangular. This projectile point type is defined as "a small, equilateral, triangular point with a straight or incurved base," and is thought to be associated with the late Connestee phase (Keel 1976: ). Yadkin Large Triangular. This type is described by Coe (1964:45) as "a large, symmetrical, and well-made triangular point," that usually has a concave base. This projectile point type is associated with the Early-Middle Woodland Yadkin phase in piedmont North Carolina. Roanoke Large Triangular. Coe (1964:110) describes this type as a "large, well-made, triangular point with slightly concave base and sides. Usually made from argillite, but also from vein quartz and quartzite." This is a Middle to early Late Woodland type originally identified at the Gaston site on the Roanoke River, and appears to be equivalent to the Uwharrie and Caraway types of the central North Carolina Piedmont. Uwharrie Triangular. This type is a thin, well-made, medium-sized, triangular point that has been finely retouched and has a straight to slightly incurvate base. It is intermediate in size and form to the earlier Yadkin Large Triangular and later Caraway Triangular types, and is associated with the early Late Woodland period in piedmont North Carolina. Pee Dee Pentagonal. This projectile point type is described by Coe (1964:49) as "a small asymmetrical and carelessly made point.... Pentagonal in form, usually asymmetrical. Some specimens, however, were very carefully and symetrically made." Although this type is associated largely with the late prehistoric Pee Dee phase in the southern North Carolina Piedmont, Pee Dee Pentagonal points also occur infrequently on late prehistoric and historic sites elsewhere in the Piedmont. South Appalachian Pentagonal. Keel (1976:133) defines this type as "a small pentagonal point with a straight base made of chert," and suggests that it may have a Connestee phase association in western North Carolina. The presence of similar points on Late Woodland and

14 10 Early Mississippian sites in nearby southeast Tennessee suggest a somewhat broader cultural and temporal association (see Kimball 1985:60). Pisgah Triangular. This type is a small isosceles or equilateral triangle that has a flat or slightly concave base (Dickens 1976:135; Keel 1976:199), and was the predominant projectile point associated with the late prehistoric Pisgah component at the Warren Wilson site. Madison. This type is a small, thin, triangular projectile point with straight lateral edges and a straight or slightly concave base (Scully 1951; Keel 1976:53-54). This projectile point type has a general South Appalachian Mississippian cultural association in western North Carolina. Caraway Triangular. This type is a small, straight-sided, isosceles-triangular point with a straight or slightly incurvate base (Coe 1964:49). Projectile points of this type vary considerably in quality of workmanship, and are associated with the Late Woodland and early Historic period cultures of the North Carolina Piedmont. Clarksville Small Triangular. Coe (1964:112) describes this projectile point type as a "very small triangular point, equilateral in shape and almost always made from vein quartz." Although Coe considers this type to be associated with the historic period in the Clarksville area, it probably is associated with the late prehistoric period as well. Randolph Stemmed. According to Coe (1964:50), projectile points of this type "looked like crude miniature versions of the old Morrow Mountain II type. They had a roughly tapered stem, and they were narrow and thick. The chipping was exceedingly rough and crude, and most of the flakes were irregular and poorly controlled. In many instances this produced a sawtoothed edge. The most interesting characteristic about these points, however, is that they almost always show that they had been made from old flakes or broken points of an earlier period." Although this type is attributed to "destitute bands" of the eighteenth century, they are rare to absent at virtually all Piedmont sites that have produced historic trade artifacts. Because of this, their exact temporal association is considered uncertain. Points of this type probably are late prehistoric in age. Projectile Point (Notched). This category identifies whole projectile points that are notched but cannot be attributed to a specific type. They probably date to the Archaic period. Projectile Point (Stemmed). This category identifies whole projectile points that are stemmed but cannot be attributed to a specific type. Most of these probably date to the Archaic or Early Woodland periods. Projectile Point (Triangular). This category identifies whole projectile points that are triangular in form but cannot be attributed to a specific type. They probably date to the Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, or Historic periods.

15 11 Projectile Point Fragment (Notched/Stemmed). This category identifies notched or stemmed projectile point fragments that cannot be attributed to a specific type. They probably date to the Archaic period. Projectile Point Fragment (Triangular). This category identifies triangular projectile point fragments that cannot be attributed to a specific type. They probably date to the Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, or Historic periods. Projectile Point Fragment (Indeterminate). This category identifies projectile point fragments (mostly distal ends) that cannot be attributed to a specific type. Other Artifact Type Descriptions The following descriptions are of formal scraper types defined by Coe (1964:73-79) during his analysis of unifacial tools from the Hardaway site, and are regarded as generally diagnostic of the late Paleo-Indian Hardaway phase and Early Archaic Palmer and Kirk phases. End Scraper (Type I). According to Coe (1964::76), end scrapers of this type "are basically triangular or trapezoidal in form and they were made from a thick prismatic flake. Many of the specimens retained the bulb of percussion on their underside and nearly all of them have been used until their cutting edge has worn smooth." End Scraper (Type II). According to Coe (1964:76), end scrapers of this type "were made from flakes of random shapes and sizes and they were retouched only along the narrowest part to form a scraping edge." End Scraper (Type III). End scrapers of this type are "large and rough duplications of the more finely made type I variety.... They were roughly chipped along the edges into an oval shape and worked across the broad end. Unlike the type I end scrapers, though, these working edges were never worn smooth" (Coe 1964:76). No end scrapers of this type were identified in the study collection. Side Scraper (Type I). Scrapers of this type "were made from large, wedge-shaped flakes that were struck from a flat or prepared striking platform. Most of these specimens retained a considerable portion of this platform, as well as the bulb of percussion, in their finished form. The working edge of this type was rounded or crescent shaped and either one or both edges were rounded and curved back. The working edge remained sharp and irregular" (Coe 1964:77). Side Scraper (Type II). According to Coe (1964:79), "this type of scraper was made from a large irregular flake, and unlike the type I side scraper, there was no attempt to shape the working edge into any other form than what existed. These large flakes were simply picked up, sharpened, and used." No side scrapers of this type were identified in the study collection. Side Scraper (Type III). According to Coe (1964:79), "this type is very similar to type II

16 12 and differed only in the selection of a relatively thin and narrow flake." No side scrapers of this type were identified in the study collection. Pointed Scraper. "This type appears to be an adaptation of the type II side scraper. It was made from a thick flake with two sides shaped to form a definite point" (Coe 1964:79). No scrapers of this type were identified in the study collection. Oval Scraper. Two varieties of oval scrapers were recognized at the Hardaway site. "One was made from a relatively thin flake and the other was made from a thick exterior spall that retained large areas of the original weathered surface" (Coe 1964:79). Raw Material Types All analyzed artifacts were classified into one of nine raw material categories. These categories are based upon macroscopic characteristics of mineral content and structure, and are as follows: metavolcanic (including rhyolite, argillite, welded tuff, vitric tuff, felsic tuff, and porphyry), chert (including both ridge-and-valley and coastal plain cherts),jasper, chalcedony, quartz, quartz crystal, quartzite, indeterminate due to heavy patination, and indeterminate. Modification Types Modifications made to a projectile point, though rare, also were recorded when observed, and included (1) recycling into a drill (2) and recycling into an end scraper. This attribute is not summarized in the Appendixes. RESULTS The purpose of the Projectile Point Classification Project was to provide detailed cultural and chronological information on prehistoric archaeological sites in North Carolina through the typological classification of diagnostic lithic artifacts. Toward this end, descriptive data were generated for 22,244 projectile points and 105 unifacial scrapers. These artifacts came from 1,313 archaeological sites in 50 North Carolina counties (Table 3), and represent a wide range of types dating from the Paleo-Indian to Historic periods (Table 4). Artifact collections from sites in Piedmont North Carolina, accessioned and cataloged by the RLA from the 1930s to the mid-1960s, were the focus of the study and were systematically examined. With the exception of artifacts from excavated contexts, all projectile points within these collections were classified. Numerous artifacts from Mountain and Coastal Plain sites, as well as from Piedmont sites collected in more recent years, also were analyzed as time permitted. These artifacts are from various donated collections and systematic reservoir and county surveys, including early New Hope and Falls Reservoir surveys, Gaston Lake, Wilksboro Reservoir,

17 13 Table 3. Distribution of analyzed artifacts by county. County No. of No. of County Code Sites Artifacts Alamance Am 5 21 Anson An Beaufort Bf 4 48 Burke Bk 1 1 Bladen Bl 2 10 Buncombe Bn Bertie Br 1 1 Cabarrus Ca 4 61 Cherokee Ce Chatham Ch 139 2,373 Carteret Cr 2 24 Catawba Ct Clay Cy Davie De 2 4 Durham Dh 55 2,241 Dare Dr 1 9 Davidson Dv Forsyth Fy 3 37 Guilford Gf Graham Gh Granville Gv Henderson Hn 1 23 Haywood Hw Halifax Hx Iredell Id Jackson Jk Lincoln Ln Macon Ma Montgomery Mg 76 3,295 Mecklenburg Mk Mitchell Ml 3 27 Northhampton Np Orange Or Person Pr 3 8 Pitt Pt 6 28 Randolph Rd Richmond Rh 46 1,641 Rockingham Rk 1 1 Rowan Rw

18 14 Table 3 continued. County No. of No. of County Code Sites Artifacts Stokes Sk 1 17 Stanly St 16 1,210 Swain Sw Transylvania Tr Union Un 3 2,103 Vance Vn Wake Wa Wilkes Wk Warren Wr Yancey Yc 3 4 Yadkin Yd 2 14 Total 1,313 22,349

19 Table 4. Summary of analyzed projectile points and other selected lithic artifacts. Type Freq. Percent Projectile Points Clovis Hardaway Blade Hardaway-Dalton Hardaway Side-Notched Palmer Corner-Notched Kirk Corner-Notched St. Albans Side Notched LeCroy Bifurcated Stem Kirk Serrated Kirk Stemmed Stanly Stemmed Morrow Mountain I Stemmed Morrow Mountain II Stemmed 1, Guilford Lanceolate 1, Halifax Side-Notched Savannah River Stemmed 3, Small Savannah River Stemmed Gypsy Stemmed Swannanoa Stemmed Badin Crude Triangular Transylvania Triangular Garden Creek Triangular Connestee Triangular Haywood Triangular Yadkin Large Triangular Roanoke Large Triangular Uwharrie Triangular Pee Dee Pentagonal South Appalachian Pentagonal Pisgah Triangular Madison Caraway Triangular 2, Clarksville Small Triangular Randolph Stemmed Projectile Point (Notched) Projectile Point (Stemmed) 1, Projectile Point (Triangular) Projectile Point Fragment (Notched/Stemmed) Projectile Point Fragment (Triangular)

20 16 Table 4 continued. Type Freq. Percent Projectile Point Fragment (Indeterminate) 6, Other Artifacts End Scraper (Type I) End Scraper (Type II) Side Scraper (Type I) Oval Scraper Total 22,

21 17 Cowans Ford Reservoir, and the mountain county surveys conducted in the 1960s as part of the RLA's Cherokee Project. Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4 contain data produced by the classification project and are on file at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology and the Office of State Archaeology. Their contents are as follows. Appendix 1 identifies all of the artifact collections that were studied as part of the project. This appendix also provides a detailed record of all RLA collections from North Carolina sites cataloged before Appendix 2 provides a detailed inventory of the analyzed artifacts by site, catalog number, type, and raw material, and Appendix 3 provides a more general summary of artifact types by site. Finally, Appendix 4 provides a list of cultural components identified at each site, based upon projectile point occurrence. These inventories (also provided on computer diskettes) contain specific data that can be used by the Office of State Archaeology to identify cultural components at the 1,313 sites represented in the study. By examining the frequency distribution of projectile point types at a particular site, these data can also be used to make a general assessment of the relative intensity of occupation through time. Finally, these data comprise an important source of information for future research related to regional settlement patterns and raw material utilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Projectile Point Classification Project was undertaken to provide detailed cultural and chronological information that could be used to enhance North Carolina's archaeological site inventory, maintained by the Office of State Archaeology. Although there was no specific research problem to be addressed, the results of this project hopefully will contribute significantly to future archaeological studies that rely upon existing site survey records. It also is hoped that this project has demonstrated the vast information potential that exists in curated artifact collections--a potential that can be tapped in a very cost-effective manner. This project originally was envisioned as a pilot study to determine the feasibility of more extensive analysis of existing collections. The results far exceeded our expectations, and suggest that the continuation of the project would be equally productive, given the availability of necessary funding and qualified personnel. Although a large number of artifacts from well over 1,000 sites were typologically classified during this relatively modest project, a substantial portion of the RLA's collections remain unanalyzed (see Appendix 1). Specifically, a majority of the projectile points collected by or donated to the RLA over the last 20 to 25 years have never been classified, nor have many of the projectile points from earlier collections made in the Mountains and Coastal Plain. Classification of these remaining artifacts should be considered at some future date.

22 18 REFERENCES CITED Broyles, Bettye J Preliminary Report: the St. Albans Site (46Ka27), Kanawha County, West Virginia. The West Virginia Archaeologist 19: Second Preliminary Report: the St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of Archaeological Investigations No. 3, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown. Cambron, James W. and David C. Hulse 1964 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology, Part I: Point Types. Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Inc., Birmingham. Chapman, Jefferson 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Tradition. Report of Investigations No. 14, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley : Icehouse Bottom, Harrison Branch, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. Report of Investigations No. 18, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville The Bacon Farm Site and a Buried Site Reconnaissance. Report of Investigations No. 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville The Howard and Calloway Island Sites. Report of Investigations No. 27, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: The Late Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of Investigations No. 31, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Coe, Joffre L The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 54 (5). Dickens, Roy S Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

23 19 Keel, Bennie C Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Kimball, Larry R The 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance: An Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico Reservoir. Report of Investigations No. 40, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Kneberg, Madeline 1956 Some Important Projectile Point Types Found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee Archaeologist XII(1): Oliver, Billy L The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Scully, Edward G Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Mimeographed. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Suhm, Dee Ann, Alex D. Krieger, and Edward B. Jelks 1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society XXV. Ward, H. Trawick 1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

24 A-1 Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned before 1980 (Except Accession No. 2369), With Analyzed Samples Identified. Site Analyzed Acc. No. Spec. Nos. Date County 31Ah 1088 a1 - a Ashe Co. 31Am1 * 1044 a1 - m Alamance Co. 31Am2 * 1045 a1 - m Alamance Co. 31Am3 * 1046 p1 - m Alamance Co. 31Am4 * 1155 a1 - b Alamance Co. 31Am5 * 1039 a1 - a Alamance Co. 31Am p1 - p Alamance Co. 31Am p2 - p Alamance Co. 31Am a1 - m Alamance Co. 31Am a9 - m Alamance Co. 31Am a16 - m Alamance Co. 31An1 * 322 p1 - a Anson Co. 31An1 * 930 p1 - a Anson Co. 31An1 * 951 p1 - m Anson Co. 31An1 * 1030 a1 - b Anson Co. 31An a1 - a Anson Co. 31An2 * 931 p1 - a Anson Co. 31An3 * 932 a1 - a Anson Co. 31An3 * 1162 a1 - a Anson Co. 31An4 * 933 a1 - a Anson Co. 31An5 * 934 a1 - a Anson Co. 31An6 935 p1 - p Anson Co. 31An7 * 936 a1 - p Anson Co. 31An9 * 847 a1 - a Anson Co. 31An10 * 848 p1 - a Anson Co. 31An12 * 1790 a1 - p Anson Co. 31An a5 - p Anson Co. 31An13 * 2369 a1 - m Anson Co. 31An a1 - m Anson Co. 31Bf a124 - m126 Beaufort Co. 31Bf p128 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a111 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a119 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a97 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a116 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p127 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf11 * 1196 a1 - a Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf b1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf14 * 1999 a1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a8 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a4 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a10 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf16 * 1997 a1 - a Beaufort Co. 31Bf a13 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a15 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf r1 - r Beaufort Co.

25 A-2 Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned before 1980 (Except Accession No. 2369), With Analyzed Samples Identified. Site Analyzed Acc. No. Spec. Nos. Date County 31Bf p1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf23 * 1995 a1 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p20 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p23 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a23 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a24 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p384 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf p31 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a35 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a57 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a47 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a75 - a Beaufort Co. 31Bf p51 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a87 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p52 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a102 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf p114 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a118 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a61 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf p125 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a128 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a69 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a81 - m Beaufort Co. 31Bf a88 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf a1 - a Beaufort Co. 31Bf p1 - b Beaufort Co. 31Bf p3 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bf a385 - p Beaufort Co. 31Bk1 * 1079 p1 - e Burke Co. 31Bk a1 - m Burke Co. 31Bk p5 - p Burke Co. 31Bk a86 - m Burke Co. 31Bk p91 - p Burke Co. 31Bk p44 - p Burke Co. 31Bk p93 - m Burke Co. 31Bk a95 - m Burke Co. 31Bk a1 - m Burke Co. 31Bk a102 - p Burke Co. 31Bk a104 - m Burke Co. 31Bk p107 - m Burke Co. 31Bk p7 - m Burke Co. 31Bk p111 - p Burke Co. 31Bk a112 - m Burke Co. 31Bl1 * 1005 a1 - m Bladen Co.

26 A-3 Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned before 1980 (Except Accession No. 2369), With Analyzed Samples Identified. Site Analyzed Acc. No. Spec. Nos. Date County 31Bl1 * 1028 p1 - a Bladen Co. 31Bl a1 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl2 * 1029 p1 - a Bladen Co. 31Bl a11 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl p16 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl a18 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl a21 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl p25 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl p27 - p Bladen Co. 31Bl a28 - m Bladen Co. 31Bl a31 - p Bladen Co. 31Bn 2165 a1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn 2178 a1 - m23 Buncombe Co. 31Bn 2242 a39 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn1 126 a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn1 317 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn2 127 a1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn2 319 a1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn4 128 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn5 129 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn6 130 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn7 131 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn8 132 p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn9 133 p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn15 * 1021 a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a4 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a8 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a12 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn29 * 1033 p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - e Buncombe Co.

27 A-4 Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned before 1980 (Except Accession No. 2369), With Analyzed Samples Identified. Site Analyzed Acc. No. Spec. Nos. Date County 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p Buncombe Co. 31Bn m335 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a15 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn39 * 1022 a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn43 * 1023 a1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn a6 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn46 * 1024 a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - p Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn57 * 1025 a1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co.

28 A-5 Appendix 1. List of RLA Collections Accessioned before 1980 (Except Accession No. 2369), With Analyzed Samples Identified. Site Analyzed Acc. No. Spec. Nos. Date County 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn a1 - a Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - m Buncombe Co. 31Bn p1 - a Buncombe Co.