Carrollton Axe, an unusual tool misplaced in time

By Bill Young

In last week’s article, I wrote about two projectile points, Carrollton and Bulverde, which look identical. Normally, the two can be separated if the typologist pays close attention to all of the attributes for each specific point. Needless to say, shape is one of the attributes. Secondly is the presence or absence of grinding along the side and the base of the stem. If grinding is present, the point should be a Carrollton; if absent, it may be a Bulverde. And thirdly, if you view the stem sideways, it is either wedge shaped or not. If the answer is yes, the point should be classified as a Bulverde. This may sound redundant to some readers. Why should we even try to separate projectile points into certain named types?

The named types are associated with certain cultures. This has been determined with the aid of Carbon-14 dating. A specific type found within a certain stratigraphic, dated level tells us what time range we should expect this type of projectile point to fall. As more and more sites are excavated, the time frames assigned to each type may become tighter. One of the problems facing the archeologists is whenever a site is excavated, not all types are recovered. This is especially true from our area eastward.

The Carrollton Axe is a classic example of a tool more or less lost in space. This axe was defined by W.W. Crook and R.K. Harris when they defined the Carrollton Focus of the Trinity Aspect. The two published a separate article about the Carrollton Axe back in 1954 but I have not been able to get a copy to read. I do know from some of their other publications they found several Carrollton Axes on T-2 terraces where they found other materials such as Carrollton points. From the 1950s to around 1990, we have always thought these crude axes dated to the Early/Middle Archaic and they belonged to the Carrollton Focus. However, first in 1978 when archeologist Jerry Galm published a report titled “The Archeology of the Curtis Lake site, LaFlore County, Oklahoma,” in which he said the axe known as the Carrollton Axe dated much later in time. He assigned the artifact to the Late Archaic. Most archeologists thought perhaps he was looking at something similar yet different. Then in 1990, Daniel J. Prikryl published a report titled “Lower Elm Fork Prehistory, Office of the State Archeologist Report 37.”

Dan did a lot of research on this project. For those of you who are not familiar with all of the tributaries of the Trinity River, the Elm Fork starts near Denton and travels southeastward. Lake Dallas and Lake Lewisville were built on the Elm Fork. Then the branch passes through Carrollton and Farmers Branch. On the eastern side of Irving, the Elm Fork joins up with the West Fork of the Trinity. In the area between Carrollton and Coppell, Denton Creek empties into the Elm Fork. This is the area where Crook and Harris discovered a number of sites in which they were able to define their Carrollton Focus. The vast majority of these sites were where sand and gravel operations were placed. Needless to say, these sites are completely gone today destroyed by the gravel companies.

R.K. “King” Harris had an immense collection. He had started collecting artifacts back in the 1920s and he continued collecting for over 50 years. Most of his collection was documented as to where each artifact came from. This documentation made his collection exceptionally desirable to research archeologists such as Dan Prikryl. By looking through the Harris collection, a researcher could get a good idea of the archeology along certain streams in North Texas without ever having to get out into the field.

When Dan Prikryl started his work on the Lower Elm Fork and its tributaries, King Harris’ collection had been sold to the Smithsonian Institute. Dan felt like the Harris collection would be very valuable in his research so he made the trip to the institute and spent several days in the basement looking though all of the material. At the Smithsonian, Daniel got to see all of King’s Carrollton Axes and the material King had found associated with these tools. After viewing the material, Dan thought Mr. Galm was correct about the time period this particular artifact belongs to saying it was a Late Archaic tool. My own opinion is I tend to think King was right about the Carrollton Axe belonging to an Early/Middle Archaic time frame. There are a couple of reasons why I think this may be true. First of all, the distribution for the Carrollton Axe is a very tight oval from our area up to about Denton and westward along the West Fork of the Trinity to its headwaters. I have been walking across this area for nearly 40 years looking at the ground continuously. In all of those years, I have only found three Carrollton Axes. One was here in Navarro County, the second one in Tarrant County and the final one in Dallas County. These crude axes are extremely rare which fits into what we expect for any artifact dating to the Early or Middle Archaic. Projectile points during these time periods are also scarce.

If you will look at today’s illustration, you can easily tell how crude this axe is. In comparison with any of the Late Archaic or Late Prehistoric full/half grove axes, the Carrollton Axe is terrible. Functionally it probably did the job it was needed for as well as any of the later better-made axes. There is another definite difference in the Carrollton Axe which is usually made of our local quartzite while the full or half grove axes are made out of East Texas hematite or even the more exotic sand stones or green stones out of eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. The typical Carrollton axe has two constrictions, one on each side similar to the full grove axe but the groves are not ground or smooth, just chipped. The one illustrated in the paper today is not a good example but it was the only example in any typology book I own. Many archeologists have never seen an example. Therefore, if some archeologists don’t have the correct typology book, they may find a Carrollton Axe and incorrectly define it as a biface discard.

These axes are so crude, it would be very easy for this to happen. I guess for now, the debate still goes on about what time period a Carrollton Axe belongs to.

Next week: East Texas Early and Middle Archaic

—————

Bill Young is a Daily Sun columnist. His column appears Sundays.