Archeologists are constantly trying to add new information about the Native American cultures either through more excavations or through research projects. Some of the analysis recently described in several publications has left me far behind. I can understand part of the basics they are describing but the methods currently being used are past my comprehension. However not everything is Greek to me because part of the research still follows along certain well-known guidelines.

In the book I use for nearly all of my illustrations, “A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians” by Ellen Sue Turner and Thomas R. Hester, there are a couple of dart point types which have very simple names. One is called Early Stemmed, another is named Early Stemmed Lanceolate and a third is called Early Triangular. All three points were thought to date to the Early Archaic time period. The Early Triangular name is about as good a name we could have for this particular point. Needless to say, the points are typically triangular in shape, well made with exceptionally nice thinning across the base. Several other points such as the Kinney point and its smaller cousin, the Matamoros point, are very common in south central Texas and along the lower coastal region. However, these two points are much newer in time and typically not as well made as the Early Triangular.

In the typology book, the authors state the Early Stemmed is typically found in the lower areas of the Edwards Plateau and they make the statement the stems are ground and the points are usually found in association with several of the Paleo types. Thanks to one archeologist, Dr. Michael Collins, who did some excavation work on a site known as the Wilson/Leonard site located west of Georgetown, Texas, and further analysis of other material earlier excavated from the same site by an archeological crew working for the Texas Department of Transportation, we now call the Early Stemmed point a Wilson point. Obviously, it was named for the Wilson/Leonard site. Ever since the name was changed, new sites producing the same projectile point have been excavated. One of those sites is the Big Eddy site in southwestern Missouri. The archeologists working at Big Eddy found a single classic example of a Wilson point along with chipping debris in a level definitely associated with several of the Paleo cultures. One of the most interesting facts about the Wilson point is the points have shoulders with small barbs and an expanding stem. See the illustration in today’s article. All of a sudden we now have a projectile point which most people would assign to the Early Archaic time period based solely on its shape, yet there is no doubt whatsoever Wilson points date to the Paleo. Good controlled Carbon 14 dates from both the Wilson/Leonard site and the Big Eddy site confirm this finding.

This past spring, my wife Bobbie Jean and I drove down to Salado to meet with Dr. Collins. I had several ideas pertaining to the writing of a couple of articles for the Texas Archeological Society and I wanted his opinion about them. During the meeting, we briefly discussed the distribution of Wilson points and I told him I had looked at a number of examples from Hill County but I could not think of a single specimen from Navarro County. Over the years I have looked at the Reading collection housed at Navarro College but I can not remember any Wilson point in the collection. Dr. Collins told me several Wilson points have been found in northeast Texas in the area near Paris and Sulphur Springs, Texas. Based on the current distribution of Wilson points, it looks as if these people came out of central Texas, migrated over to the Brazos watershed and then continued northeastward into southern Missouri. What causes a group to venture out so far from what we think was their homeland? My best guess would be an environmental change but there could be other reasons. Dr. Alan Skinner has started thinking along the lines about the availability of Bois d Arc wood in Paleo and Early Archaic times in northeast Texas. We currently know Bois d Arc was harvested by the Caddos in the region between the Red River and the various branches of the Sulphur River in large quantities but until pollen analysis can be performed in a number of areas within these river drainages, we don’t know how far back in time Bois d Arc was available.

A couple of weeks ago, I illustrated an Andice point and also made the statement it had a smaller cousin known as the Calf Creek. The basic outline of both types is identical but the Andice point is bigger. One of these days some archeologist may excavate a site where he gets both types side by side proving they are the same, separated only by the fact the makers of what we call Andice points had easy access to larger pieces of Edwards chert allowing them to make a bigger point. Another cousin to both types is known as the Bell point. Once more is this a separate type or is it one of the other types which has gone through numerous resharpening episodes? The stems on Bell points sometimes are parallel sided and the blade portions tend to look squatty. I have to think this squatty look was brought about by resharpening but this remains to be proven. One thing about all three groups is the fact practice pieces are typically found associated. A practice piece is a relatively flat piece of chert where a flint knapper practiced the art of cutting deeply into the chert practicing the making of the deeply cut stems found on all three types. To my knowledge no other culture left examples of practice pieces. However this statement might not be true because we do find many examples of other types definitely not finished, for a variety of reasons.

Next week: Baker and Bandy, two other bifurcated types.