The Cumberland/Barnes Tradition: Its Character and Chronological Position
1
within a Greater Fluted Point Tradition
Richard Michael Gramly
American Society for Amateur Archaeology
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
The Cumberland point was named in 1954 by Thomas M.N. Lewis for the
Cumberland River valley of Tennessee and Kentucky (Lewis 1954: 7-8; Perino 1985:
94). This distinctive point is concentrated within that fertile region, as are the several
varieties of Clovis point. Cumberland points are routinely discovered between the Ohio
River in the north and the Tennessee River in the south. The Mississippi River is their
western boundary; while, the Appalachian Mountain chain is a border on the east and
southeast. Very few Cumberland points have been reported for Virginia. However, a lobe
of Cumberland-like (Barnes) point find-spots extends from Kentucky northeastward up
the Ohio River into Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York State, Vermont, eastern
Massachusetts and south-central New Hampshire (Figure 1). The significance of this lobe
is open to debate, although I prefer to think it formed some time after initial cultural
developments within the Cumberland River “heartland” itself.
A variant of the Cumberland point – the Barnes point – was recognized in the
Great Lakes region (Michigan and Ontario) by William Roosa (1963) and Henry T.
Wright (Wright and Roosa 1966). Afterward, the distinguishing attributes between
Cumberland and derivative Barnes points were made known. Key differences are the
“Barnes finishing” technique, which may be observed upon the base of most Barnes
points (Roosa 1977; Roosa and Deller 1982), and the lesser thickness of the Barnes type.
Analysis of the assemblage of Barnes fluted points from the Thedford II site, Ontario
(Deller and Ellis 1992) supports the argument that Cumberland and Barnes points are
likely end-members (types) of a common industrial or cultural tradition.
Both Cumberland and Barnes types are present in Kentucky and Tennessee with
Barnes points being the predominant, if not exclusive, form farther north in the formerly
glaciated Great Lakes region. With these facts in mind, one is inclined to believe that
evolution from one form to the other occurred within a Cumberland “core area” in the
mid-South – somewhere south of the Ohio River. Afterward the evolved Barnes form was
carried northward by colonizers. This line of reasoning would be strengthened if only we
were supplied with published analyses of Cumberland flaked stone assemblages to
compare to the excellent studies of Parkhill Complex sites with Barnes points (Roosa and
Deller ibid.) in southern Ontario. Until now we have been unable to contrast the wide
range of flaked toolforms (unifacial, bifacial, unretouched but utilized) known for the
Parkhill Complex with products of the Cumberland toolmaker. Suffice to say, here for
the first time, we attempt such a comparison using artifacts from the Phil Stratton
Cumberland site, southwestern Kentucky (see Table 2).
Questions of Dating
Despite over 40 years of archaeological research, neither Cumberland nor Barnes
points have been dated by absolute means (radiocarbon, etc.) to the satisfaction of most
archaeologists. Further, no archaeological site in the United States or Canada has
furnished stratigraphic evidence of the exact temporal relationship between
Cumberland/Barnes and any other expression of the Fluted Point Tradition. Simply put,
we are uncertain if Cumberland/Barnes is older, younger, or the same age as Clovis,
Crowfield, Folsom, etc.
A presumed association of a Cumberland point and absolutely dated animal bones
-- these bones being caribou (Rangifer) – was reported by Robert Funk and others (1969)
for Dutchess Quarry Cave 1 in Orange County, eastern New York State (Figures 2 and
3). The date, 12,530 +/- 370 years BP (I-4137, uncalibrated) was obtained on bone
collagen. Most workers have considered this determination impossibly early for an
occupation by makers of Cumberland points; yet, this case of artifacts and dated fauna
occurring together is no less believable than accepted associations elsewhere on the
continent.
Prior to the discovery of the Dutchess Quarry Caves, prehistorians struggled to
provide any sort of estimate, even a relative one, of the ages of Cumberland and Barnes
points. Around the Great Lakes, find-spots of Barnes points on fossil strands of early
post-glacial/late-glacial lakes provided some insight; however, south of the Wisconsin
terminal moraine dating archaeological finds by reference to surficial geology has been
more problematic. Of greatest value has been Hyde’s perceptive 1960 study of Ohio
River terraces and fluted points in western West Virginia. He observed that flared-base
(Cumberland) fluted points were found only upon the highest (oldest) river terraces;
while, Clovis points occurred everywhere including lower (therefore, younger) terraces.
He concluded, quite logically, that Cumberland points must be older than some, but
perhaps not all, Clovis points.
Hyde’s surmise that Cumberland may have preceded Clovis is not directly
testable in southern Ontario as the glacial Lake Algonquin shore has points and sites
representing several components of the Fluted Point Tradition. Lake Algonquin when full
persisted from 11,000 to 10,400 years BP or, in the opinion of some researchers (Karrow
and Werner 1990:15), from 11,300 to 10,500 years BP. During this 600-800 year
timespan the makers of both Clovis and Barnes points, as well as Crowfield Phase
people, hunted and lived upon a common lakeshore (Ellis and Deller 1990).
In the face of the present limited and generalized evidence for dating fluted point
manifestations in the Great Lakes, it is possible to argue, but not prove, that Barnes
(Parkhill Complex) preceded Clovis and vice versa. Whatever the relative age of the two,
Barnes points might have been made as early as 11,300-11,000 years ago; in terms of
solar/calendar years, this estimate may be a 1-2 thousand years more ancient.
Additional information about the antiquity of Cumberland/Barnes has come forth
from Dutchess Quarry Caves where sporadic fieldwork since 1969 has yielded four
fragmentary or reworked Cumberland/Barnes points in association with extirpated or
extinct species – caribou (Rangifer tarandus), flat-headed peccary (Platygonus
compressus) and giant beaver (Castoroides ohioensis). Whether these faunal remains
were left by Palaeo-Americans or scavengers, as investigators Funk and Steadman prefer
to believe (1994: 73), is difficult to judge. Amino acids extracted from bones of these
species provide an important series of 11 radiocarbon dates (Table 1 reproduced from
Funk and Steadman 1994).
These 11 dates, when adjusted according to the Pretoria Calibration Procedure
(Darden Hood, Beta Analytic, personal communication), yield the results:
CAMS-13298 BP 15,870-14,530
CAMS-13296 BP 16,310-15,350
CAMS-12586 BP 15,640-14,530
CAMS-13305 BP 16,300-15,240
CAMS-13304 BP 17,030-16,180
CAMS-12589 BP 15,660-14,370
CAMS-10357 BP 15,300-13,840, three solutions
CAMS-13027 BP 15,310-13,860, three solutions
CAMS-12592 BP 15,460-14,130
CAMS-12587 BP 13,870-13,430
CAMS-12849 BP 16,460-15,650
The gross bracketing dates for these 11 bone samples (at two standard deviations)
are, therefore: BP 17,030-13,430.
Most North American prehistorians continue to express skepticism about such
early, calibrated bracketing dates for a Cumberland fluted point occupation (Petersen
2004). Even the “raw” or uncalibrated determinations from the Dutchess Quarry Caves
are very ancient with a range (at two standard deviations) of: BP 14,200-11,530.
An age at the recent end of this spectrum, that is to say 11,530 years BP (roughly
13,530 calendar years), however, might be acceptable to some workers (I include myself
among this number). Such an age exceeds the range of accepted radiocarbon dates for
Clovis (11,050 – 10,800 years BP; see Waters and Stafford 2007). The idea that the
Cumberland type might have arisen before Clovis is an attractive one. If Barnes points
and the Parkhill Complex were direct outgrowths of a Cumberland cultural substrate,
their age, indeed, might fall within the interval 11,300-11,000 years BP (uncalibrated) –
making them contemporary with Clovis.
The commonly accepted view has been that Cumberland/Barnes is derived or
descendant from Clovis and, therefore, younger (Gramly and Funk 1990). Certainly
researchers working on Palaeo-American sites around the Great Lakes favor this idea –
see, for example, most recently Ellis and Deller (1997). They draw attention to the fact
that Barnes points are “intermediate between the Gainey [a Clovis variant] and Crowfield
types in terms of thickness, depth of basal concavity, and degree of expansion from the
base” (Ellis and Deller 1990: 45-6). These statistics notwithstanding, there is no hard
evidence that change from Gainey to Barnes to Crowfield actually occurred. Put another
way, there are neither absolute dates nor stratified sites to confirm that Clovis (Gainey),
Barnes, and Crowfield are successive phases of a single cultural tradition. For ought we
know they even may have been contemporaries – coeval or temporally overlapping
expressions of a grand Palaeo-American Fluted point Tradition?!
In dealing with conjectural archaeological evidence, the proverbial “open-mind”
is necessary.
Insights about the exact temporal relationships among Clovis (Gainey), Barnes,
and Crowfield in the Great Lakes, of course, do not directly address the problem of
Cumberland origins. Further, data about Palaeo-American behavior, diet, and customs are
so scanty anywhere in eastern North America that actual cultural linkages between
Cumberland and the other Palaeo-American entities are, at best, tentative.
Behavior, Diet, and Customs
The only Cumberland habitation site with a studied and inventoried flaked artifact
assemblage is the Phil Stratton site, south of Russellville, southwestern Kentucky. The
author’s excavations since 2000 have revealed that this extensive encampment has intact,
undisturbed sectors and is virtually a closed site (a single-component occupation);
however, bone is not preserved and prehistoric features are rare at Phil Stratton.
Therefore, we have slight expectations of recovering information about prehistoric
behavior and diet. Our knowledge of customs -- as it applies to tool-making, recycling,
and raw material preferences – is beginning to accumulate and stands to be considerable
when fieldwork is completed. Too, there is the chance that continuing archaeological
excavations at this site will furnish data about artifact-caching and burial practices – as
has been the case for the Parkhill Complex site Thedford II (Deller and Ellis 1992) and a
remarkable Kentucky Cumberland site known as Trinity (Gramly, Vesper and McCall
1999, etc.).
By adding Barnes point-producing sites to our study of Cumberland, knowledge
of ancient behavior, diet, and customs is on a better footing, namely:
A. Behavior (choice of site locations, use of features)
1. Camps with multiple dwelling sites -- likely contemporaneous -- upon lake
shorelines, in major river valleys, at lithic quarries, and upon bluffs with a
panorama of the countryside.
2. No evidence of pit-digging although hollows in the soil (natural?) appear to
have been used for refuse disposal.
3. Hearths unknown.
4. Structural traces (postholes) unknown although well-defined artifact
concentrations suggest presence of lightly constructed dwellings (tents).
B. Diet
1. Caribou, peccary, and giant beaver killed.
2. Caribou are thought to have been intercepted at stream crossings along lake
shorelines.
C. Customs (other than flaked tool-making and tool-using behavior)
1. Deposits (“caches”) of projectile points, knives, and performs
2. Use of mineral pigments unknown.
This list is provisional and is based upon only a small number of sites and archaeological
excavations. This fact should not be forgotten when we compare it to the much
better-known Clovis archaeological culture east of the Mississippi River.
A wider range of site locations and types is on record for Clovis (see Gramly
2003 for a lengthy discussion); yet, like Cumberland/Barnes, Clovis dwellings
everywhere appear to have been insubstantial and perhaps portable. Hearths, although
present on a few Clovis sites, are rare, and just how Palaeo-Americans of all walks
prepared and consumed their food is conjectural. Pit-digging by makers of Clovis points
was practiced from coast to coast in the northern latitudes of North America. The pits
may have been intended for storage and their dimensions were highly standardized ---
underscoring the essential homogeneity of Clovis culture. For example, Feature 1 at the
East Wenatchee Clovis site, Douglas County, Washington State (Gramly 1992) is
identical in shape and depth to the oval, “cache” pits at Loci A and B, Vail site,
northeastern Maine (Gramly 1982). The distance separating these sites is nearly 2,500
miles. Undoubtedly inhabitants of both sites knew that there was a “right” way to
construct cache pits and behaved similarly. If no such pits are ever found at
Cumberland/Barnes sites (as seems to be the case), we are justified in arguing that these
cultures are of different ages or not very closely related.
Clovis diet (including animals that may have been scavenged but not often
killed), was broad-based, even within eastern North America, and included: mastodon;
caribou; hare; fox (see Storck 2004 for species discovered within a pit at the Udora site);
fish; antlered cervids of unknown species; mammoth (?); and perhaps large and small
birds. Cumberland/Barnes and Clovis hunters, insofar as we know, pursued but a single
quarry in common – the caribou.
Although Cumberland/Barnes and Clovis seem, at first glance, to be separate and
perhaps not closely related phenomena, they shared at least one custom that bespeaks
smilar mind-sets, thus making them (after a fashion) “partners” in culture. I refer to the
curious practice of depositing groups of bifaces, 10-30 in number. These artifact groups
might have been hunting-kits of deceased individuals, although no skeletal evidence has
survived as proof. Clovis sites in the greater Mississippi River valley and eastern North
America that feature “caches” of projectile points, knives and performs are: RummelsMaske in Iowa (Morrow and Morrow 2002) and Lamb in western New York State
(Gramly 1999), as well as several caches from the Mid-West known to the writer but
unreported in the literature. These discoveries are similar in substance to the find of 11
Cumberland points (one is a knife and another has been converted to a drill) at the
aforementioned Trinity site in northern Kentucky (Figures 4 and 5) and the remarkable
group of Barnes points and preforms at the Thedford II site (Deller and Ellis 1992) – see
Figure 6.
George Frison (1991) has discussed the implications of “caching” as it was
performed by Clovis in the American West. Finds in the East do not alter materially his
conclusions. Why perfectly usable hunters’ flaked tool-kits should be abandoned by both
Cumberland/Barnes and Clovis is a primary concern. A likely explanation might revolve
around a (superstitious) fear of ghostly retribution should property of a deceased hunter
continue in service. Such a notion is hardly commonplace among modern-day hunters,
although here and there in the Arctic it was once held. Careful excavation of PalaeoAmerican hunters’ implement “caches,” which unfortunately are most often found
disturbed and torn out of their original resting places, is required if we are ever to
understand the full implications of this custom as practiced by Cumberland/Barnes and
Clovis.
A Word About Flaked Tool Assemblages (See Table 2 and Figure 7)
The employment of prismatic blades and the columnar/pyramidal cores used to
generate them by ancient occupants of the Phil Stratton site is unlike the practices
reported for ancient tool-makers at the Parkhill (Barnes) and Vail (eastern Clovis)
encampments. At Phil Stratton it is possible that the peculiar habit of raw material, that is
to say, its occurrence as spheroidal masses of chert (“cannonballs”), dictated the
manufacture of prismatic blades, which were used as cutting tools and even transformed
into fluted projectile points. Prismatic blades are also well-known for Clovis culture in
the West and East – wherever spherical masses of raw materials determined knapping
strategy.
Of greater value when discriminating among Palaeo-American cultures is perhaps
the tool class -- chisels or wedges (pieces esquillees). At the Vail Clovis site they are
abundant; yet, they are unreported for the Parkhill site and poorly represented at Phil
Stratton. Pieces esquillees also appear to be absent at Thedford II, a Barnes pointproducing station (Deller and Ellis 1992). Further, the tool class is uncommon at the
culturally kindred Leavitt site in central Michigan (Shott 1993). Shott considers all of
them to be cores rather than tools – a view not shared by this writer. The rarity of pieces
esquillees on both Cumberland and Barnes sites, as opposed to sites producing Clovis
points is not easily explained by dietary differences or access to raw materials. It seems to
be a real cultural or behavioral issue, serving to define two separate cultural streams.
Regular endscrapers are uncommon at Phil Stratton site but tolerably common at
Barnes point-producing stations. This toolform, on the other hand, is extraordinarily
abundant at the Vail site and other encampments of the Magalloway Valley Complex in
northwestern Maine. There it is possible to argue that caribou were hunted after calving
and upon their return to cold-weather quarters when their hides were optimal for dressing
into garments and other articles. By contrast, the Morss site of the Magalloway Valley
Complex yielded no endscrapers although nearly every other toolform known for eastern
Clovis culture was present in that site’s assemblage. An explanation that Morss was
occupied during the spring, pre-calving season when caribou hides were unfit for human
use has been advanced by the writer (Gramly 2001). The rarity of endscrapers at Phil
Stratton as compared to Parkhill and especially Vail, where it is argued migrating caribou
were ambushed, suggests that at the Kentucky site working hides was less important.
Whether this difference is merely an outcome of seasonality or a concomitant of some
deeper, cultural factor is impossible to say at this time.
Another difference among the artifact assemblages of Parkhill, Phil Stratton and
Vail sites, I would like to point out, is the habit of Parkhill knappers to resharpen
opposite edges of knives by unifacial retouch -- giving them a twisted or “corkscrew
appearance” when their ends are viewed. Deller and Ellis describe these resharpened
knives as “alternately beveled bifaces”. This technique was also employed by Crowfield
knappers around the Great Lakes (Deller and Ellis 1984); also, it is commonly observed
among later North American (Early Archaic) artifact assemblages. The technique might
have been a late development among Palaeo-American cultures, universally employed
by knappers of all walks and backgrounds. Alternatively, its use may be of value for
discriminating among cultural traditions. More data are needed to judge the implications
of resharpening by “beveling.”
A final possible difference between Cumberland/Barnes and Clovis assemblages
would seem to be the use of celts and adzes. At the Vail site, these large tools were not
present -- a fact not altogether surprising given the clear evidence for recycling and heavy
reworking among the tools discarded there. Adzes and celts are unquestionably present at
Clovis sites where reworking and salvage were not such important considerations (e.g.,
the Richey Clovis Cache, Washington State – see Gramly 1992). Likewise at Parkhill,
adzes and celts may be present, although investigators Ellis and Deller may have
classified them as a variety of endscraper (termed “large parallel-sided endscrapers”).
Too, at Phil Stratton we have an adze or celt, which has shattered into at least seven
pieces. This peculiar specimen is characterized by diagonal flaking on its broad upper and
lower faces plus very heavy edge-grinding. In the writer’s experience this excavated
specimen is unique in its combination of attributes; however, similar specimens have
been collected from the surface of Kentucky sites (Dennis Vesper, personal
communication). The diagonal flaking on the Phil Stratton site specimen may prove to be
an useful indicator of an occupation by the makers of Cumberland points – and just as
diagnostic as fluted projectile points themselves.
In sum, the current evidence provided by excavated flaked tool assemblages from
Cumberland, Barnes, and Clovis sites is not particularly compelling for discriminating
among them. When allowances are made for varying seasonality, diet, and habit of raw
materials, actual socio-cultural differences may be few, indeed. The shapes of projectile
points themselves and their performs may have a discriminatory value equal to or greater
than all other types/classes within a particular artifact assembage Acceding to this
possibility, one can argue that Cumberland and Barnes points stand in closer relationship
to one another than either form does to points deemed “Clovis.” We look forward,
however, to a time when discovery of features at Cumberland and Barnes encampments
will furnish additional means (apart from points and preforms) of comparing the various
expressions of Palaeo-American culture.
Origin of Cumberland
Whatever the temporal and cultural relationships of Cumberland people to other
fluted point-using, Palaeo-Americans of the early Holocene, the question remains as to
how Cumberland culture got its start. It is my belief that it cannot be derived from
Clovis. Indeed, in my opinion it is more likely that Clovis developed from Cumberland
and that Barnes was a contemporary of Clovis. This hypothesis can be tested only with
more absolute dating evidence and cultural stratigraphy – these data to be presented
forthrightly within the context of bona-fide archaeological site reports. Only then will
the case for or against Cumberland primogeniture be made.
I would like to see archaeologists reconcile the separate hypotheses of early
arrival (pre-Clovis) in the New World and Clovis first, proffering in their stead a grand,
integrative hypothesis or covering explanation. In my opinion Cumberland will prove to
be a bridge between early-arrivalists and Clovis-first believers. A principal of human
biology supports this intellectual bridge, namely, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
That is to say, the development of an human embryo/fetus proceeds by stages -successive stages mimic increasingly complex phyla of the animal kingdom. This
principal reminds us of the long skein of ancestral forms that preceded humankind.
Similarly, in my opinion, if we would know the technological (cultural) base from which
Cumberland points were developed, we should examine Cumberland point preforms. A
preform for a Cumberland point is a lanceolate point with a marked taper along the lower
third or quarter of its cutting edges (Figure 8). Lanceolate points of such refined shape
recall specimens unearthed in Dillehay’s excavation at the 12,000-year old Monte Verde
site in Chile (1997: 424). The Taima-Taima kill site in northern Venezuela (Bryan 1983:
140) with its somewhat older(?) El Jobo lanceolate point (12,000-14,000 years old, as
judged from a series of 18 radiocarbon dates) might be regarded as a precursor to Monte
Verde and the elegant, long lanceolate projectile points occurring there. Closer to the
Cumberland heartland we have Meadowcroft Rockshelter and its single, heavily
reworked lanceolate point from lower Stratum 2A ( Adovasio et al. 1978: 165). Such a
specimen is very close in gross shape to a preform for a Cumberland projectile point.
If an Early Lanceolate Industry ultimately gave rise to Cumberland and the full
Fluted Point Tradition, then we would expect to see antecedents of adzes, drills, various
forms of scraper, etc. – toolforms that are common on some Fluted Point Tradition
stations – found with Early Lanceolate points. Unfortunately, the flaked tool assemblages
recorded for Early Lanceolate sites in South and North America are mostly small – the
most sizeable being the handful of utilized prismatic blades, flake-blades, and lightly
retouched knives from Meadowcroft Stratum 2A. It is diificult to make persuasive
arguments with such scant evidence.
The hypothesized pathway leading from Early Lanceolate to Cumberland and
ultimately to Clovis points (and their derivatives) may not have been the only one
followed during the development of New World flaked stone industry. Haynes (n.d.) has
argued on the basis of stratigraphy and absolute dating evidence that Plainview/Goshen
points may have “paralleled the Clovis-Folsom-Midland line,” meaning that
Plainview/Goshen points may have arisen independently from the Fluted Point Tradition.
Their origin within an Early Lanceolate Point Tradition is possible.
Certainly for many parts of formerly glaciated northern North America the latest
outgrowths of the Fluted Point Tradition are the earliest cultural vestiges we should
expect to encounter; while, in the ice-free region south of the Ohio River, somewhat older
evidence might be expected. Our search for Cumberland sites worthy of scientific
exploration has lead us to the fertile Red River drainage of southwestern Kentucky and
northwestern Tennessee, and our labor has not gone unrewarded. At the same time,
however, a door has opened to the possibility of discovering even older remains within
this archaeologically rich region. I predict that these earliest traces of colonizing
populations will include lanceolate points. From whence these Late Pleistocene
colonizers came and what was their ethnic background and language are likely to remain
forever matters of speculation.
1
A first version of this paper was prepared as a handout at the Archaeological Society
of Ohio symposium, “Peopling of the Americas,” held in Columbus, Ohio, on May 22,
2004. The author wishes to thank the ASO Conference Committee for organizing the
Symposium and for offering to publish this version of my paper within its proceedings.
A second version of this paper, entitled “The Cumberland/Barnes Phase: Its
Character and Chronological Position within the Fluted Point Tradition,” appeared
in pages 4-14, Volume 58(2) of the Ohio Archaeologist.
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, J. Guilday, and K. Lord
1978 Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Pp. 140-180 in Alan Lyle Bryan (ed.) Early
Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective. Occasional Papers,
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta 1. Edmonton.
Bryan, Alan Lyle
1983 South America. Pp. 137-146 in Richard Shutler, Jr. (ed.) Early Man in the
New World. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills.
Deller, D. B. and C. J. Ellis
1984 Crowfield: A preliminary report on a probable Paleo-Indian cremation
In Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:
41-71.
1992 Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of SouthWestern Ontario. Memoir of the Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, 24. Ann Arbor.
Dillehay, T. D.
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume 2.
Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Ellis, C. J. and D. B. Deller
1990 Paleo-Indians. Pp. 37-64 in Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris (eds.) The
Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication
of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc. 5. London,
Ontario, Canada.
1997 Variability in the archaeological record of northeastern Paleoindians: A
view from southern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:
1-30.
2000 An Early Paleo-Indian Site near Parkhill, Ontario. Mercury Series,
Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 159. Canadian Museum of
Civilization.
Frison, George
1991 The Clovis cultural complex: New data from caches of flaked stone and
worked bone artifacts. Pp. 321-333 in Economies among Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherers. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology
19. Lawrence.
Funk, Robert E.
2004 An Ice Age Quarry-Workshop: The West Athens Hill Site Revisited.
New York State Museum Bulletin 504. Albany.
Funk, R. E., G. R. Walters, W. F. Ehlers, Jr., J. E. Guilday, and G. G. Connaly
1969 The archeology of Dutchess Quarry Cave, Orange County, New York.
Pennsylvania Archaeologist 39 (1-4): 7-22.
Funk, R. E. and D. W. Steadman
1994 Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investigations in the Dutchess
Quarry Caves. Persimmon Press. Buffalo, N.Y.
Gramly, Richard Michael
1982 The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the
Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 33. Buffalo, New York.
1992 Richey Clovis Cache: Earliest Americans Along the Columbia River.
Persimmon Press. Buffalo, N.Y.
1995 Palaeo-Indian site, Maine: Fifteen years after the excavation.
The Amateur Archaeologist 1(2): 46-64. American Society for
Amateur Archaeology. North Andover, MA.
1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press.
North Andover, Massachusetts.
2000 The Morss fluted point site, Northwestern Maine. The Amateur
Archaeologist 7(2): 77-96.
2003 Predicting the locations of Palaeo-American sites in northern North
America. Pp. 15-38 in Robert M. Overstreet (ed.) Indian Arrowheads
Identification and Price Guide (8th edition). Gemstone Publishing.
Timonium, Maryland.
Gramly, Richard Michael and Robert E. Funk
1990 What is known and not known about the human occupation of the
Northeastern United States until 10,000 B.P. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 18: 5-32.
Gramly, R. M. , D. Vesper, and D. McCall
1999 A Cumberland site near Trinity, Lewis County, northern Kentucky.
The Amateur Archaeologist 6(1): 63-80. American Society for
Amateur Archaeology. North Andover, MA.
Gramly, R. M. and D. Vesper
2005 Additional discoveries at the Trinity Cumberland site: A Tribute to
Dave McCall. The Amateur Archaeologist 11(1): 103-110.
Haynes, C. Vance , Jr.
n.d. Clovis-Folsom-Midland-Plainview geochronology, climatic change
and extinction. Paper (48 pp. + other) presented in the symposium,
Folsom Archaeology: Early Holocene Palaeoecology. 56th Annual
Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA,
April 25, 1991. Smithsonian Institution (in press).
Hyde, E. W.
1960 Mid-Ohio Valley Paleo-Indian and Suggested Sequence of the Fluted
Point Cultures. West Virginia Archeological Society special publication.
48 pp
Karrow, P. F. and B. G. Warner
1990 The geological and biological environment for human occupation in
Southern Ontario. Pp. 5-35 in Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris (eds.)
The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional
Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society
5. London, Ontario, Canada.
Lewis, T. M. N.
1954 The Cumberland point. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological
Society II: 7-8.
Morrow, Juliet E. and Toby A. Morrow
2001 Rummells-Maske revisited: A fluted point cache from east-central
Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 47(183): 307-321.
Petersen, James B.
2004 Athens Hill, the Paleoindian Period, and Robert E. Funk in
Northeastern perspective. Foreword (39 pp.) in Robert E. Funk – An
Ice Age Quarry-Workshop: The West Athens Hill Site Revisited.
New York State Museum Bulletin 504. Albany.
Perino, Greg
1985 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians.
Volume 1. Idabel, Oklahoma.
Roosa, William B.
1963 Some Michigan fluted point types and sites. Michigan Archaeologist
9(3): 44-48.
1977 Fluted points from the Parkhill, Ontario site. Pp. 87-122 in Charles E.
Cleland (ed.) For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B.
Griffin. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University
of Michigan 61. Ann Arbor.
Roosa, William B. and D. Brian Deller
1982 The Parkhill Complex and eastern Great lakes Paleo Indian. Ontario
Archaeology 37: 3-15.
Shott, Michael J.
1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central
Michigan. Memoirs, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan
25. Ann Arbor.
Storck, Peter L.
2004 Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering An Ancient World. UBC Press.
Vancouver.
Waters, Michael R. and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr.
2007 Redefining the age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the
Americas. Science 315: 1122-1126.
Wright, Henry T. and William B. Roosa
1966 The Barnes site: A fluted point assemblage from the Great Lakes region.
American Antiquity 31(6): 850-860.
Table 2. THE PARKHILL SITE (BARNES), PHIL STRATTON SITE
(CUMBERLAND) AND VAIL SITE (EASTERN CLOVIS) SITE ASSEMBLAGES
COMPARED
SITES
ARTIFACT TYPE or CLASS
1
PARKHILL
PHIL
2
STRATTON
3
VAIL
Bifacial, flaked
1. Projectile points
107
7
95
2. Drills
2
1
74
3. Backed knives
2
1
0
4. Point preforms
20
10
52
(one from Phil Stratton has been reworked as a scraper)
5. Adzes
8?
1
0
(for Parkhill adzes are possibly lumped with “large parallel-sided endscrapers”)
6. Chisel bits/wedges (pieces esquillees)
0
0
619
7. Biface frags. (not further identified)
4
38
52
8. Choppers
0
3
1
9. Alternately beveled bifaces
5
0
0
Unifacial, flaked
1. Endscrapers
35
13
796
(of the 13 from Stratton 3 are atypical and 2 are denticulate)
2. Sidescrapers
13
20
182
(in the Stratton assemblage there are an additional 11 sidescrapers that are in
combination with other tools)
3. Groovers (beaks/beaked endscrapers,
13
1
102
narrow scrapers, and limaces)
4. Hollow scrapers
3
6
present
5 Irregular scrapers
0
18
present
6. Gravers
16
61
890
7. Denticulates
5
20
890
Cores
1. Disc
0
2. Columnar /pyrmidal(yields prism. blades) 0
3. Other
0
1
14
1
0
0
0
Tool fragments
1. Without silica phytolith sheen
2. With silica phytolith sheen
Untallied
0
Flakes
1. Channel flakes
197
29
2. With silica phytolith sheen
3. Other
0
5748
5
Untallied
Rough stone tools
1. Hammerstones
0
12
2. Abraders
0
5
TOTALS
6277
1
Adapted from Ellis and Deller (2000: Tables 4.1 and 7.1).
2
The exploration of the Phil Stratton site is ongoing..
3
Adapted from Gramly 1995.
115
Untallied
332
(tools only)
1919
0
present but
untallied
0
8415
present but
untallied
present but
untallied
13,146+
CAPTIONS FOR TABLES and FIGURES
Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Dutchess Quarry Caves, Nos. 1, 8 and 9. From
Funk and Steadman 1994 (Table 9). Used by permission.
Table 2. ----------------with table-------------Figure 1. Map showing area of occurrence of Cumberland and derivative Barnes
projectile point types. Note locations of key archaeological sites:
Parkhill (1); Thedford II (2); Dutchess Quarry Caves (3); Leavitt (4);
Trinity (5); and Phil Stratton (6).
Figure 2. The entrance to Dutchess Quarry Cave No. 1, Orange County, Hudson
River valley region, southeastern New York State. This photograph was
taken in 1965 by the late Dr. Robert E. Funk and it shows New York
State Archaeological Association members within their excavation –
the basal deposits of which yielded an intact Cumberland/Barnes point
and radiocarbon-dated caribou bones.
Figure 3. Photograph and drawing of an intact projectile point (Barnes point) with
adhering carbonate crust (chemically removed from one face), Dutchess
Quarry Cave No. 1. Lithic Casting lab photograph, used with permission.
Drawing by artist Valerie Waldorf. Length of point = 59 mm.
Figure 4. The Trinity site, Lewis County, northeastern Kentucky, looking upstream
in the Ohio River valley, 1999. A remarkable group of 11 Cumberland
points once lay beneath surface near the back-filled test-pit in the foreground,
which is situated upon the higher of two fossil river terraces (numbered).
Figure 5. Four of 11 Cumberland points retrieved from the Trinity site. Only A is
intact and unrestored. The group of 11 may represent personal property
(burial furnishings?) of a Cumberland Palaeo-American (Gramly, Vesper
and McCall 1999; Gramly and Vesper 2005).
A, length = 89 mm; raw material Wyandotte chert (Indiana hornstone).
B, length = 96.4 mm; raw material Paoli (?) chert (aka “Carter Cave”).
C, length = 111 mm; raw material Wyandotte chert.
D, length = 112 mm (est.); raw material Paoli chert (aka “Carter Cave”).
The Trinity group of Cumberland artifacts is matched only by a find of Barnes
points at the Thedford II site, Ontario (Deller and Ellis 1992). Drawings by
Valerie Waldorf.
Figure 6. Four finished Barnes points and two point preforms from a group of eight
bifaces discovered within Grid A-Northeast, Thedford II site, Ontario, during
digging a drainage ditch. The predominant raw material of this group,
which is interpreted as a tool cache (Deller and Ellis 1992: 99-100), is
Bayport chert. This raw material outcrops in Michigan and was especially
favored by Palaeo-American of the Great Lakes. Photograph courtesy
of Chris Ellis.
Figure 7. Selected flaked stone artifacts from the Phil Stratton Cumberland site, Logan
County, southwestern Kentucky. Drawings by Valerie Waldorf. Except A,
all appear to be made of Ste. Genevieve nodular chert.
A, tip fragment of finished, resharpened Cumberland point of Ft. Payne chert,
length = 110 mm.
B & C, fragments of a finished, resharpened Cumberland point (Note: point has
now been fully restored from four fragments found separately).
D, conjoined fragments of a Cumberland point preform broken during initial
fluting. It was made from a prismatic blade. After breakage the end of the
preform may have been retouched as a scraper. Length = 79.6 mm.
E, proximal end of a straight-based Cumberland knife (see also Figure 8F),
length = 53 mm.
Figure 7. Selected flaked stone artifacts from the Phil Stratton site (cont.)
F, straight-based, lanceolate knife (one of five excavated examples),
length = 100 mm.
G, fragmentary drillpoint, edges are heavily ground around haft and
near tip, length = 24.4 mm.
H, Fragmentary prismatic blade struck from a columnar or pyramidal
core, length = 54 mm.
I, proximal ends of four channel flakes that collapsed during fluting,
length of longest = 22.5 mm.
J, prismatic blade core with conjoined angular (trimming) flakes.
An internal flaw caused blades to terminate prematurely, resulting
in discard of the core. Height = 123.4 mm.
Figure 8. Evidence that later cultures of the Red River region, Kentucky, reworked
Cumberland points – an Archaic side-notched projectile point made from
a Cumberland point tip fragment of Ste. Genevieve chert. Discovered
2 km north of the Phil Stratton site, Logan County, length = 67.6 mm.
Drawing by Valerie Waldorf.
Figure 9. Cumberland point preform made of Ft. Payne chert, from a site in
Alabama. David Zinkie collection. Valerie Waldorf drawing from a
cast by Lithic Casting Lab, Troy, IL. Note the neatly beveled striking platform
and regular medial ridge extending to the platform. The narrowed basal edges,
slightly excurvate base, and relatively great length and thickness in relation to
the width are reminiscent of the shape of Early Lanceolate points from South
America. Length = 138 mm.
Figure 10. Hypothesized relationship of some projectile point-using Palaeo-American
cultures and industries.