ARROW POINTS OF THE TEXAS

BORDERLANDS

WILLIAM E. MOORE

2023
 Dedication
I am fortunate to have worked with and been mentored by some great people to whom I
credit my success as a professional archaeologist. During the formative years of my interest in
archaeology, Doris L. Olds was the Curator of Records at the Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory (TARL) on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. She taught me how to
record sites and label artifacts and, along with the rest of the staff, was a constant source of
encouragement. After retirement, she gave me her personal library, and I consider myself only
the curator because I plan to pass it on some day. This book is dedicated to her memory.

ii
 About the Author

WILLIAM E. MOORE is a retired professional archaeologist and former Sole Proprietor of the
contract firm Brazos Valley Research Associates in Bryan, Texas. He is a charter member of the
Houston Archeological Society and member of the Texas Archeological Society for over 50
years. In addition, he was a member of the Registry of Professional Archeologists. Moore
authored Bastrop County 1691 – 1900, The Texas Calaboose and Other Forgotten Jails and The
Sooner I Get Out, the Better: Oklahoma Calabooses, Hoosegows, Lockups, and Jails (In Press),
and numerous articles for archaeological journals such as the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society, La Tierra, and the Journal of the Houston Archeological Society. One of his main
research interests is material culture of primitive groups that has resulted in a large collection
of items made and used by the Tarahumara of Mexico. His website contains information about
his company (BVRA) and other topics related to archaeology.

iii
 Contents
Foreword - vii
Preface - ix
Acknowledgments – x
Introduction - pp. 1-9
Chapter 1. What is an Arrowhead? - pp. 10-20
Chapter 2. Raw Materials - 21-34
Chapter 3. Projectile Point Typologies – pp. 35-42
Chapter 4. Archeological Planning Regions – pp. 43-50
Chapter 5. Relevant Literature – pp. 51-56
Chapter 6. Final Thoughts – pp. 57-58
Chapter 7. Arrow Points – pp. 59-186
References Cited – pp. 187-225

Figures

Figure 1. Variation of size of Gary points – p. 11

Figure 2. Wooden point for hunting birds - p. 17
Figure 3. Chert Nodules at 41RE53 – p. 21
Figure 4. Georgetown chert - p. 24
Figure 5. Catahoula point from 41WA55 – p. 28
Figure 6. Formation of Manning Fused Glass - p. 31
Figure 7. Arrow point from 41TN11 – p. 32
Figure 8. Prewitt’s (1995) Figure 24 - p. 43
Figure 9. Planning Regions in Texas – p. 44
Figure 10. Subregions in the Eastern Planning Region – p. 45
Figure 11. Subregions in the Central and Southern Planning Region – p. 48
Figure 12. Northern Panhandle and Unnamed Regions – p. 50
Figure 13. Agee point – p. 59
Figure 14. Agee points – p. 60
Figure 15. Ahumada points from the Villa Ahumada Sites – p. 61
Figure 16. Alazán points – p. 63
Figure 17. Alba point from 41SJ13 – p. 66
Figure 18. Variations of the Alba point – p. 66
Figure 19. Arrow points from 41NV670 - p. 68
Figure 20. Anagua points– p. 70
Figure 21. Basset point – p. 72
Figure 22. Variation of the Bassett point p. 73
Figure 23. Bayou Goula point – p. 74
Figure 24. Bonham points – p. 75
Figure 25. Bulbar Stemmed point from 41WH8 – p. 77
Figure 26. Cameron points – p. 79

iv
Figure 27. Caracara points – p. 81
Figure 28. Catahoula points from 41WA55 – p. 83
Figure 29. Chadbourne point from 41TA58 – p. 86
Figure 30. Cliffton point – p. 88
Figure 31. Cliffton points curated at TARL – p. 89
Figure 32. Colbert points – p. 90
Figure 33. Cuney point – p. 92
Figure 34. Cuney points at TARL – p. 93
Figure 35. Deadman’s point – p. 94
Figure 36. Diablo points – p. 96
Figure 37. Edwards point – p. 99
Figure 38. Form 2 points - p. 101
Figure 39. Fresno points from Dimmit County, p. 103
Figure 40. Friley points – p. 106
Figure 41. Gar scale – p. 108
Figure 42. Garza point – p. 110
Figure 43. Guerrero-like glass point from 41SA25 – p. 112
Figure 44. Basset-like glass point – p. 112
Figure 45. Glass arrow point (surface find) – p. 113
Figure 46. Granbury point from 41HI1 – p. 114
Figure 47. Guadalupe point – p. 116
Figure 48. Guerrero points from 41WH8 – p. 118
Figure 49. Harrell points – p. 120
Figure 50. Harrell points at TARL – p. 120
Figure 51. Hayes point from Cherokee County– p. 122
Figure 52. Hayes points – p. 123
Figure 53. Homan point - p. 124
Figure 54. Kobs Triangular – p. 126
Figure 55. Livermore point – p. 127
Figure 56. Livermore points – p. 127
Figure 57. Livermore points at TARL - p. 128
Figure 58. Lott point, p. 129
Figure 59. Lozenge point– p. 131
Figure 60. McGloin point – p. 132
Figure 61. McGloin points at TARL – p. 133
Figure 62. Maud point – p. 134
Figure 63. Means points from the Trans-Pecos – p. 136
Figure 64. Metal points - p. 140
Figure 65. Metal trade point – p. 140
Figure 66. Hafted metal arrow point – p. 141
Figure 67. Brass point from 41PS16 – p. 144
Figure 68. Metal points - p. 146
Figure 69. Metal points - p. 147
Figure 70. Moran points – p. 149

v
Figure 71. Morris point – p. 150
Figure 72. Padre points – p. 152
Figure 73. Perdiz points - p. 153
Figure 74. Perdiz points - p. 156
Figure 75. Pinwah points – p. 157
Figure 76. Ray point – p. 158
Figure 77. Revilla point – p. 159
Figure 78. Rockwall point – p. 161
Figure 79. Sabinal points from 41UV21– p. 163
Figure 80. Long, narrow Sabinal point – p. 163
Figure 81. Scallorn points – p. 165
Figure 82. Scallorn points from 41BU17 – p. 167
Figure 83. Conch columella shell points – p. 168
Figure 84. Starr points from Northern Mexico – p. 169
Figure 85. Steiner point – p. 171
Figure 86. Steiner point curated at TARL – p. 172
Figure [Link] point – p. 173
Figure 88. Talco points from 41MX4 and 41FK1– p. 174
Figure 89. Toyah points - p. 175
Figure 90. Turner point – p. 177
Figure 91. Turney points from 41NA206 – p. 178
Figure 92. Washita point – p. 180
Figure 93 Washita points housed at TARL – p. 181
Figure 94. Young point from 41PP62 – p. 182
Figure 95. Zapata point from Northern Mexico – p. 183
Figure 96. Zavala point, p. 185

Appendices

Appendix I – Contributions in Archaeology

Appendix II - Photo Credits
Appendix III - County Abbreviations
Appendix IV - Texas Arrow Points Found in Other States and Mexico
Appendix V - Shapes of Arrow Points
Appendix VI - Sites with Manning Fused Glass
Appendix VII - Counties in the Planning Regions

vi
 Foreword

When I first entered graduate school at Texas A&M University in 1986, I was fortunate to
study archaeology and anthropology with Harry J. Shafer and to participate in several seasons
of field work at the NAN Ranch in New Mexico. My Master’s thesis focused on the chipped
stone technology at the NAN Ranch and provided my first real experience in dealing with the
multiple typological conundrums of projectile points and gave me the opportunity to take a lithic
analysis from start to finish. It was a simultaneously terrifying and exhilarating experience that
follows me to this day, 37 years later, as a professional archaeologist working in the Cultural
Resource Management (CRM) field in Texas. For many reasons, every lithic assemblage I have
had the opportunity to study starts as a huge knot in the pit of my stomach and ends in great
satisfaction as I have finished the last sentence of the last paragraph of one of many “just so
stories” in prehistoric technology and archaeology. A story that likely will be much better written
by future archaeologists who get to stand on the shoulders of those who trod the same research
ground decades earlier. Through my years at Texas A&M and later, I had the distinct pleasure
of working shoulder to shoulder with, or at least getting to swap ideas and discussion of “all
things lithic” with, many folks who I consider to be my mentors and colleagues in Texas
archaeology. I equally include degreed professionals and avocational archaeologists in that list
because they all shaped my present approach to lithic technology and interpretation. I want to
acknowledge that it was Bill Moore who provided my first “paid gig” in CRM and my first “paid
gig” in lithic analysis. On several occasions, I was fortunate enough to get to do lithic analysis
and reporting for some of his projects at Brazos Valley Research Associates (BVRA) and
participate in survey projects that were relatively close to College Station, Texas. While small
compared to what I have done since, those were some of the most memorable and meaningful
projects I have participated in. It is for this reason, among others, that I am happy to produce
this foreword to the present volume “Arrow Points of the Texas Borderlands.” I have always
been happy to consider Bill Moore a valuable colleague and friend. True to Bill Moore’s
penchant for detail and thoroughness, this volume presents a very welcome addition to the
literature on Texas prehistory and lithic technology. I will say it does not supplant and replace
anything gone before, but rather is a coherent and much needed addition that builds on
previous efforts to present the “knot” of Texas point typology in a coherent manner. This volume
includes updated information on many of the known arrow point types in Texas and provides
much needed synthesis of regional and chronological data that will be useful to professional and
avocational archaeologists alike.

vii
 Bill’s volume on arrow points makes no judgements regarding the validity of some types
that have been brought into question by various archeologists in recent decades as those type
names still appear in the literature from time to time. What this volume does is provide enough
background history and geographic range for each point type, much needed dimensional
information where available, and coherent presentation of chronological range and cultural
associations. Enough information is included with each type so that the reader can evaluate the
veracity of previous information. Even so, the volume provides an extensive and useful
bibliography of available literature for each type included. Trinomial information and common-
usage site names are included as part of the available information for each type. This
information is almost always difficult to track down. In my thirty plus years in doing archeology
and CRM archeology, tracking down references with illustrated examples, detailed descriptions,
metric data, raw materials, and sufficient chronological and geographic information for projectile
points has typically involved multiple references and editions of works by Turner and Hester,
Bell, Perino, Prewitt and others. Much of the usual needed information to make judicious
assessments of arrow point styles and types is presented succinctly in this volume. I am very
pleased to see another volume devoted to projectile points in Texas, especially one that takes
on arrow points as a class of data by themselves. It will be a welcome and well-used reference
for years to come. I firmly believe that it will be regarded as a useful resource for professional
and avocational archeologists alike as it brings together much useful, but very thinly published,
material in one very useful location and format.

John E. Dockall

viii
 Preface

The Texas Borderlands Region is defined as the state of Texas, adjacent states
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma and the northern regions of Mexico. Arrow
Points of the Texas Borderlands provides in depth discussions of all arrow points native to
Texas that have been typed with names that are considered defensible by most archaeologists.
This includes points from neighboring states that have also been reported as occurring in
Texas. Mississippi is not a border state, but it is included because some Texas types have
been reported in that state. The purpose of this inclusivity is to provide the reader with as much
information as possible regarding each of the known types. One criterion for naming a point is
its unique shape or configuration. Since some points are very similar in form to other types,
other criteria such as context and provenience are utilized to differentiate between the two
sometimes barely indistinguishable examples. Variation and disconformity occur in all known
types due to such factors as quality of raw material, skill of the knapper, reworking following
breakage, etc. Those illustrated here are considered good to excellent examples of each type.
Sources are provided where more depictions of each type are presented. Some types may not
be recognized by some researchers as valid types, and the author does not assume
responsibility for their authenticity. Previous works in my Contribution in Archaeology Series
can be found in Appendix I.

Texas Borderlands

ix
 Acknowledgments
This project could not have been completed without the help of a great many people,
and any omissions are completely accidental. Factual errors in this book are solely mine. I
would not be in the position to have conducted this level of research without encouragement
from other archaeologists when I was much younger. My formal introduction to archaeology was
in 1959 when I attended a meeting of the newly formed Houston Archeological Society and
became a Charter Member. Wayne Neyland, Alan R. Duke, and Hubert Mewhinney were
always supportive, and it was with this society that I participated in my first excavation that took
place at the Jamison site (41LB1) under the supervision of Lawrence E. Aten. Neyland
introduced me to TARL on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin and stressed the
importance of recording sites. At the time, Dee Ann Story was the director, Doris Olds was the
curator of artifacts and records, and Carolyn Spock was a graduate student employed by the
university. I made frequent trips to TARL to document newly found sites, and Mrs. Olds was
very patient with me. She showed me how to calculate Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates the old way using a pencil, yardstick, and a transparent UTM coordinate grid. These
visits were often the highlight of my day. Mrs. Olds was succeeded by Carolyn Spock, whose
knowledge of the records at TARL will probably never be surpassed. The accumulation of data
for this book was a very exhausting venture, and I doubt I could have finished this project
without the help of key people at TARL. Associate Director Jonathan Jarvis and TexSite
Coordinator Jean Hughes spent many hours matching site numbers with names and copying
articles for me. Stephen Bales is a Humanities and Social Sciences Librarian in the Texas A&M
University Libraries System who helped me to obtain reference materials from other universities.
Professional archaeologists who took time from their busy schedules to discuss this project with
me or help in other ways include Jeffrey Alvey, Fernando Arias, George Avery, Stephen Black,
Roger Boren, Robert L. Brooks, Ken Brown, Andy Cloud, Peter Condon, E. Mott Davis, Julie
Densmore, William A. Dickens, John E. Dockall, H. Blaine Ensor, Mary Jo Galindo, John Greer,
Lorraine Heartfield, Thomas R. Hester, Jonathan Jarvis, David Keller, Leonard Kemp, Chris
Lintz, Dan McGregor, Robert J. Mallouf, Roger G. Moore, Timothy K. Perttulla, Michael J. Shott,
Bob Skiles, Dee Ann Story, Jesse Todd, Mary Beth Trubitt, Solveig A. Turpin, Jim Warren, and
Richard Weinstein. I would like to close by personally thanking Edward B. Jelks for his
assistance and support.

x
 Laura Nightengale, former Director of Collections at TARL, photographed specimens
housed at that facility. Brian Wootan, Tanner Singleton, and Maggie Bailley are professional
photographers who participated in this project. Permission to use illustrations from publications
was granted by Christopher Lintz, Robert Mallouf, and Elton R. Prewitt. Richard McReynolds is
an excellent illustrator of artifacts. I am grateful to him for permission to use some of his
drawings. Lili G. Lyddon drafted certain figures and created the scales for artifacts. A list of all
points illustrated and the persons who shared them is included as Appendix II. I’m appreciative
of those who allowed access to their collections, some pieces of which are included in this book.
They include Troy Adler, George Avery, Jack C. Bates, Jr., Michael Boutwell, Ken Brown,
William Dickens, Brady Epperson, Adrien Fauchois, John Fish, Trent Jackson, Sam Johnson,
Chris Merriam, Heath Neyland, Laura Nightengale, Thomas Oakes, Jason Pearson, Timothy K.
Perttula, and Brandon Wilson. Flintknappers, Adrien Fauchois, and Matt Soultz created replicas
of certain types. Sallie Cotter Andrews and Mary Jo. Gallindo edited the manuscript. Computer
and formatting assistance was provided by Rodney Hermes. John Dockall is thanked for
serving as the official peer reviewer of this book.

In 1985, Thomas R. Hester realized the need for a current book on point typology
as it had been twenty-three years since the Texas Archeological Society (TARL) and the
Texas Memorial Museum (TMM ) collaborated to publish Handbook of Texas Archeology:
Type Descriptions in 1962. His hunch was right on when he, along with Ellen Sue Turner
and artist Kathy Roemer, published A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts in 1985 with
successive volumes in 1993 and 1999. These very sought-after publications were followed
by an expanded and improved Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians in 2011. This time, Richard
L. McReynolds was responsible for the illustrations. I acknowledge Hester for inspiring me
to follow up his work with this volume.

xi
 Introduction

The excitement one gets from finding his or her first “arrowhead” is an experience that
can only be understood by those who have held a stone object that was made and used by
people hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. Similar seminal events have been the catalyst
that helped transform many casual collectors into professional archaeologists who have made
significant contributions to the discipline of archaeology. My first introduction to projectile point
typology - the assignment of names as a method of identification - was at a young age when an
employee at Garner State Park let me borrow his copy of the now highly collectible Volume 25
of the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society titled “An Introductory Handbook of Texas
Archeology.” The authors were Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger who collaborated with
Edward B. Jelks(Jelks is often cited as a third author). Their work represents the first large scale
attempt at creating a useful system of typology for Texas projectile points. It was a very
ambitious project that required the examination of thousands of specimens and an exhaustive
data search for the entire state. Ms. Suhm was a graduate student at The University of Texas in
1954 who was classifying projectile points at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
(TARL) as a personal project. That year, there were no articles submitted to the Texas
Archeological Society for its annual bulletin. Therefore, the editors decided to use the data
obtained by Ms. Suhm and others as part of the 1954 volume that included a discussion of
ceramics and an overview of Texas archaeology as it was known at the time.
Alex D. Krieger and J. Charles Kelley were pioneer Texas archaeologists credited with
early attempts at typing points. Krieger (1944:271-288) described the purpose of a type in
archaeology as “… an organizational tool which will enable the investigator to group specimens
into bodies which have demonstrable historical meaning in terms of behavior patterns.” He
favored names that described the physical appearance of points such as Alba Barbed and
Bassett Pointed Stem. The authors of the 1954 bulletin relied heavily on the work of these
predecessors, but they shortened the names of some types. Bassett Pointed Stem, for example,
was reduced to Bassett.
Suhm and Krieger (1954:1) argued for the utility of handbooks when they wrote
“Archeology has never developed the handbook principal, except in the case of guides to
individual museum collections.” This breakthrough handbook was not without its problems as
data were often sparse or non-existent in some areas of Texas. For example, Suhm and Krieger
(1954:Figure 4) referred to much of Texas as “undefined” in terms of known culture complexes
in the Archaic and Neo-American stages of Texas prehistory.

1
 They (Suhm and Krieger 1954:5) wrote that a major problem in the process of
establishing new types is the desire by some to “…make every specimen to fit into some kind of
a type. The obvious result is an inordinate number of new types proposed to account for a few
divergent specimens.” The authors posited that it was impossible to type every known artifact.
The final shape of an arrow point is some variation of a triangle, with a finite number of
possibilities. This fact complicates the separation of types according to their physical
appearance. It is only natural that overlap and controversy can (and does) occur. Some
Catahoula and Sabinal arrow points, for example, are similar in general outline, but they are
found in vastly different regions of Texas. Catahoula is a common type in East Texas and
Louisiana, while Sabinal points are only known to occur in a portion of the Edwards Plateau in
the Texas Hill Country. Another area of disagreement occurs among archaeologists who call
themselves “lumpers” and “splitters.” Lumpers consider some differences too minor to be more
than broad distinctions. Suhm and Krieger (1954:4) wrote that, “In practice, very rough typing of
the ‘lumper’ variety is often quite useless for strict comparisons.” “Conversely, splitters believe
even minor differences in the shape of an individual specimen can sometimes justify creating a
new type.” Suhm and Krieger (1954:3) described splitters as preferring “to set up types of great
refinement, so that the smallest differences are considered to designate typological distinction,
and a collection will be sorted into innumerable small groups of rigid uniformity.”
Clarence H. Webb (2000:1) was an early member of the Louisiana Archaeological
Society and one of the premier avocational archaeologists whose interest in Louisiana and
Texas archaeology began in the 1940s. Volume 19 of the Bulletin of the Louisiana
Archaeological Society (1992), edited by Jon L. Gibson and Hiram F. Gregory, Jr., is dedicated
to his memory. Included with various accolades and tributes is a complete bibliography of his
works. His approach to typing artifacts is explained in the following. “The reader should know
that lithic types are not sacrosanct. They are developed by a person or a group of people who
study examples from a site, a cultural group or a given area, who attach a name or names to
perceived groups of objects in order to develop a tool for study and comparison.” Once a type
name appears in the literature, it is virtually impossible to eliminate it. Therefore, careful
consideration should be given to each new type, and no new type should be based on a minimal
number of examples. When Suhm and Krieger (1954:5) defined the types that appear in the
handbook, they examined “intensively” more than 25,000 specimens, and they held in reserve
an additional 20,000, “which were then examined to see whether the types could readily be
recognized in consistent form and variation.”

2
 They only assigned type names if there was a minimum of 100 examples. A few types
were scantily represented, but most were based on samples of several hundred, and in some
cases 3,000 pieces were available.

Point Typing Methods

A type is based on much more than its physical appearance. Major factors to be
considered are the region of the state where it was found and its association with other artifacts
and features (aka context). When a new type is identified, it is given a name as a matter of
convenience for communication between archaeologists and other interested parties. Not all
names, however, are readily recognizable. The Perdiz point is found throughout Texas. As a
result of its widespread distribution, it is well known by most archaeologists and collectors as an
example of a Late Prehistoric arrow point. In contrast, there is less familiarity with regional types
such as Caracara, Homan, and Moran, even among some professionals. Suhm and Krieger
(1954) argued for a systematic method of evaluating points being considered as types. The
need for such a method in Texas was formally presented to the Texas Archeological Society by
Jimmy Mitchell thirty years after publication of the influential 1954 Bulletin. A Typology
Committee was organized to study the process of recording new types. In November 1984, the
committee presented its findings for discussion at a TAS Board Meeting. Elton R. Prewitt and
Jimmy Mitchell explained the necessity for guidelines and criteria for determining new types.
They mentioned the confusion that had arisen about new types that had already been named.
Norman Flaigg moved the report be accepted and a committee be appointed. The motion was
seconded and carried. The Typology Committee dissolved in 1995 without crafting a systematic
methodology. Apparently, there were some formal meetings, but the members were not
interested in continuing. Thomas R. Hester (personal communication, February 8, 2020) related
to me that some archaeologists believed it was “ill-conceived and a waste of time.” Today,
anyone can proclaim that they have identified a new type, and the name will appear in whatever
document they produce. There is no supreme authority to make the final decision, no minimum
sample size, and no empirical data such as context or relative and absolute dating as
foundations. For these reasons, a proposed type should not appear in the literature without
serious research that involves discussions with colleagues familiar with the area of the find as
well as a review of published literature from that area. Disagreement exists between some
professional archaeologists as to the validity of certain types.

3
 The resulting confusion is obvious and is a detriment to arriving a consensus regarding
age and distribution of a particular type. In the past, type names were primarily based on place
names such as nearby towns (Maud), counties (Rockwall) or geographical features (Livermore).
On rare occasions, the type names of arrow points have honored landowners such as Lott and
Means. As mentioned above, the sample size upon which each type is based varies, but larger
numbers would logically add to the validity of a proposed type. When Hester (1977) named the
Guerrero type, it was based on a sample of around 200 specimens found in and around the
missions of Guerrero in Coahuila, Mexico. Campbell (1979) studied the known Indian groups
who lived in around the Guerrero missions.
Ultimately, the real judge of a type’s validity is rendered by other archaeologists who
evaluate its merits based on the evidence presented by the person proposing the type.
Unfortunately, the appearance of the groundbreaking handbook by Suhm and Krieger (1954)
and the reprint (sans overview of Texas’ archaeology) by Suhm and Jelks (1962) was misused
by archaeologists and collectors in other states that had not conducted a systematic study of the
point types where they live. Although it’s true that types are not restricted by artificial borders,
the claim that certain Texas points were fashioned and used in states as distant as Alabama
and Mississippi is not well founded. Examples can be found in the typologies for these states
by Cambron and Hulse (1964, 1975) for Alabama and McGahey (2000) for Mississippi. This
unfortunate misrepresentation of types was experienced by me during the writing of a report for
a large survey in Mississippi. The person hired to conduct the lithic analysis was a resident
archaeologist in that state who classified several types as the same types found only in Texas.
Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma have overlap, but since they are contiguous states, their
occurrence in Texas is more believable.

Type Sites

The identification of archaeological sites where the various types have been found is an
important piece of an artifact’s provenience. The term “type site” refers to the location where a
new type was first identified, and they are mentioned when known. The number of sites listed in
this book for each type varies according to available information and frequency of each type.
Scallorn points, for example, are found virtually statewide. Therefore, no attempt was made to
list every known site.

4
 On the other hand, efforts were made to list as many valid sites as feasible for those
types considered to be especially significant [e.g., Clovis] or rarely found such as the Haskell
type reported by Prewitt (1995:Figure 24), which had 0-11 known examples at the time his
article was published.
Archaeological sites can be identified by names and/or unique trinomials with the latter
being more specific as multiple sites can have the same or similar names. With few exceptions,
only those sites with trinomials issued by TARL appear in the discussion of known sites where
types have been documented. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Smithsonian Institution created the
trinomial system still used today. It consists of three parts that represent the alphabetical
position of the state, the county abbreviation, and the unique site number. An example is
41WA55. This trinomial lets one know that this site is found in Texas (the 41st state
alphabetically before the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union), specifically in Walker
County as indicated by the abbreviation “WA,” and the number 55 indicates that this site is the
55th recorded site in Walker County barring gaps in the records. Appendix III contains a list of
the abbreviations for all 254 Texas counties. Often sites are assigned names that have no
meaning to anyone but those who recorded it. Two examples are “Tonto’s Workbench” and “Not
Quite a Site Site.” These names are fine for laughter around the campfire, but not suitable for
inclusion in permanent documents. They, and others like them, were deleted from the site forms
by the author when possible.

Organization and Resources Used

The information presented in this book was taken from primary sources including
projectile point typology books, contract reports, articles in journals and newsletters, bulletins
published by archaeological societies, unpublished manuscripts, special publications, artifact
collections, and discussions with professional and avocational archaeologists. My purpose in
writing this book was to compile as much information as possible regarding any named arrow
point that appears in the scientific literature. I make no judgment as to the validity of the types
discussed herein. Most archaeologists only describe and illustrate examples that they believe
are valid types. This practice may exclude projectile point types that are accepted by other
archaeologists, and those that have been named by non-professionals. As time passes, some
types have been discarded and new ones added.

5
 The point types described in this volume are visible by using hyperlinks in a digital
format. Some points have more than one example. Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain
illustrations for each type, and not all images have scales. Many of the types are illustrated by
only one photo, and every attempt was made to feature classic examples. Ideally, the variation
of each type would be depicted, but this was not possible. Turner et al. (2011) did an excellent
job of portraying the various forms of individual types.
I was only able to get a single Lozenge point, while they (Turner et al. 2011:192) were
able to present 12 examples. Therefore, this source is a must for those interested in the
different forms a single type can take. Some points portrayed herein may not be the best
example of that type. The likeness of some is so close that variations of a particular type can
closely resemble other types. Other sources that depict numerous examples of a single type
include Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Suhm and Jelks (1962),
and Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, and 1999). The points illustrated by Duncan et al. (2007),
are housed at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Sam Noble Museum of Natural
History in Norman, Oklahoma, Museum of the Red River in Idabel, Oklahoma, the Panhandle
Plains Museum in Canyon, Texas; TARL; and private collections. Those described and
illustrated by Suhm and Krieger (1954) and Suhm and Jelks (1962) are curated at TARL, on the
campus of The University of Texas at Austin. The maps depicting the suspected distribution of
each type are estimates taken from various sources. In some cases, types known primarily in
areas such as Northeast Texas are believed to extend into states as far north as Illinois. The
Scallorn type, for example, is reported to be found in Mississippi, possibly due to intrusive events
such as raiding parties from Arkansas.
The writing of this book utilized a combination of accepted styles. When I began writing
reports and other documents on archaeological subjects, the convention was to follow the style
guide adopted by American Antiquity. There was a problem with this method, as it was written
for peer-reviewed articles in a national magazine. Writing contract reports, however, required
some deviation, and it was recommended that The Chicago Manual of Style be used to address
instances not covered by American Antiquity. Other disciplines, such as Biology and Chemistry,
have vastly different style guides. I use my preferred version that adheres in part to American
Antiquity and The Chicago Manual of Style as well as personal choice. In the past, projectile
point types were written in italics (Hall 1981) and/or underlined for emphasis. Currently, this
practice is seldom (if ever) used. I use it here because it is my opinion that it makes it easier to
differentiate between projectile points and similar terms in the text.

6
 My preference for the term Archaeology is the British spelling, while I defer to the
American spelling for sherds. I report dates in the style used by the authors and make no
attempt at converting to the most current style. The acronyms used (past and present) are B.C.
(years before Christ), A.D. (years after the death of Christ), B.P. (Before Present – 1950),
B.C.E. (Before Current Era – Year 1), and C.E. (Current Era – Year 1).
[Link]
It was my intention to utilize as many primary sources as possible. Reliance on published
sources was essential as well as conversations with other archaeologists, professional and
avocational. Sources that contributed to this publication are listed below.

Books

Athanase de Mezieres and the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, 1768-1780 (Bolton 1970), A

Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians (Turner and Hester 1985, 1993, 1999),
Historical Dictionary of North American Archaeology (Jelks and Jelks 1988), Stone Age
Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States (Justice 1987,
2002), Prehistoric Artifacts of the Texas Indians (Davis 1995), Stone Artifacts of Texas
Indians (Turner et al. 2011), Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the North
American Indians (Perino 1985, 1991, and 2002), Pioneering Archaeology in the Texas
Coastal Bend: The Pape-Tunnell Collection (Tunnell and Tunnell 2015), The Prehistory of
Texas (Perttula 2004), Digging into South Texas Prehistory (Hester 1980), Traces of
History: Archeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years, and Indians of the Upper Texas
Coast (Aten 1983).

Bulletins

Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society (formerly the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society), Central Texas Archeologist, Bulletin of the Lower Plains
Archeological Society, Bulletin of the South Plains Archeological Society, and Bulletin of
the Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

Journals

Panhandle-Plains Historical Review (Panhandle-Plains Historical Society, Canyon,

Texas), The Cache (A publication of the Texas Archeological Stewardship Network), La
Tierra (Journal of the Southern Texas Archaeological Association), The Journal of the
Houston Archeological Society, Louisiana Archaeology (published by the Louisiana
Archaeological Society), Ancient Echoes (journal of the Hill Country Archeological
Association, The Journal of Big Bend Studies (published by the Center for Big Bend
Studies, Plains Anthropologist (Journal of the Plains Conference), American Antiquity
(Society of American Archaeology), Notes on Northeast Texas Archaeology (privately
published), Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology (privately published), The Artifact
(publication of the El Paso Archaeological Society), Transactions of the Regional

7
 Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas (each issue
published by the organization that sponsored the event), Archeological Journal of the
Texas Prairie-Savannah (An AJ Consulting Publication, Jesse Todd, Editor), and The
Steward (Potter and Simons, editors).

Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology

This project began with abstracts for CRM reports published in 1987 and was terminated for
those published in [Link] in Texas Contract Archeology, 1987 (Moore 1991a),
Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology, 1988 (Moore 1990), Abstracts in Texas Contract
Archeology, 1990 (Moore 1992a), Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology, 1991 (Moore
1992b), Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology, 1989 (Moore 1993a), and Abstracts in
Texas Contract Archeology, 1992 (Moore 1994).

Special Publications
Handbook of Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions (Suhm and Jelks 1962), Stone
Points and Tools of Northwestern Louisiana (Webb, 1981, 2000), Southern Plains
Lithics: The Small Points (Duncan et al. 2007), Some New and Revised Projectile Point
Classifications for the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region of Texas (Mallouf
2013), Archeology in the San Jacinto River Basin: A Look Back After 20 Years. In A
Collection of Papers Reviewing the Archeology of Southeast Texas, edited by Patricia
Wheat and Richard L. Gregg, pp. 17-21. Report Number 5, Houston Archeological
Society, The Native History of the Caddo: Their Place in Southeastern Archeology and
Ethnohistory (Perttula and Bruseth, editors 1998), and A Catalog of Texas Properties in
the National Register of Historic Places (Steely 1984).

Bibliographies

An Annotated Bibliography of Texas Related Articles in the Plains Anthropologist

(1947-1981) (Moore and Moore 1982), Archeological Bibliography of the Southern
Coastal Corridor Region of Texas (Bailey 1987), Archeological Bibliography for the
Northern Panhandle Region of Texas (Simons 1988), A Bibliography of Archaeological
Reports Prepared by the Contract Laboratory, Texas A&M University (Moore 1988b),
Archeological Bibliography for the Southeastern Region of Texas (Moore and Simons
1989), Bibliography for the Prehistory of the Upper Texas Coast. (Patterson 1989b),
Archeological Bibliography for the Northeastern Region of Texas (Martin 1990), The
Technical Bulletin Series published by the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory
1971-1987: A Bibliography (Moore 1993b), Historical Archaeology in Texas (Moore and
Moore 1986), and Archeological Bibliography for the Central Region of Texas (Simons
and Moore 1997).

8
Indexes

An Annotated Index of La Tierra (1974-1983) (Mitchell and Moore 1984), Louisiana

Archaeology: An Index to the First Ten Years (Moore 1986), and An Annotated Index to
the First Ten Volumes of the Bulletin of the Central Texas (Moore and Bradle 1986).

Newsletters

Typical Projectile Points. Newsletter of the Louisiana Archaeological Society 3(2):4-5.

Authored by Clarence H. Webb (1976).

Databases

An Archeological Data Base for the Southeastern Texas Coastal Margin. Houston
Archeological Society Report 7 (Patterson 1989a) and A Data Base for Inland South
Texas Archeology, Houston Archeological Society Report 6 (Patterson 1989c).

Internet

This vast repository of facts contains numerous articles about the prehistory of Texas
written by experts in various fields. Sources consulted include Texas Beyond History
Archeology FAQs and Unstemmed Point Tradition as well as the Texas State Historical
Association, Prehistory.

Not surprisingly, I was exposed to numerous sources that I had not been aware of. In
some cases, my opinion on certain aspects of Texas archaeology and the arrow point types
I present here was changed based on new information. I was aware of the overlap of some
points in adjacent states, but I had never given any thought to those other than those I was
most familiar with such as Catahoula, Perdiz, and Scallorn. Appendix IV lists those types
that have been reported in Texas as well as adjacent states and Mexico.

9
 Chapter 1: What is an Arrowhead?
The commonly used term “arrowhead” is often a misnomer because those using it are
often referring to a broad category of chipped stone objects that may or may not have ever been
part of the weapon system associated with Late Prehistoric-era people in Texas and the rest of
the country – the bow and arrow. When a person says he or she is going “arrowhead hunting,”
they usually mean that they are looking for any artifacts associated with indigenous peoples.
Archaeologists prefer the designation “arrow point” when describing the object attached to the
tip of a wooden shaft that was propelled with a bow. This term is meant to distinguish arrow
points from larger projectile points associated with hand-held spears used for throwing or
thrusting and the tips associated with the ancient spear thrower called the atlatl. The tipped
shafts used with the atlatl are called darts, and the stone objects that perform the same function
as arrow points are “dart points.” A collector may be proud of his or her collection of “Indian
arrowheads,” even though only a percentage may have functioned as arrow points. There is no
hard and fast rule regarding the minimum or maximum size for an arrow point, but arrows with
points attached (aka hafted) have been found in archaeological sites, and they are typically
small. The weight of an arrow point is crucial because those that are too light or too heavy will
negatively affect the flight of the arrow. So, how do people know if their recent find is an actual
arrow point or something else? Oren F. Evans (1961:159-162) discusses this topic in his article
“The Development of the Atlatl and the bow.” There are several factors to consider before one
can reach a logical conclusion. Size and weight are often referred to as the primary
determinants that can affect the accuracy of flight. Evans argues that the invention of the bow
and arrow combination was the result of “an evolutionary period that was preceded by the use
of wooden clubs, throwing stones, spears, and finally the atlatl.” The discovery of the bow also
involved change. He (Evans 1961:161) discusses some of the advantages that the bow
possessed that the atlatl lacked. “It is quite evident that the bow is much superior when shooting
at an object in a tree or on the side of a cliff. Also, arrows are more accurate and, although
lighter, they have two or three times the effective range of a spear.” “Also, the bow can be used
with less effort than the spear and can be shot with less body exposure.” Mallouf (1985:150)
conducted a synthesis of Eastern Trans-Pecos prehistory. He writes that “The bow and arrow
was a more effective weapon than the atlatl and was therefore assimilated easily.” The bow and
arrow served a variety of purposes such as hunting, warfare, and, in miniature form, as a
method of teaching children how to become proficient with its use.

10
 The transition from the atlatl was made easier by the production of stone points used as
part of that weapon system. Dart points 3 or 4 inches long and weighing 1.5 to 2 ounces were
already in use” (Evans 1961:161). He implies that the first arrows may not have been fletched
with feathers. If so, he argues, a heavy point would have been required to create the proper
balance between the size of the bow and the arrow. “If the center of gravity of the arrow with
point attached is not correct, the weight of the point becomes so great that the increase in the
trajectory interferes with accuracy.” He states that arrows are typically 2 to 3 feet long and 5/16
to 3/8 of an inch in diameter. Experiments have shown that points from 2 to 3 ounces in weight
work well in this situation. He believes that larger points were effective on featherless arrows as
long as the weight was comparable. The change in the size of the typical arrow point occurred
when the benefits of attaching feathers to the shaft became known. It was discovered that “…
lighter arrow heads would give just as true a flight, a good penetration, and a flatter trajectory
than the heavier ones. (Evans 1961:162)” Regarding the size of arrow and dart points, he
writes “In the light of the above, I suggest that our classification of projectile points could well be
changed. I believe it is now usual to consider points up to one and one-half inches long as
arrow points and all above that as dart or spear points. Perhaps, considering their probable use,
it would be more logical to consider points up to two inches in length (50 mm) as arrow points,
from two to four and one-half inches (114.3 mm) as either arrow or dart points, and above four
and one-half inches as spear points. (Evans 1961:162)” It seems reasonable to assume that
some types may have retained their classic form but became smaller as the transition was
made from dart points to arrow points. Four points from Walker County that adhere to the
accepted shape of Gary points are illustrated here (Figure 1). Specimens “a” and “b” measure 2”
and 1.6”, respectively and likely functioned as dart points, while c” (1.37”) and “d” (1 “) fall well
with the range of arrow points based on the criteria established by Evans (1961).
Keller and Weir (1979:37) mention the evolution of Gary points in their discussion of
projectile points from 41SJ160. They write that “… If one compares the Gary, Variety I with
Gary, Variety III, as to morphology and distribution, there is a deduction to be made. The Gary,
Variety III, is small, thin and by many standards could be considered an arrowpoint type. If so, it
probably evolved from a larger Gary type such as Gary, Variety I.” Their conclusions were that
Gary, Variety III clustered in levels 2 and 3, below the “arrowpoint bearing zones.” They
postulate that “Gary, Variety III evolved as an early arrowpoint form that gave way to types
common to the area such as Catahoula and Perdiz. If so, then the atlatl and dart were never
completely replaced by the bow and arrow.”

11
 Duffeld’s (1961:72) comments about the frequency of small Gary points at the Limerick
site adds support to the theory that the bow and arrow were contemporaneous and that small
Gary points also functioned as arrow points. “…no one form dominated the arrow point category
as the small forms did the dart point category.” Julie Densmore (2007:9) relates the continued
use of this point as extending into the Late Prehistoric. “They are most abundant during the
Transitional Archaic time period in Texas (2250 BP – 1250 BP), in which a number of important
cultural changes took place: the transition from the atlatl to the bow and arrow, increases in
population, the introduction of pottery, and the start of sedentary lifestyles.” “The projectile
transition occurred at different times, and at different rates, throughout the world. Atlatls and
bows and arrows were used in tandem in the recent past in the Arctic, the North American
Southeast, and parts of Mesoamerica. (Yu 2006:201)”
Hildebrandt and King (2012) proposed a new method for differentiating atlatl darts from
arrow points by means of a “dart-arrow index.” They analyzed 1,601 projectile points from the
Great Basin, and discuss how neck width, maximum thickness, `and other factors can be used
to differentiate between arrow points and dart points. They (Hildebrandt and King 2012:794)
write that “Strictly speaking, we cannot know the answer to this question [darts or arrows]
without reference to collections of hafted projectile points. The term “hafted” describes points
attached to wooden shafts and held in place with materials such as sinew or asphaltum. This
term is used incorrectly by some archaeologists who describe points with stems as being hafted
even though they are unattached. This hypothesis is shared by Newell and Krieger (1949:161).
The possibility of a particular point being used effectively in both weapons systems, the atlatl
and bow and arrow, is reasonable. The assignment of a point to only one of these platforms
places the artifact in one of the two major cultural periods, Archaic and Late Prehistoric. Dockall
(personal communication, 2022) cites this possibility in the following quote. “One thing I have
always thought about Gary points, while some points I could clearly tell had been resharpened
until quite small, many of the smaller ones just couldn’t be argued to be the result of
resharpening and clearly were made small. Same for the larger ones…meaning that there
always seemed to me to be deliberate size differences among Gary points.” The use of Gary
points as arrow points creates a problem that I have not seen addressed in the literature. That
is, are they variants of Gary or a similar form yet to be typed? It should not be overlooked that
the smaller size of some Gary points is probably a result of resharpening as suggested by
Dockall (2022, personal communication).

12
 Not every artifact shaped like an arrow point, is one. One truism that has stayed with me
was imparted by Texas A&M University professor Harry J. Shafer, who said, “Form does not
dictate function.” What appears to be a real arrow or dart point, based on its shape, could have
been created for a variety of purposes. Microscopic analysis of wear patterns on the edges of
artifacts that resemble projectile points may show that some specimens were used for cutting or
scraping. This could mean it was created for a purpose other than as a projectile and served
multiple functions including trade or ceremony as well as a projectile point. A prime example of
the latter is a cache of 151 complete Alba points associated with one of the burials at the
George C. Davis site (Shafer 1973:Figure 17). Shafer (1973:197) reports that “their position
suggests that they were stored in a basket-like container …” “Their post-mortem use can only
be speculated, but it’s possible that they were intended for use in the afterlife.”
The diminutive size of most arrow points has resulted in them being called “bird points”
by collectors. Although archaeologists seldom (if ever) use that term, Dr. Cyrus N. Ray
(1929:12) did as early as 1929 when he described arrow points belonging to the “Sand Dune
Culture” in the “Abilene Section” of Texas as “slender, thin, keen bird points representing the
ultimate in artistic designs.” He does not define “bird point” as a descriptor for size or type of
game hunted. In his discussion of additional research in the Abilene Section, Ray (1930:37)
continues the use of the term in the following when describing “… the larger portion of a small
bird point which was flat on one side [probably made on a flake] and of exactly the same culture
type as the one later found in the soil taken from the graves of two flat headed deolichocephalic
skeletons found by the author in Shackelford County.” Doris Olds (1965:148) used the term bird
point for specimens from Brawley’s Cave in Bosque County. “There are many variations of
forms which may be grouped with classes B and C and vary in size from a tiny ‘bird point’ up to
a spear 5 inches long.” This term is used today by collectors to include all arrow points.
Michael J. Shott is Professor emeritus of Archaeology at the University of Akron. When asked if
he was aware of the etymology of the term bird point, he replied “I know of no specific research
on the question of the function or target of “bird points” compared to other points.
The size of an effective arrow point is commensurate with the size and pull of the bow.
Metcalf (1963:111) writes that metal arrow points made by the Plains Indians became bigger
and heavier through time. He speculated that this change may have been due, in part, to the
use of larger bows. The image of an Indian shooting arrows at great distances while hunting or
in warfare is a myth. Closeness to the target was always the objective. Per Cattelain (1997:227),
“… preferred throwing distances with bow and arrow are about 9-25 m, beyond which accuracy
is compromised.”

13
 During my participation in the testing of site 41MQ41 on Lake Conroe, I found what
surely was a projectile point. Later analysis revealed I was wrong. Shafer (Shafer and Stearns
1975:21) describes this artifact in the following. “Formwise, this would appear to represent an
expanding stem dart point of tan flint.” “However, microscopic examination of all lateral edges
shows moderate smoothing, and the flake scar ridges near the edges and tip show faint
smoothing and polish. No striations could be discerned, but the character of the wear plus the
edge retouch (beveling) suggests that this stemmed biface functioned as a cutting tool, perhaps
a knife. Although this instance refers to a dart point, it illustrates how any artifact, including an
arrow point, could have its function misinterpreted based on shape. Dots indicate smoothing.

Stemmed Biface from 41MQ41

Hildebrandt and King (2012:795) observed an increase in the size of arrow points
following historic contact. They posit two reasons for this change, including a “widespread loss
of traditional archery technology” and a “change in their intended use.” They hypothesized that
the latter was due to some specimens being made as collector’s items. The celebrated Yahi
Indian Ishi made numerous replicas for the University of California museum, and his functional
arrows were significantly smaller than those made for other purposes (Pope 1918). Pope (1923)
wrote that the larger arrows made by Ishi seem to have been made more for show, ceremonies,
or as presents. Other studies cited by Hildebrandt and King relevant to this discussion are
Christenson (1986), Shott (1993, 1997), and Thomas (1978).

14
 The creation of an arrow point can be a very time-consuming and delicate process, or a
suitable product can be created very quickly and function as well as those that require more
skill. Patterson (1982, 1992, 1994b) discusses unifacial arrow points and their transition to
bifacial points. He (Patterson 1994b:21) proposes that “… recognized bifacial point types
represent the standardization of technology after earlier use of unifacial arrow points.” He
illustrates examples of unifacial points from sites 41HR5, 41HR185, 41HR210, 41HR315,
41WH19, and 41WH73 in figures 1-5 (Patterson 1994b:23-24). Arrow points often break after
one or more uses. Persons knowledgeable with lithic manufacture can usually identify breaks
caused during manufacturing or on impact (aka impact fracture (see Dockall 1997). Broken
points are not always discarded as they can be used for various tasks. When a point loses its
edge, it can be resharpened. John Wesley Powell visited Numic-speaking groups in the Great
Basin and Colorado Plateau during the period 1867-1880 and obtained an impressive collection
of material culture that included numerous hafted arrow points of stone, metal, and glass
(Fowler and Matley 1979:151-153). In the absence of actual points at a site, the presence of
flakes is evidence of stone tool manufacture. However, small flakes cannot always confidently
be described as the result of arrow point production, as they could be the result of pressure
flaking associated with the reduction of stone to create a variety of tools. Some non-
professionals have argued that points can be created by droplets of water on heated pieces of
chert, but that has been debunked. It has, however, been substantiated that a hafted point or
tool can be sharpened or reworked without removing it from the haft. Arrow points were made in
a variety of shapes and sizes with some specimens not conforming to standard terminology
(Appendix V).
David Hurst Thomas (1978) used the dimensions of 142 ethnographic and
archaeological examples of dart points (n=10) and arrow points (n=132) from collections
throughout North America that were preserved in a hafted state to explore the difference
between and darts and arrow points. Using the dimensional data, he developed two
mathematical equations to discriminate between them. Of the 142 specimens, 20 were
incorrectly assigned to a category based on Thomas’ equations, for an overall accuracy rate of
86 percent (Carpenter et al. 2013:325).Michael J. Shott (1997) refined Thomas’ discriminate
analysis by increasing the size of the sample and, subsequently, the rate of successful
classification by evaluating and eliminating some variables. Shott’s (1997:89) analysis only
included specimens “if: (1) they were hafted to a shaft or foreshaft; (2) all attributes could be
measured; (3) they were undoubtedly authentic; and (4) they were not known to be designed for
use in marine hunting.”

15
 In his analysis of the metric variables, he systematically reduced the number of
significant variables from four (length, shoulder width, thickness, and neck width) to one
(shoulder width). Ultimately, one-variable and two-variable solutions were found to exceed the
successful classification rate of a four-variable solution. The one-variable and two-variable
approaches are applicable to a wider range of archaeological specimens, including those that
have been resharpened or damaged during use (Carpenter et al. 2013:325-327). A metric
discrimination study using all projectile points recovered from the testing and data recovery at
41WM1226, indicated that the conventional means utilized to type prehistoric projectiles in
Texas (morphology and comparative study) into dart or arrow categories is relatively accurate
(Carpenter et al. 2013:336). The actual preference for stone arrow points versus sharpened
wooden arrows is unknown. Nicole M. Waguespack, et al. (2009:786), write that the use of
sharpened wooden arrows is well documented ethnographically. “Their use by foraging
populations from throughout the world suggests that common knowledge explanations of
projectile point superiority over wooden tips cannot be assumed in all hunting contexts. In fact,
the abundance of wood only hunting implements in the ethnographic record suggests that their
prehistoric paucity is largely a function of preservation as opposed to technological and/or
economic reasons.” Evidence of preservation is discussed in “New insights on the wooden
weapons from the Paleolithic site of Schöningen in Germany” (Schoch et al. 2015). Mardith
Schuetz discusses perishable objects that have preserved in Val Verde County shelters. In
addition to sandals, basketry, and other artifacts made from plants, she describes hafted knives
(Schuetz 1956:150), grooved arrow foreshafts (Schuetz 1961:173), and hafted knives and
scrapers (Schuetz 1963:162). She illustrates a hafted stone point but does not identify it as a
dart or arrow point (Schuetz 1961:Specimen B, p. 174) and what appears to be a hafted arrow
point (Specimen E, p. 174).
Kelly (1963:221) discusses a probable arrow foreshaft from Roark Cave (41BS3) in
Brewster County. “A section of cut reed is probably part of a projectile main shaft [possibly an
arrow]. A pointed stick (6 cm long) found in a nearby level fits snugly into the cut end of this
reed and is possibly the companion foreshaft.” Examples of the use and effectiveness of
sharpened and fire hardened wooden points are cited in the following. When referring to the
Apache of New Mexico, Opler (1936:389) writes, “More commonly, however, no flint is used; the
wooden tip of the arrow is simply sharpened and fire hardened.” Spier (1978:134), referring to
the Yuma of Arizona, writes, “Other arrows lacked stone points, the end merely sharpened and
hardened in some fashion.”

16
 Arrows lacking a point for balance will not travel as far and with the same speed as
those with properly weighted points. One often cited argument for the advantage of stone over
metal points is better penetration. Waguespack, et al. (2009:786) provides evidence that
disputes this theory. “In a series of well-controlled experiments, the authors show that stone
arrow-heads achieve barely 10 per cent extra penetration over wood.” The Mbuti of the Congo
provide an example. “It has been argued that the Mbuti hunt is dependent upon metal arrow
points, spear blades, and knife blades. It is not. We shall see that the Mbuti frequently prefer to
use the poisoned arrows that have only a fire-hardened tip . . . Old Mbuti assert that fire-
hardened spears are effective even against the largest game (Turnbull 1965:36).”As stated
above, there are variations in most, if not all, point types. Arrow points are no exception, and
this makes accurate typing difficult, if not impossible, in some cases. These variations can be
the result of knapping errors, faulty material, expediency, and/or personal taste. I have found no
ethnographic evidence that certain tribal members were responsible for making all arrow points
or even specific types. My assumption is that it could have been a shared task that may or may
not have been assigned to status or sex. Studies aimed at determining gender-based tasks are
numerous. Fumiyasu Arakawa (2013) discussed this subject in his analysis of lithics in the
Central Mesa Verde Region. He writes that “… both men and women created lithic debitage
and stone tools.” However, it is his belief that women created and used tools associated with
residential sites, while men were responsible for projectile point production, and this occurred
away from the village. Although interesting, I would hesitate to extrapolate his findings to the
indigenous populations of Texas.
The procurement of larger game such as deer and buffalo with bows and arrows is well
documented. George Catlin (1796-1872) was a famous artist who captured North American
Indians on canvas in the 1830s before widespread acculturation. More paintings by Catlin
involving the Indians dependence on buffalo are encapsuled in George Catlin’s American
Buffalo (Harris 2013).
Two sources of food that are not commonly discussed are birds and fish. Lintz (2009)
provides an excellent in-depth discussion of species selected for food and ornamentation as
well as methods of hunting same. He (Lintz 2009:122) writes that “… it may have to be
acknowledged that bird hunting occasionally used chipped stone projectile tips.” Examples of
blunt wooden tips (Figure 2) used to stun birds and small game have been found in the dry
shelters at Kenton Caves in the Oklahoma Panhandle (Lintz 1981; Lintz and Zabawa 1984).

17
 Waguespack, et al. (2009:789) cites Ellis (1997) in the following quote. “It should be
noted that there are numerous examples of hunter-gatherers who prefer the use of metal- or
stone-tipped weapons for the hunting of large game, and reserve wood-tipped weapons for
small mammals and birds, particularly in North America and Africa.
The use of the bow and arrow as a means of obtaining fish was also practiced. In
Kilman’s (1959) book about the coastal Texas Karankawa titled Cannibal Coast, he writes,
“They found their food principally in the bays adjoining the Gulf of Mexico and spent much of
their time in the tidewaters. They swam like porpoises and were amazingly skilled at spitting fish
in the water with bow-and-arrow or spear.” Their marksmanship was excellent. “The
Karankawa, standing motionless in shallow bay water, arrow strung to bow, could detect the
position of a submerged fish by the slightest rolling of the water and, with an arrow, unerringly
spit the fish which a white man wouldn’t even know was there. (Kilman 1959:215)” An additional
source of the use of wood for arrow point manufacture is provided by Greenville Goodwin who
wrote about the western Apache making points of wood, stone, and steel (Basso 1971:232). “A
section of cut reed is probably part of a projectile main shaft [possibly an arrow]. A pointed stick
(6 cm long) found in a nearby level fits snugly into the cut end of this reed and is possibly the
companion foreshaft.” Examples of the use and effectiveness of sharpened and fire hardened
wooden points are cited in the following. When referring to the Apache of New Mexico, Opler
(1936:389) writes, “More commonly, however, no flint is used; the wooden tip of the arrow is
simply sharpened and fire hardened.” Spier (1978:134), referring to the Yuma of Arizona,
writes, “Other arrows lacked stone points, the end merely sharpened and hardened in some
fashion.”
Arrows lacking a point for balance will not travel as far and with the same speed as
those with properly weighted points. One often cited argument for the advantage of stone or
metal points is better penetration. Nicole M. Waguespack, et al. (2009:786) provides evidence
that disputes this theory. “In a series of well-controlled experiments, the authors show that stone
arrow-heads achieve barely 10 per cent extra penetration over wood.”
The Mbuti of the Congo provide an example. “It has been argued that the Mbuti hunt is
dependent upon metal arrow points, spear blades, and knife blades. It is not. We shall see that
the Mbuti frequently prefer to use the poisoned arrows that have only a fire-hardened tip . . . Old
Mbuti assert that fire-hardened spears are effective even against the largest game. (Turnbull
1965:36)”

18
 Campbell (1979:17) writes that “some women [Apache] were seen carrying bows and
arrows.” This idea has also been recently challenged by Randall Haas et al. (2020:1), who
argue that excavations “at the Andean highland site of Wilamaya Patjxa reveal a 9000-year-old
human burial (WMP6) associated with a hunting toolkit of stone projectile points and animal
processing tools. Osteological, proteomic, and isotopic analyses indicate that this early hunter
was a young adult female who subsisted on terrestrial plants and animals.”
Arrow points often break after one or more uses. Persons knowledgeable with lithic
manufacture can usually identify breaks caused during manufacturing or on impact (aka impact
fracture (see Dockall 1997). Broken points are not always discarded as they can be used for
various tasks. When a point loses its edge, it can be resharpened. John Wesley Powell visited
Numic-speaking groups in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau during the period 1867-1880
and obtained an impressive collection of material culture that included numerous hafted arrow
points of stone, metal, and glass (Fowler and Matley 1979:151-153). It is a common belief that
prehistoric groups preferred to tip their arrows with stone points prior to the availability of metal
and glass in historic times. This assumption appears to be borne out by the preponderance of
stone points in the archaeological record versus sharpened wooden arrows. However, the
discrepancy may not be as great as perceived and can partially be explained by the
preservation qualities inherent in stone as opposed to wood.
The Tarahumara of Mexico used arrows with stone tips as well as those with
sharpened wooden tips. The bow and two arrows illustrated here were collected from a
Tarahumara village circa 1940s are in the author’s personal collection. When Bennett and Zingg
(1976) published their definitive history of the Tarahumara, An Indian Tribe of Northern Mexico:
The Tarahumara in 1935, they wrote that the bow and arrow was obsolescent except among
those who lived in the Rio Conchos area who “commonly carried them.” Tarahumara arrow
points were typically fashioned from obsidian and hafted to hollow reed shafts before metal was
available as a replacement for stone. The major reason for the disappearance of the bow and
arrow was the availability of the Mauser rifle that were readily available during the numerous
Mexican Revolutions Other sources relevant to the discussion of projectile points include
“Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Prehistoric North America” (Blitz 1988), “Antiquity of the bow”
Browne (1938), “Projectile Points” (Browne 1940), Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of
Cultural Continuity and Change” (Corliss 1972), “Probable Use of Projectile Points” (Evans
1957), and “The Weights of Chipped Stone Tools: A Clue to their Functions” (Fenenga 1953),
“Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Ohio Valley” (Shott
1993), “Hunting During the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, Spearthrower, or Both?“ (Cattelain 1997),

19
and “The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central
Arkansas” (Nessaney and Pyle 1999).

20
 Chapter 2: Raw Materials
Indigenous groups in Texas were exposed to a variety of raw materials that they relied
on to make arrow points and other stone tools. These sources include, but are not limited to,
agate, agatized alligator gastroliths, dolomite, basalt, chalcedony, chert, flint, gar scales,
hornstone, jasper, novaculite, obsidian, rhyolite, Manning Fused Glass, and silicified wood. In
historic times, glass and metal were available, and these materials gradually replaced stone as
the preferred medium for arrow point manufacture.
Chert is arguably, the most cited material used to make arrow points in Texas. It exists in
two forms – nodules and strata in sedimentary rocks. Nodules are found on eroded upland
ridge tops and lag deposits of rivers and major streams. At site 41RE53, chert nodules
(Figure 3) are embedded in the rear wall of a rockshelter. Ledge chert refers to a relatively thick
impermeable layer of chert beneath or between permeable layers of less erosion resistant rocks
such as chalk or limestone. Flint is the older of the two words having appeared in the Oxford
English Dictionary circa A.D. 700, while chert was not documented in print until A.D. 1679
(Luedtke 1992:5). Geologists prefer the term chert, while collectors and some archaeologists
tend to identify these materials collectively as flint. Chert and other similar materials were not
always available, especially on the Texas coast. Therefore, other materials for arrow point
manufacture were used when available such as gar scales, glass, shell, metal, bone, and wood.
Although credible information regarding the various types of cherts found in Texas can be
obtained through the Internet, a major source of information for Texas chert from an
archaeologist’s perspective is Larry Banks’ (1990) report titled From Mountain Peaks to Alligator
Stomachs. Turner et al. (2011:10) consider it to be the ”only comprehensive study of stone tool
resources in Texas and adjacent states.” Banks lists 137 chert-bearing formations within Texas,
and a map by Turner et al. (2011:Figure 2-4) depicts the location of some of the major sources
of chert within the state. Typically, artifacts and debitage made from chert and other suitable
materials are incorporated within the boundaries of an archaeological site (e.g., habitation site,
kill site, surface scatter, and quarry), or as an isolated find.
Chandler and Lopez (1992) documented a quarry as part of site 41DV133 in Duval
County. At the time, this county was in one of the least known regions in the state in terms of
archaeological resources (Hester 1980). The quarry is situated on the crest of a low ridge in the
Goliad Sands formation, a Pliocene depositional system 300-600 feet thick made up of clay,
sand, sandstone, marl, caliche, limestone, and conglomerate (Sellards et al. 1954).

21
 They (Chandler and Lopez 1992:12) write “The quarry material appears as an exposed
surface outcrop of large, embedded boulders on the upper slope of the ridge.” The boulders
exhibit “considerable evidence of quarrying activities with numerous flakes and chunks on the
ground surface.” The quarry is described on the site form as a “mass of lithic debris with tools in
all stages of production, primary and secondary flakes, tested raw material, primary and
secondary biface reduction” and an “extensive lithic procurement and lithic workshop.” It has
been identified as quartz arenite with specimens that are light gray and brownish yellow in color.
A survey of southern Culberson County encountered a quarry Hedrick (1989:135) refers to
as the Purple Tan Chert quarry (41CU449). “It covers about 390,000 square meters on the ridge
and slopes of a range of cretaceous limestone hills in the eastern part of the Plateau Complex.” He
describes the quarry in the following. “The chert, exposed in nodules, is extremely dense and has a
fine, glossy texture. It produces an excellent conchoidal fracture and thin translucent flakes.
Predominate colors are grayish orange (10YR 7/4), very pale orange (10YR 8/2), grayish red
purple (5RP 4/2), pale red (5P 6/2), and pinkish gray (5RP 8/1).” These colors were taken from the
Rock Color Chart Committee (1984). “The entire area of the quarry is densely covered with
evidence of removal from matrix, testing, and trimming of the chert. (Hedrick 1988:125)”
Hedrick (1989:135) also mentions three white chert quarries (41CU42, 41CU72), and
41CU79). They are located on ridges and slopes of three separate cretaceous limestone hills in
the Plateau Complex Study Area. These sites are large and range from 4,800 and 78,000 square
meters. “The colors range from white (N9) and medium light gray (N6) – some have fossil
inclusions – and pinkish gray (5YR 8/1) (Rock Color Chart Committee 1984). The chert is coarse to
fine grained and has good conchoidal fracture. (Hedrick 1989:139)”. These three sites are littered
with debris from testing and preparation.
Felsite is described by Hedrick (1993:3) as an “… extrusive material with a texture that is
so fine that individual grains are microscopic and cannot be seen with a hand lens.” A major
quarry and workshop of this material is in the Van Horn Mountains in southern Culberson
County. Felsite was commonly used in the manufacture of tools in the area by prehistoric
groups from the Middle Archaic through the Late Prehistoric periods. Hedrick (1993:5) writes
that “Very few [felsite] projectile points have been observed, probably because the material
does not lend itself well to fine percussion or pressure flaking.” Felsite quarries in Culberson and
Hudspeth counties with trinomials are 41CU441, 41CU443, and 41HZ397 (Hedrick 1989:135).
“Pebbles and boulders of felsite quarry 41HZ397 are scattered among the pediment gravels in
Study Area 6, Carrizo Mountains, Area 2.

22
 The coarse-grained to fine-grained material is extremely hard and dense. Colors are
dark reddish brown (10YR 3/4), dark red (5YR 3/4), moderate red (5YR 5/4) and grayish red
(5YR 4/1 and 5R 4/3). (Hedrick 1989:135)”. The remnants of pebbles and boulders that exhibit
the early stages of reduction are indicators of activity areas. “Tumbled fragments of agate,
jasper, and chalcedony are found in the gravels which are identical to felsite quarries. (Hedrick
1989:135)”
“The Van Horn Mountain quarry (41CU389) is on a mesa in Study Area 4, the Van Horn
Mountains, Area 2. The material is scattered over an area of about 9,000 square meters and
consists of broken nodules that have eroded out of the limestone cap. The raw material is spotted
and/or marbled combinations of moderate red (5R 5/4) to grayish red (5R 4/2) and very pale
orange (10YR 8.2) (Hedrjck 1989:135 and Rock Color Chart Committee 1984)” It has a medium- to
fine grained matte texture and excellent conchoidal fracture. The area is littered with debris
resulting from testing and preparation.
A study of more than 700 stone artifacts from Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, and Zapata counties
provided by local collectors and the Museum of South Texas History was initiated in 2009 by
The Community Historical Archaeological Project with Schools (CHAPS) program at The
University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley (Gonzales et al. 2014). The majority of chert (72.2%)
was attributed to gravel beds along the Rio Grande River and its tributaries. The ultimate source
of this material is unknown. Edwards Plateau chert is one of the largest sources in the United
States and the largest in Texas (Banks 1990:59). Frederick and Ringstaff (1994) note that “The
Edwards Group comprises one of the largest chert resources on the Great Plains.” In Texas,
Edwards chert is found in a large area that is approximately 100 kilometers north-south and 280
kilometers east-west. It encompasses 41 counties and extends into Mexico (Hester 1980:Figure
2-4). Unfortunately, artifacts manufactured from this source are virtually impossible to trace to a
specific location because of the vastness of the area where they occur and the overall similarity
of the material throughout these two areas. Artifacts of Edwards chert have been identified in
other states such as the Byrd Mountain lithic cache (34GR149) in southwestern Oklahoma. Van
Tries Button (1989) discusses this isolated cache of 21 Edwards chert specimens in the
Abstract. “I suggest that exchange of the ownership of caches of exotic lithics may have played
a role in prehistoric economies. Seeing cache ownership, not the lithics themselves, as the
medium of exchange may provide a better explanation than owners’ forgetfulness for failure to
retrieve such caches.” A cache of Edwards chert described as unique was found in Rockwall
County (Crook and Hughston 2009a).

23
 McGregor (1995:187-202) provides valuable insight to lithic resources at Joe Pool Lake
in the Upper Trinity River region. The presumed absence of chert in this area is contradicted by
Mentzer and Slaughter (1971:217-218) who report that “chert nodules, although relatively small
in size, occur in the upland gravel deposits.” Daniel R. Prikryl (1987:91) writes that “some of the
local chert material is virtually indistinguishable from Edwards Plateau cherts.” He examined
the material of 1,274 diagnostic projectile points and concluded that they were made from chert
or quartzite and present in all time periods from Paleo-Indian to the Late Prehistoric. At sites
41DL148 and 41DL149 in the Joe Pool Reservoir (Dallas County), sixty-five Alba and Alba-like
points were recovered, and all were made from local chert as opposed to three from quartzite
and none from silicified wood (McGregor 1995:Table 3). To put this in a different perspective,
94.7% of the debitage from site 41DL199 in the reservoir area was chert as opposed to 0.4% of
quartzite, 0.6% of silicified wood, and 0.7% classified as other (McGregor 1995:Table 1).
“Uvalde gravels” is a term that includes a variety of raw materials such as chert, quartz,
quartzite, jasper, limestone, and silicified wood. These gravels are present as lag deposits that
occur in a broad area of the state. They are especially common in South Texas where they are
found on hills and high terraces (Turner et al. 2011:10). This is the second largest source of
knappable materials in the state as it extends from the Rio Grande to the Oklahoma border (see
Turner et al. 2011:Figure 2-4).
Georgetown flint (aka Georgetown chert) is present along the eastern edge of the
Edwards Plateau, specifically Williamson County and possibly southern Bell County. Because of
the blueish tint in many specimens, ledge chert found in the Georgetown area is often referred
to as “Georgetown Blue.” Artifacts made from this material are often identifiable as originating
from this source. It is an excellent medium for the manufacture of stone tools. Consequently, it
was highly valued in prehistoric times just as it is today with modern flint knappers. One of my
attempts at knapping flint was with a piece of Georgetown. I made the biface pictured here
solely by hard and soft hammer percussion (Figure 4).“Burro Mesa” chert occurs in the Big
Bend and Trans-Pecos area of Texas. It is described by Banks (1990:84) as a colorful chert with
variegated red, brown, and white colors “often striped or mottled.” Another named chert in the
area is found in the Jarilla Mountains and known locally as Jarilla chert (Mauldin 1993:44-45).
El Sauz chert is found in Starr County. It is fine-grained and consists of various bright colors
including red and yellow, with gray being the most common. It has a unique chemical signature
rich in aluminum that allows it to be traced to its sources. Gonzales et al. (2014).

24
 Maravillas Chert is associated with the Maravillas Formation of western Texas and co-
occurs with Caballos Novaculite around Maravillas Gap in Brewster County. It primarily occurs as
nodules and lenticular masses. It ranges in color from a dark gray to black. Fine white chalcedony
veins or fine pale green banding may be present. It is also referred to as Maravillas Gap Chert and
Canyon Chert (Udden, et al. 1916).
Alibates chert (aka Alibates agatized dolomite) is found in the Canadian River Valley
north of Amarillo. Outcrops are present on both sides of the valley. The outcrop on the
southern side has been designated the Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument (41PT1) and
is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (66000822). The quarry occupies a footprint
of about 300 acres containing 250-300 individual quarry pits. Alibates is described as a
multicolored, fine-grained microcrystalline material, “occurring as large lenses and nodules, as a
result of silicification of the dolomite” (Quigg et al. 2011:194). Johnson (1994:Figure 38a)
illustrates a Perdiz point made from Alibates chert at the Buckhollow site (41KM16) in Kimble
County, Texas. Mercado-Allinger (2004) reported an Alibates biface cache in the panhandle
known as the Hackberry Cache (41RB95). Campbell (n.d.:43) writes, “Alibates agate is an
agatized dolomite occurring in the Quartermaster formation of the upper Permian age along the
Canadian River north of Amarillo. It is characterized by banded colors, usually white and purple,
but also including browns, yellows, and reds.” Six Fresno points provided by an anonymous
source are depicted here.
Potter chert is a fine-grained quartzite or silicified sandstone, found in the Potter Member
of the Pliocene Ogallala formation. The Potter gravels of the Ogallala are exposed along the
Canadian River breaks and along the eastern Caprock Escarpment. The distinctive grainy,
gray-brown material is dense and especially suitable for choppers and hammerstones.
(Campbell n.d.:43)” It also works well for making projectile points and tools. The final report
documenting the results of the survey at Mackenzie Reservoir presents the findings at eight
sites in Briscoe and Swisher counties (Hughes and Willey 1978). Artifacts from Potter chert was
present at most sites. Lithic artifacts and refuse at Deadman’s Shelter (41SW23) were, along
with Tecovas jasper, predominant. At the two occupational levels, strata B and D, Potter Chert
was ubiquitous. At Stratum B, 245 artifacts (39.2%) of Potter chert were found, and the
numbers at Stratum D were 1,034 (66.0%) of the total. The amount of Potter Chert in Stratum D
was more than any other excavated site in the reservoir (Hughes and Willey 1978:188).

25
 It is not uncommon for a variety of chert that appears to be unique to be given a name
by non-professionals and for this name to be adopted by professional archaeologists and
appear in the literature. Two examples are Texas Novaculite and Owl Creek Black. Per William
A. Dickens (1997:46), Texas Novaculite is a variety of chert and not a true novaculite. The name
was coined by local flintknappers because, once heat altered, this chert looks and acts much
like true Arkansas novaculite.” This chert occurs at Fort Hood in Bell and Coryell counties.
Novaculite is best known for occurring in the Arkansas Novaculite Formation in the
Ouachita Mountains of central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. The proximity of the
major source of this material to northeastern Texas suggests it may have been used as a trade
item from Arkansas and Oklahoma. Not surprisingly, this material has been documented in sites
in northeastern Texas. Novaculite arrow points have been documented at sites in Red River
County such as Rowland Clark (41RR77) (Perino 1994) and as far south as the George C.
Davis site (41CE19) in Cherokee County (Newell and Krieger 1949). Novaculite varies in color
(white, light to dark gray, pink, red, tan, and black) but light colors are most common. It is
typically translucent. Ridges of Caballos Novaculite occur in the Lightning Hills of Brewster
County (Leo 1975; McBride and Thomson 1970). Owl Creek Black is one of the many varieties
of Fort Hood chert that occur mainly along Owl Creek in Bell and Coryell counties. The best
grade is reported to be “jet black” in color. According to John Fish (personal communication,
April 4, 2022), this is one of the better varieties of chert for knapping as it has fewer impurities
and inclusions. Lintz (personal communication; October 8, 2020) disputes this label because
chert of the same color and texture is found elsewhere in the expansive Edwards region
There are some problems inherent in the identification of various types of cherts which
must be addressed. “Not all of the chert recovered [at Fort Hood] can be placed in exact type
categories” (Dickens 1997:46). The color of certain cherts cannot always be tied to a local
source. Additionally, a wide range of colors and textures can be found within individual chert
types. Archaeologists were only able to isolate individual types at Fort Hood after examining
several thousand examples of cherts and over 5,000 bifacially flaked tools (Dickens 1993b,
1993c, Dickens and Dockall 1993). The results of these studies identified seven types of chert
present. They are Owl Creek Black, Fort Hood Gray, Gray/Brown/Green Mottled, Fort Hood
Tan, Texas Novaculite, Heiner Lake, and Cowhouse White. These are described by Dickens
(1997:46-48). There are two later studies of chert types at Fort Hood that built on and refined
Dicken’s basic chert types to include descriptive properties like UV fluorescence, surface
patination, heat treatment effects, and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) (see
Frederick and Ringstaff 1994 and Frederick et al. 1994).

26
 Foster (1993:17) discusses the chipped stone artifacts from Pueblo Sin Casas (FB6273)
in El Paso County. They list the raw materials used as quartzite (49%), chert (19%), rhyolite
(13%), obsidian (4%), and basalt (2%). Fifty-six pieces of “Rancheria chert” were present in the
assemblage. This material occurs in the Rancheria formation in the Franklin and Hueco
mountains in western Texas. The formation consists mainly of dense carboniferous silty
limestone containing considerable amounts of chert. Foster (1993:19) writes that it is “fairly
common and comes in nodular and tabular forms with a cortex of porous, fine-grained
limestone. In fact, the chert itself is often porous.” Colors range from brown to gray, and it is
generally of good quality (Carmichael 1986:167).
“Tecovas jasper” is a high-quality material found in the Quitaque area of Briscoe County
that is often referred to as Quitaque flint. It is widespread along the eastern Caprock
Escarpment of the Llano Estacado (Green and Kelley 1960). It also consists of various colors.
Archaeologists often describe these materials as having different visual characteristics.
However, there is commonality in the range of their color, texture, banding patterns, and
translucency.” Because the ranges of variability in macroscopically visible characteristics of
alibates and Tecovas jasper are so similar, it is often difficult to accurately sort prehistoric
artifacts into typological categories reflecting their presumed geological point of origin” (Quigg et
al. 2011:191). This can result in archaeologists inadvertently associating artifacts from these
deposits with the incorrect geological source. A very thorough discussion of these two source
materials is authored by J. Michael Quigg, Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glascock in
their article titled “Geochemical Characterization of Tecovas and Alibates Source Samples”
(Quigg et al. 2011). Artifacts of Tecovas jasper were numerous at site 41SW23 in the
Mackenzie Reservoir (Hughes and Willey 1978). Two occupation strata were identified, strata B
and D. Artifacts of this material in Stratum B numbered 326 (52.2%), as opposed to 389 (24.4%)
of the total (Hughes and Willey 1978:188).
Opalite is a silica-replaced caliche that occurs in portions of the upper Ogallala formation
in the Southern and Central Great Plains. Lintz (1998) provides a thorough discussion of its
origins, stratigraphic description, and distribution, as well as artifacts made of this material. He
(Lintz 1998:107) notes that “very little archaeological or geological discussion has focused on
the occurrence and prehistoric cultural use of opalite on the Southern High Plains.” A major
exposure of opalite is in the Palo Duro Creek valley of the upper Texas Panhandle. Lintz
(1998:Figure 1) illustrates the distribution of the Ogallala formation and its opalite outcrops in
the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles.

27
 He summarized the geological literature on the origin of opalite and provides detailed
descriptions of the stratigraphy of its exposure at the Palo Duro Creek valley. He (Lintz
1998:Figure 5) illustrates arrow point fragments including side-notched and corner-notched
types found in the vicinity of Palo Duro Creek. Typed arrow points of this material in the Palo
Duro River Basin include one Washita point (Anthony 1991), one Fresno point (Quigg, et al.
1993), and three unclassified points (Anthony 1991). An opalite arrow point was reported at site
41HF8 in Hansford County (TARL records).
Silicified wood (aka petrified wood) is found in a large area that incorporates most of
East Texas extending to the Arkansas and Oklahoma borders and into Louisiana. Due to the
composition of this material, many artifacts appear to be crudely made when, in actuality, the
piece being knapped does not allow for precise reduction. Occasionally, exceptional pieces
were utilized with the result of a well-made points (Figure 5). A major source of silicified wood in
East Texas is the Catahoula Formation.
Obsidian is a “natural silica-rich volcanic glass, typically of rhyolitic composition,
produced when magma from a deep source erupts onto or near the earth’s surface and rapidly
chills against air, water, or some colder rock.” It was a desired medium for tool manufacture
because it produces a very sharp edge and is relatively free of impurities that place restrictions
on one’s ability to knapp chert and other materials. The sharpness of obsidian is reflected in the
fact that the renown flintknapper, Donald Crabtree, underwent open-heart surgery that was
performed with blades he made for that purpose. The tools were so sharp that there was hardly
a scar from the incision [Link]
[Link]. The practice of using stone tools in modern surgery is discussed
by B. A. Buck (1982).
Because it is restricted to areas where volcanic activity has taken place, it is not native to
Texas. Per Hester (1986:2), “… there are no known geologic sources of artifact-quality material
of this sort in Texas.” Outcrops of obsidian are found in the Mountain West, Southwest,
California, Oregon, and Washington State. Specific areas where there is a linkage between
distant sources and artifacts found in Texas include the Mineral Mountain Range in Utah,
Obsidian Cliff in Wyoming, Glass and Burns Buttes in Oregon, Timber Butte and Dairy and
Wright creeks (aka the Malad source) in Idaho, and the Jemez Mountains and Sierra de los
Valles in New Mexico. Hughes and Hester (2009:82) have been quoted as saying that obsidian
sources in the Jemez Mountains were the most frequently used obsidian in archaeological sites
in Texas, especially after A. D. 1000.

28
 Michael J. Shott (2021) discusses the analysis of debris and tools from two prehistoric
obsidian quarries, the Modena and Tempiute obsidian sources in Nevada. Although the
specimens from these quarries have not been linked to sites in Texas, they provide useful
information regarding debitage and tools found at quarries that may be applicable to Texas.
Hester (1986:5) believes that the exportation of obsidian over great distances not only indicates
trade systems that not only transported this material but it also, and “perhaps more importantly
new ideas and technologies.”
Early attempts by archaeologists to trace obsidian artifacts found in Texas to their
source were problematic. Thomas R. Hester is one of the pioneers in Texas archaeology who
was dedicated to finding the source of these specimens. A breakthrough occurred when a
“subcircular worked piece of obsidian” from 41LK51 at Choke Canyon (Hall et al. 1986) was
recovered by archaeologists from the University of Texas at San Antonio. Hester submitted the
artifact to Brigham Young University and the University of California at Berkeley where
researchers were able to confirm a link between the Texas specimen and the Malad source in
Idaho mentioned above. Methods used to identify the source of mentioned above were x-ray
fluorescence (XRF) and neutron activation analysis (NAA). Hester (1986:2) discusses this
process.
“During the early stages of our obsidian source research, we began
To notice a series of obsidian artifacts from Texas that did not fit
any known source. Since the first specimen of this sort had been
found at Escondido Ranch in Dimmit County, we called it the
‘Escondido Ranch Group.’ “ When the obsidian specimen was
analyzed, it also fit into this group. The group was very distinctive
because of its high Barium (Ba) content and was quite unlike any
known source from Mexico or the southwestern United States.”

Carmichael (1986:167) discusses the presence of obsidian in the El Paso area.

“Obsidian in the region occurs only as small waterworn pebbles in the gravels of the ancestral
Rio Grande that once flowed through the area. The current channel of the Rio Grande is more
than 20 km to the south of Pueblo Sin Casas (FB6273). No obsidian outcrops are known in the
El Paso area but several varieties of obsidian, probably representing several different upstream
sources, are found in the gravels. Gravels from the east side of Fillmore Pass, the Black Hills on
the southwest side of the Organs, and near McCombs Avenue in El Paso, Texas, are known to
contain concentrations of obsidian pebbles.”

29
 Obsidian artifacts found at Casa Sin Pueblos include cores (n=17), flakes (n=74),
retouched flake (n=1), and projectile points (n=2). The points are depicted in Foster
(1993:Figure 11-5). Foster (1993:Table II-1) describes the obsidian from Casa Sin Pueblos as
“black opaque.” The size of a pebble varies from 4 mm to 64 mm, not large enough for artifact
manufacture.
A sample of sites in Texas where obsidian has been found in an archaeological context
include 41BL104 (flake) in Bell County (Hester 1986), 41BQ46 (flake) in Bosque County (Hester
1986), 41BX300 (flake) in Bexar County (Hester 1986), 41COL9 (5 arrow points and 2 pieces of
worked obsidian) in Collin County (Creel 2016), 41COL34 (one triangular and one side-notched
arrow point in Collin County (Crook 2013), 41LL4 (flake) in Llano County (Hester 1986), 41OL6
(flakes) in Oldham County (Kennard 1975), 41OL25 (flakes) in Oldham County (Kennard 1975),
41SW23 (flakes) in Swisher County (Hughes and Willey 1978), 41BI46 (flake) in Briscoe County
(Hughes and Willey 1978),and Camp 5 in Bosque County (Simmons 1965:Addendum to Olds
1965).. 41SS2 (arrow point fragment, 2 unifaces & 5 flakes) in San Saba County, 41SV5 (2
flakes) in Somervell County (Moore 1991b), 41TE98 (stemmed arrow point) in Terrell County
(Hester 1986), and 41TV133 (flake) in Travis County (Hester 1986). Sites without TARL
trinomials are LBL TEX-8-12 (biface fragment & 5 flakes) in Johnson County, LBL TEX-13; X41
HI 30 (biface) in Hill County, LBL TEX-1 (side-notched arrow point) in Medina County (Hester
1986), LBL TEX-23 (flake) in Real County (Hester 1986), and the Branch Site #2 (one triangular
arrow point and one end scraper (Crook 1985). Obsidian arrow points identified as known types
include Alba, Catahoula, and Washita (various sources).
Regionally, obsidian artifacts have been documented in south Texas, especially at
Brownsville Complex sites (Hester 1980, 1986), eastern Texas (Perttula and Hester 2016),
northeastern Texas (Timothy K. Perttula, personal communication 2020), the Texas Panhandle
(Lintz, personal communication 2020), and the Southern Plains (Baugh and Nelson (1987).
An example of obsidian reaching the neighboring state of Louisiana is a single flake tool from
the Twin Bird Islands site (16CD118) in an article by Pevny (2014).
Manning Fused Glass is a unique material of volcanic origin found in Texas that was
used for the manufacture of arrow points, dart points, and miscellaneous bifaces (Appendix VI).
Kenneth M. Brown (1976) wrote a well-researched article about this colorful material and its use
by prehistoric groups in Texas. Brown (1976:190) illustrates and describes its formation and
characteristics (Figure 6).

30
 Figure 6. Formation of Manning Fused Glass (courtesy of Kenneth M. Brown).

“Manning Fused Glass forms when combustion of the lignite beds in localized areas
melted the tuff deposits. The degree of fusion varies, and where it was most intense, actual
melting of the microscopic glass shards have produced small aggregates of brightly colored
glassy material. Fused tuff is, like obsidian, a volcanic glass and has a similar fracture.” This
material crops out in a narrow band across the Gulf Coastal Plain of Southeast Texas. Manning
Fused Glass deposits are situated approximately 190 kilometers inland and pass through (from
west to east) Polk, Trinity, Walker, Grimes, Brazos, Burleson, Washington, Lee, Fayette, and
Gonzales counties (Brown 1976:Figure 3). The best-known exposure of fused tuff in the
Manning Formation is the Chalk Creek Quarry in northern Walker County. This quarry is
identified by the Bureau of Economic Geology as sample locality 235-T-2 and by TARL as rock
sample locality M41-WA1. The archaeological site recorded nearest the outcrop at Chalk Creek
is 41WA71. Fused glass has been documented at sites in Cherokee, Houston, Limestone, Polk,
Rusk, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker counties (Brown 1976:Figure 3). Brown and I visited the
quarry and sites 41WA71 and 41TN11 prior to the publication of his article. A controlled surface
collection of a 1 x 1-meter square was conducted at 41WA71, and the amount of fused glass
waste material (aka debitage) comprised 60% to 70% of the total assemblage. Two bifaces of
fused glass were encountered at 41WA71 by the author, but the finds came too late for them to
be included in Brown’s article. Artifacts made from this material date from Paleoindian times and
into the Late Prehistoric, with Late Prehistoric arrow points being better represented in the
archaeological record.

31
 Brown (1976:Figure 5) illustrates arrow points made of Manning Fused Glass from
41SJ19, a private collection in Madison County, 41HO4, and 41CE19. All but one of these
specimens are described as Alba or Catahoula. The only complete specimen in his article is a
probable arrow point from 41TN11 (Figure 7). It does not appear to conform to a known type.
Brown (1976:Figure 5) also illustrates four arrow point preform failures found on the surface of
the George C. Davis site with one coming from the plow zone above Mound B.
Basalt is an igneous rock formed by the rapid cooling of low-viscosity lava rich in
magnesium and iron exposed at or very near the surface of a rocky planet or moon. More than
90% of all volcanic rock on earth is basalt (Wikipedia). Although no arrow points made from
basalt were found at Pueblo Sin Casas in El Paso County, numerous tools and flakes of this
material were present per Foster (1993). Igneous materials from Mexico may contribute to the
gravels found in the Rio Grande. The most common forms are red and brown rhyolite (Gonzales
et al. 2014).
In the El Paso area, rhyolite is found in the Franklin and Organ mountains and their
alluvial fans. “The local rhyolites are generally dark red, pinkish, purple, or black in color” (Foster
1993:21). Thunderbird Rhyolite has been documented as a common raw material from Jornada
Mogollon sites Gobernadora (41EP321) and Ojasen (41EP289) in El Paso County but was
mostly used for retouched and unretouched flake tools rather than bifaces and projectile points
(see Shafer et al. 1999).
Gastroliths (aka stomach stone, gizzard stone) are rocks held inside a gastrointestinal
tract. In some species, they are retained in the muscular gizzard and used to grind food in
animals lacking suitable grinding teeth. In other species, the rocks are ingested and pass
through the digestive system and are frequently replaced. The grain size depends upon the size
of the animal and the gastrolith's role in digestion. Other species use gastroliths as ballast.
Lawrence Aten (1983:Appendix B) discusses the possibility of alligator gastroliths as a source of
lithic material that could have been used to fashion arrow points. He posits that the origin of
small pebbles (7 mm – 35 mm) found at coastal archaeological sites would most likely represent
gastroliths removed from the host after it was killed. "The occurrence of alligator and bird bones
far more frequently than gastroliths in Galveston Bay area shell middens suggests that
gastroliths were frequently used for lithic tool making and/or that butchering of these animals
took place away from the habitation site, a conclusion previously suggested by faunal analysis
(Aten 1967:42) and by analogy with numerous ethnographically recorded situations.

32
 Consequently, the presence of gastroliths in archaeological sites may also reflect the
joint occurrence of an alligator kill and the need for lithic raw materials.” “Gastrolith pebbles
rarely are present in quantity in any given site. In the Trinity River delta and at Harris County
Boys School [site], where the fine-mesh screening techniques would have resulted in the
recovery of any pebbles which were present, most sites produced only three or four; 41 CH 36
was a significant exception. Pebbles were also removed primarily from post-Clear Lake period
levels of the Jamison site. Arrow points fashioned from bird gastroliths have been reported from
sites at Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site in Illinois.
Metal points were introduced in historic times following contact with the Europeans as trade
items. Mission Indians and others learned the art of making metal points using barrel hoops and
any source they could find. A discussion of metal points found in Texas is presented in Chapter 7.
Glass arrow points were popular following the introduction of this material by Europeans.
They were made from bottle glass and windowpanes. A. E. Anderson (1932:29-31) published an
article titled “Artifacts of the Rio Grande Delta Region.” He mentions glass points in the following
quote. “Green bottle glass projectile points similar to those of flint, are found but are scarce.” Glass
points have been found at sites throughout the state. Glass points bearing similarities to Bassett,
Cameron, Cliffton, and Guerrero are discussed in Chapter 7.
A. E. Anderson’s (1932:29-31) “Artifacts of the Rio Grande Delta Region” mentions the
presence of shell points. “Chipped projectile points of conch shell, similar in form to the triangular
points of flint occur but are quite rare. Chapter 7 discusses shell points in more detail. Animal
bone was sometimes used to fashion arrow points. Chapter 7 discusses bone points in more detail.
Other sources relevant to this topic are “Origin and History of the Uvalde Gravels of
Central Texas” (Byrd 1971), “Upland Gravels in Dallas County and Their Bearing on the Former
Extent of the High Plains Physiographic Province” (Mentzer and Slaughter (1971), “Lithic
Resources of Western Louisiana” (Heinrich 1984), “Origin and Distribution of Chert in the
Edwards Limestone (Lower Cretaceous), Central Texas” (Geno 1984), “The Caballos Novaculite,
Marathon Region, Texas” (McBride and Thompson 1970), “Silicification of Wood” (Leo 1975),
“Silica in the Edwards Limestone” (Pittman 1959), “An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint”
(Luedtke 1992), “Catahoula Formation of the Texas Coastal Plain: Origin, Geochemical Evolution,
and Characteristics of Uranium Deposit” (Galloway and Kaiser 1980), “Lithic Sources on the
Central Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas” (Collins 2002), and “Tool Types, Reduction Strategies, and
Local Gravel: Analysis of Lithic Artifacts” (Dickens 1993a). “The Effect of Annealing on the
Properties of Edwards Plateau Flint” (Nelson 1968), “Ethnographic Evidence for the Thermal
Alteration of Stone Tools” (Hester 1972), “Chert Sources and Trace Element Analysis” (Luedtke

33
1978), “The Aboriginal Materials” (Cloud and Mallouf 1996), “Lithic Resources of the Texas Coastal
Bend” (Chandler 1984), and “Colors and Sources of the Chert” (Johnson 2000). Lithic analyses of
sites at Fort Hood were conducted by (Dickens 1993b,1993c, 1995), Dickens and Dockall 1993,
and (Frederick et al. 1994).

34
 Chapter 3: Projectile Point Typologies

When the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society was founded in 1929,
projectile point typology was not well established for Texas. Davis (1995:13) writes that “The
naming and describing of points and tools is a relatively new event, not only in Texas but
throughout North America.” The first point to be named was Folsom by J. D. Figgins in 1927 for
the location of the find near the town of Folsom, New Mexico (Cook 1927, Figgins 1927,
Wormington 1957). This practice was followed by the naming of Scottsbluff in 1932 and Clovis
in 1933, also for nearby towns. Cyrus Ray was the first president of the Texas Archeological
Society and a major contributor to the initial issues of the Bulletin. In an article published in
Volume 2, Ray (1930:58) refers to three specimens as simply “flint points.”
In 1935, the Central Texas Archeological Society was founded in Waco, Texas. In
Volume 1, Frank H. Watt’s article “Stone Implements of Central Texas Area” he described
points by their shape using the terms triangular, oval, and diamond. Watt (1935:17) presented
this information in a “Classification Chart of Projectile Points.” Specific characteristics body,
edges, notches, and base were included, but no names were assigned.
Frank Bryan was a geologist and avocational archaeologist. In Volume 2 of the Central
Texas Archeological Society (published in 1936) his article “Preliminary Report on the
Archeology of Western Limestone County” discussed the benefits of naming points. “In
conclusion, it is believed that enough work has now been done in this section of Central Texas
to justify giving names of certain types of artifacts found here. Until a specific artifact is tied
down and given a name, it has a tendency to float around as an indefinite something. It is the
rule, where original research reveals something of scientific interest, to name the object after the
locality or something connected with the location where they were discovered or first carefully
studied.” Plate XV contained outlines of the various points and tools found in the area. The
arrow point labelled “m” on Plate XV was named Navasot Beveled Point because of its
abundance near the Navasota River, and specimen “q” was assigned the name Dead-Man
Triangle Point. Davis (1995:14) believes Frank Bryan should be regarded as the “Father of
Texas Point Typology.”
Alex D. Krieger (1944:271-288) published an article in American Antiquity titled the
“Typological Concept.” This was the first attempt at systematic typing of projectile points in
Texas. Point names were binomials and typically descriptive such as Alba Barbed, Bonham
Barbed, and Scallorn Stemmed.

35
 This practice was continued in publications by Krieger (1946), Kelley (1947b), Newell
and Krieger (1949:51-52, Figure 56), Stephenson (1952:Figure 95, Row E), Miller and Jelks
(1952:178, Plate 25), Jelks (1953:Plate 19, F-H), Ford (1952:115, Figure 45), Wheat (1953),
and Bell and Hall (1953). Joe Ben Wheat (1953:197) refers to its use in his report on the
Addicks Basin survey in Harris County. “The binomial nomenclature of projectile points, in use
by the Texas Council of Archeologists, and recently adopted by the Southeastern Archeological
Conference, Point of Pines, Arizona has been used in this report. This system, long used in
pottery designation, combines the type-site name and a word or phrase descriptive of the most
characteristic or consistent feature of the projectile point.”
In 1954, no articles had been submitted to the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society (Paleontological had been removed from the title). At the time, Dee Ann Suhm was a
graduate student in Anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin. She had been working
on a very ambitious project of sorting through the thousands of points in the TARL collections to
refine typology for Texas projectile points. The result was the publication of Volume 25 of the
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society. It combined the previous independent work of
Krieger and Jelks and is recognized as the first definitive source for Texas point typology and
the first for much of the country. This volume included ceramics and the first in-depth discussion
of culture complexes and traits in the state. It was extremely successful, and archaeologists in
other states relied on it to identify some of their types. A major change was the simplification of
point types such as Alba Barbed to Alba. Each figure depicting artifacts has a scale of ten
centimeters at the bottom of the page. Additionally, the range of length and width of each type
is included in the text. The points are illustrated by photos and are housed in TARL’s type
collection. Projectile point typology guides for states like Alabama and Mississippi relied heavily
on types originally defined in Volume 25, and to this day, rightly or wrongly, insist on applying
Texas-derived type names to many of their point types. Because of the immense popularity of
the 1954 Bulletin, a revised edition titled Handbook of Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions was
compiled by Suhm and Jelks and published in 1962, but it did not include the overview of the
various archaeological regions in the state. This version was also available in a spiral bound
form that would allow for future pages to be added, but this never took place.
It was not until 1985 that another typology book for Texas appeared. Sue Ellen Turner
and Thomas R. Hester published A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. The focus of
this book was the inclusion of points that the authors considered to be valid types. Kathy
Roemer was the illustrator who drafted pen and ink drawings.

36
 Additionally, the authors included a physical description of each type and supplemental
information such as distribution, age, known sites where the type was found, and references
that discuss and/or illustrate the type. They discussed the process used to make projectile
points and their context and chronology. This book also included various tools in addition to
projectile points. No dimensions for the various types are given, and the illustrations are without
a scale. It was very successful, and new editions were published in 1993 and 1999 (also without
scales). Kathy Roemer was the illustrator in each of these volumes.
Edward B. Jelks (1993:9-15) published Observations on the Distribution of Certain Arrow
Point Types in Texas and Adjacent States. In this monograph he examined “… the relatively
rapid spread of material culture traits from one group to another across wide geographical
areas.” His examples of this phenomenon are “several widely recognized projectile point types
commonly found in Texas and adjacent regions.” He states that “Two major genera of arrow
point forms are clearly discernable in the archaeological record in the United States and
adjacent parts of Canada and Mexico: a generally earlier genus of stemmed forms and a
generally later genus of triangular forms.” There are numerous defined types and varieties
within each genus. He organizes his arrow point sequence by date and stem forms. The
sequence begins with expanding stem and rectanguloid stem forms that range in age from
A.D. 700 to A.D.1200.
Expanding stem points consist of Alba, Edwards, and Scallorn. Circa A.D. 1100 to A.D.
1300. The expanding stem tradition was largely replaced by contracting stem forms Bassett,
Livermore, and Perdiz. Regarding the triangular forms, Jelks (1993:12) states “There is
considerable diversity among the types and varieties of triangular arrow points found in Texas.
Some are side-notched, others have only basal notches, and several types are unnotched. As
a genus, they are relatively late.” The major unnotched triangular types found in Texas include
Cameron, Fresno, Guerrero, McGloin, Maud, Talco, and Starr. Jelks writes that triangular points
appeared circa A.D. 1100 to A.D. 1200 and persisted into historic times. The notched triangular
arrow points found in Texas “… appear to represent extensions of the Plains triangular series to
the north and west.” They occur most frequently in northern and western Texas and include
Garza, Harrell, Washita, and Toyah.
Jelks (1993:14) concludes that “Over the middle latitudes of North America, from
northern Mexico to southern Canada, the sequence of early expanding or rectanguloid stemmed
forms to later triangular forms may be observed in most regions; but contracting stem arrow
points are generally absent outside of Texas and adjacent areas.” Specific comments for these
types are presented in the formal discussion of types in Chapter 7

37
 In 2011, Turner and Hester revised their typology book and changed the name to Stone
Artifacts of Texas Indians. The same format was used but more information was added, and the
artifacts were illustrated by Richard McReynolds. This volume does not include eight points
included in this treatise - Agee, Cliffton, Colbert, Form 2, Granbury, Homan, Ray, and Rockwall.
The dimensions of the various types are not stated, and the figures lack scales. Per Hester
(personal communication on June 6, 2022), The 3rd edition was the last to be published.
The vastness of the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas has typically been overlooked in
terms of previously unrecorded types. The first attempt to remedy this problem was by Robert J.
Mallouf and his staff who proposed new types and revised some previous point classifications.
These new types were discussed and illustrated in La Tierra (Mallouf 2012) and The Journal of
Big Bend Studies edited by Dasch and Mallouf (2013). New types such as Alazán, Diablo, and
Means are discussed. There have been publications on artifact typology in other states, and
some of these were used during this project. These publications are relevant because they
mention types reportedly found in Texas, as well as types that bear a strong similarity to some
Texas specimens.
Robert E. Bell was a professor of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma in
Norman. In 1952, he produced a brief mimeographed article titled Indian Arrowheads in the
Department of Anthropology’s Archaeological Newsletter. This article included general
comments plus brief descriptions and outlines of thirteen named points. It was so popular that
Robert E. Bell and Roland S. Hall (1953) produced Selected Projectile Point Types of the United
States that appeared in Volume I of the Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society.
Hall prepared the drawings, and forty-four projectile points were described. Five
specimens described as arrow points also found in Texas were mentioned. They are Alba
Barbed, Bonham Barbed, Hayes Barbed, Perdiz Pointed Stem, and Scallorn Stemmed. Richard
P. Wheeler (1954) authored a second article with the same name in Volume II of the bulletin of
the newly formed Oklahoma Anthropological Society. He presented data for eleven types that
were not included in the previous bulletin. No arrow points were included.
Bell recognized the need for a new and more inclusive document on the types of
projectile points found in Oklahoma. His goal was to provide more information for each type in
conjunction with illustrations of several examples drawn to actual size. Unfortunately, there is no
scale with any of these drawings. He wrote that the project was not “coming together as quickly
as anticipated.” Therefore, it was decided at the annual meeting of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society in 1957 to publish only the information for the types that had been
completed at the time with the other types to appear in later bulletins.

38
 Eventually, four bulletins were published that contained information about points
reportedly found in Oklahoma and adjacent states. Some examples, such as Sallisaw (Perino
1968:82, Plate 41) are mainly Oklahoma types often found at Caddo sites, but this type may
also be present at Caddo sites in parts of Texas.
The first entry in the new series was titled Special Bulletin No. 1. It was published in
1958 by the Society and titled Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile
Points. Robert E. Bell was the author. Fifty points were described, and they were illustrated by
Bell, Max Hibshman, and Mary Frances Fenton. In his Introduction, Bell emphasized that his
work serves only as a guide to aid in the identification of point types. He stated that these
descriptions and drawings do not replace the experience obtained by seeing the actual
specimens. Seven specimens described as arrow points found in Oklahoma and Texas were
mentioned. They are Alba, Bassett, Harrell, Hayes, Maud, Talco, and Washita. This bulletin and
the three that follow provide dimensions of the various types, but the figures lack scales.
In 1960, Bell authored Special Bulletin No. 2. It was a continuum of the work published in
1958 as Special Bulletin No. 1. This bulletin also described fifty projectile points. Bell stated that
at the time of this publication there were perhaps as many as two hundred named points in the
United States. The specimens discussed represented those for which adequate information was
available. Most of the artifacts were obtained from the collections housed at the University of
Oklahoma in Norman. The primary artists were Max Hibshman and Mary Fenton. A few were
penned by Ben Williams and the author when necessary. Eleven specimens described as arrow
points found in Texas and Oklahoma were mentioned. They are Bonham, Catahoula, Cliffton,
Fresno, Friley, Huffaker, Livermore, Perdiz, Scallorn, Toyah, and Young.
Special Bulletin No. 3 was compiled by Gregory H. Perino and published by the Society
in 1968. It also described and illustrated fifty points. Dr. Bell was experiencing an increase in
academic responsibilities, and Perino was selected as the new editor of this series. The artists
included Don Dickson, Robert Edler, Mett Shippee, and Perino.
Six named specimens described as arrow points found in Texas and Oklahoma were
mentioned. They are Agee, Benton type A, Benton type B, Edwards, Garza, and Howard. The
Benton points are examples of metal points made and used during the historic period.
Gregory H. Perino was the editor and author of Special Bulletin No. 4 that was published
by the Society in 1971. This volume also described fifty points. In the Introduction, Perino wrote
that at the time of this publication there were more than three hundred typed points, and more
were being named every year. Only one specimen, Rockwall, is mentioned as having been
found in Texas.

39
 Perino continued to illustrate and describe projectile points in three volumes that he
published privately in 1985, 1991, and 2002 as Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the
North American Indians.
In 2007, the Oklahoma Anthropological Society published Special Bulletin No. 26 that
was titled Southern Plains Lithics: The Small Points. This volume describes and illustrates arrow
points found in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas (Duncan et al. 2007). The project began in 1993 when Dr. Gene Hellstern
formed a committee to research known point types from the Southern Plains region of North
America. This was a joint effort with archaeologists from TARL, Gilcrease Museum, Panhandle
Plains Museum, Museum of the Red River, Arkansas Archeological Survey, and the Sam Noble
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History. Although the previous efforts by Robert E. Bell and
Gregory H. Perino continue to be used as valid sources for projectile point typology in
Oklahoma, the authors of this volume concentrated on redefining the geographic distribution of
the various types. They also included radiocarbon dates, when possible, and additional
references. Illustrations were provided by Robert E. Bell, Pam Headrick, Bobby Nickey, Frieda
Vereecken-Odell, Gregory H. Perino, Frank Weir, and Don Wykoff. Texas points are numerous
and include Agee, Alba, Bassett, Bonham, Cuney, Deadman’s, Edwards, Fresno, Friley, Garza,
Harrell, Hayes, Howard, Maud, Morris, Perdiz, Rockwall, Scallorn, Starr, Talco, Toyah, and
Turney. Average dimensions are stated, but the figures lack scales.
Clarence H. Webb (2000:1) addressed the typology issue in Stone Points and Tools of
Northwestern Louisiana. “The reader should know that lithic types are not sacrosanct. They are
developed by a person or a group of people who study samples from a site, a cultural group, of
a given area, who attach a name or names to perceived objects to develop a tool for study and
comparison. Some point types (like Evans or Friley) have distinct attributes that make
identification easy; others offer more difficulties and overlaps, or variations are numerous.”
Points described by Webb (2000:14-16) as occurring on both sides of the artificial
boundaries of Texas and Louisiana are Alba, Bassett, Bayou Goula, Bonham, Catahoula,
Colbert, Friley, Hayes, Homan, Maud, Perdiz, and Scallorn.
Samuel O. McGahey was an archaeologist with the Mississippi Department of Archives
and History who had a strong interest in projectile point typology. In 2000, this agency published
Mississippi Projectile Point Guide as the culmination of his research. Although one state
removed from Texas, this guide is relevant because it discusses Scallorn as a type found in
Mississippi.

40
 Noel D. Justice compiled Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and
Eastern United States that was published by Indiana University Press in 1987. Although most of
the examples are from other states, this book is relevant to Texas because some specimens
have been reported in parts of the state. The only Texas examples mentioned are Alba,
Scallorn, and Morris. Types from the neighboring states of Arkansas and Louisiana are also
included. Examples of some types are depicted in excellent color photographs, but the detailed
descriptions are illustrated by drawings enhanced by a scale for each specimen. His approach
is unlike other typology books in that he describes types as part of clusters, wide areas of
distribution of each type. For example, Alba is a Texas type found in East Texas with specimens
reported in lesser numbers in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Justice (1987:235-237),
however, reports that the Alba Cluster includes sites as far away as Indiana, Illinois, and
Missouri.
Elton R. Prewitt is the former owner of Prewitt & Associates, Inc. His area of interest
focused on Central Texas, and his passion was projectile point typology. His major contribution
to this subject appeared in Volume 66 of the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society in 1995.
His article was titled “Distributions of Typed Projectile Points in Texas.” He plotted a range of
numbers for 151 arrow point and dart point types by county. Prewitt’s findings are based on a
review of 716 sources and 60,519 specimens. Although this was a monumental effort, he wrote
that there are gaps in 67 of the 254 counties because they lacked published data. These
counties were not mentioned.
There were fewer than three or more published reports for 110 counties when this article
was published. Although extensive, the 716 sources do not represent 100 percent of the data
available at the time. This article, however, is the only research on this topic that discusses the
status of recognized types statewide in this format.
Figure 8 illustrates his method of depicting a particular point by its location in the state.
Patterson (1995) commented on Prewitt’s study from the perspective of Southeast Texas. His
main criticism was Prewitt’s coverage of Southeast Texas was not “thorough.”
Dan R. Davis, Jr. (1995) published his version of Texas artifact typology titled Prehistoric
Artifacts of the Texas Indians: An Identification and Reference Guide that referenced arrow
points and dart points. It is out of print and commands a high price when available.
The perusal of typology books and publications to identify arrow point types found in
Texas was the primary source for the decision as to which points should be included in this
volume. The sources listed above were written and compiled by archaeologists whose
reputations are considered well-reasoned and valid.

41
 Conversely, there exists numerous books, websites, and Facebook groups compiled by
non-professionals that also describe arrow point types. It’s obvious that the creators of these
books, etc. relied on the efforts of professional archaeologists, but some types are questionable
and reflect the opinion of collectors. A most thorough source on the Internet is Projectile Point
Identification Guide, touted by its creators as “the largest most comprehensive on-line
identification guide.” All fifty states are included, and the types included are identified as valid or
typed by collectors. It is a very useful source for a first or second sorting of types and a good
platform for visual variability in point types. It was not created by professional archaeologists;
therefore, some comments should be viewed with caution.
Arrow points with established names such as Catahoula and Scallorn are easily
distinguishable by their shape. Variations among all types occur, and this can make typing
difficult. The area where certain types are known to occur is never perfectly clear. Reasons for
certain points to be found away from what is considered their core area include trade, travel for
hunting and/or warfare. A different explanation is implied by Campbell (1979:22) who cites
other sources that state the Manos Prietas Indians of northeastern Coahuila exchanged bows
and arrows with other groups to “symbolize peaceful relations.” Also, the territory of the various
groups changed as they moved about the state and into the missions.

42
 Chapter 4: Archaeological Planning Regions

The borders of Texas encompass more square miles than any state except Alaska. As a
result, there is a huge variation of terrain and vegetation within its boundaries. Elevations range
from sea level in the coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico to 8,715 feet at the top of
Guadalupe Peak in Culberson County. Plant communities have been identified as alpine,
desert, forest, swamp, and coastal. This variation in environmental settings was a major factor
in the diversity of lifeways among the prehistoric inhabitants of Texas and the early settlers. To
better understand how people adapted to the different conditions across the state, the Texas
Historical Commission (THC) began a program of identifying the regions of Texas according to
the archaeological data from these regions that were known at the time. Other archaeologists
may have differing opinions as to the names of these regions and the counties therein. In this
book, I’m adhering to those established by the THC.
Preservation planning in Texas began in earnest in 1968 when the THC divided Texas
into four major “planning regions” with each one composed of archaeological subregions
defined based on unique environmental and archeological characteristics (Figure 9). This
division resulted in the creation of the Plains Planning Region, the Eastern Planning Region, the
Trans-Pecos Planning Region, and the Central and Southern Planning Region. These regions
were to be discussed in planning documents that could be used to “provide recommendations to
federal agencies, to direct the effort to list sites in the National Register of Historic Places, and
to preserve significant sites through other mechanisms” (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993:4-5). The
planning documents are based on geographic areas that in most cases correspond to regional
archaeological syntheses prepared for the Southwestern Corps of Engineers. The maps
depicted below are provided courtesy of the Texas Historical Commission. Each major region is
subdivided into smaller specific regions.

43
 Figure 9. Planning Regions in Texas.

Two formal planning documents have been completed. They present data for the
Eastern Planning Region (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993) and the Central and Southern Planning
Region (Mercado-Allinger, et al. 1996). These documents are very thorough and should be
considered required reading for any major archaeological project prior to entering the field. As
with all such compilations, new data is created immediately after publication, but the heart of the
research remains and will always be a valuable resource. According to Patricia A. Mercado-
Allinger (personal communication 2018), the Plains Planning Region and the Trans-Pecos
Planning Region are not likely to be published. There are discrepancies between some of the
counties presented in the planning document for the Central and Southern Planning Region and
those that were selected for the Archeological Bibliography for the Central Region of Texas
(Simons and Moore 1997). Those counties in the bibliographies are used here because the
changes were made after additional research, and they are linked to the bibliographies for
research purposes.

44
 As an extension of the planning documents, the Office of the State Archeologist, Texas
Historical Commission, compiled bibliographies of the Southern Coastal Corridor Region (Bailey
1987), Northern Panhandle Region (Simons 1988), Northern Panhandle Region (Simons 1988),
Southeastern Region (Moore and Simons 1989), Northeastern Region (Martin 1990), and
Central Texas Region (Simons and Moore (1997) as special reports. Each bibliography
contains far more information than just citations of archaeological publications. Added value
consists of an Index of Key Words, Site Numbers, Counties, Ethnohistorical and Historical
sources, and Environmental Bibliographies.

Eastern Planning Region

This planning document for the Eastern Region contains three separate subregions –
Prairie-Savanna, Northeast Texas, and Southeast Texas (Figure 10). The planners realized that
these regions were based on data available at the time they were created, and that they may
not coincide exactly with cultural and geographical units as identified by other researchers (see
Perttula 2004:Table 1.1).

Figure 10. Subregions in the Eastern Planning Region.

45
Prairie-Savanna

This subregion consists of 26 counties that are bordered on the north by Oklahoma, on
the south by the Southeast Texas subregion, on the east by the Northeast Texas subregion,
and on the west by the Plains Planning Region. See Appendix VII for a list of counties in the
region. Per Daniel Prikryl (1993:191), “The prehistoric archeology of the Prairie-Savanna has
not received as much attention as many other regions of Texas.” He writes that this is
“unfortunate because many sites have been damaged or destroyed in past years, and threats
continue.” Prikryl (1993:191-204) presents an overview of the history and future of this region in
Chapter 3.1, “Introduction to Section III: Regional Preservation Plan for Archeological
Resources, Prairie-Savanna Archeological Region” (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993).

Southeast Texas

This subregion consists of 19 counties in the southeastern corner of the state. See
Appendix VII for a list of counties in the region. It is defined on the north by the Northeast Texas
and Prairie-Savanna subregions, on the south by the Mexican border, on the east by the Texas-
Louisiana border, and on the west by the Central and Southern Planning Region. This area is
approximately the same as defined by Patterson in his data base for the southeastern coastal
margin (1989a) and bibliography of the upper Texas coast (1989b). Perttula presents an
overview of the history and future of this region in Chapter 4.1, Introduction to Section IV:
Regional Preservation Plan for Archeological Resources, Southeast Texas Archeological
Region (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993:207-213). In 1965, all Southeast Texas could be
regarded as unknown archeologically (Shafer, personal communication). This statement was
based, in part, on his work in the San Jacinto River Basin in Montgomery County (Shafer 1968).
Moore (1989) compiled

Northeast Texas

This subregion consists of 31 counties in the northeastern corner of the state. See
Appendix VII for a list of counties in the Northeast Texas subregion. It is defined on the north by
the Red River, on the south by the Southeast Texas subregion, on the east by Louisiana, and
on the west by the Prairie-Savanna subregion. There is no separate chapter that discusses the
Northeast Texas subregion in this planning document.

46
 Central and Southern Planning Region

This planning document contains five separate subregions – Central Texas, Central
Coastal Plains, Lower Pecos, Southern Coastal Corridor, and Rio Grande Plains (Figure 11).
The goals of this planning document are the same as those for the previously published Eastern
Planning Region by Kenmotsu and Perttula (1993). The present document was intended to
represent the efforts of the THC to plan and conduct preservation efforts in the central and
southern portions of Texas. In the Introduction, Patricia A. Mercado-Allinger et al. (1996:3-27)
discusses the history of preservation in the state and the salient points of the Commission’s
efforts to protect archaeological resources and how they are to be implemented in such sections
as “Chronology of Preservation Planning in Texas,” “Implementation Procedures,” as well as
“The Physical Setting” of the region. Sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places are
named, and the geographical regions by county are provided. As stated above, one of the
persistent problems facing preservationists is the constant destruction of archaeological sites by
man and nature. Chapter 1.2 reviews the damage caused by these events and names the
regions that have been the most affected. Mercado-Allinger et al. (1996:44) writes that the data
presented in this document makes “… it possible to anticipate potential impacts to significant
archeological resources and to make informed management decisions about them.” Unlike the
planning document for the Eastern Planning Region by Kenmotsu and Perttula (1993), this
document lacks discussions of each subregion. Instead, all discussions tend to focus on the
entire region.

Central Coastal Plains

This subregion consists of ten counties. It is defined on the north by the Central Texas
subregion, on the south by the Southern Coastal Corridor subregion, on the east by the Eastern
Planning Region, and on the west by the Rio Grande Plains subregion. See Appendix VII for a
list of counties in the Central Coastal Plains subregion. No bibliography for this region has been
compiled by the THC.

47
 Figure 11. Subregions of the Central and Southern Planning Region.

Central Texas

This subregion consists of 34 counties in the center of the state as defined by Simons
and Moore (1997) in the Archeological Bibliography for the Central Region of Texas. See Appendix
VII for a list of counties in the Central Texas subregion. It is bordered on the north by the
unnamed portion of the Plains Planning Region, on the south by the Rio Grande Plains and the
Central Coastal Plains archeological subregions, on the east by the Prairie-Savanna subregion,
and on the west by the Lower Pecos subregion. Crockett County is one of the two counties that
make up the Lower Pecos subregion, but it also appears in the bibliography by Simons and
Moore (1997) as part of the Central Texas subregion. A larger contradiction is the presence of
an entire row of counties referred to in the planning document for the central and southern
regions as part of the Central Texas subregion, but they were omitted in the bibliography by
Simons and Moore (1997). These counties are (from west to east) Sterling, Coke, Runnels,
Coleman, Brown, Comanche, and Hamilton. In this monograph, these counties are part of the
Plains Planning Region that was not named. The assumption is the bibliography is more correct
since it was published after the planning document.

48
Lower Pecos

This subregion consists of two counties. It is defined on the north by the Plains Planning
Region, on the south by the border with Mexico, on the east by the Central and Southern
Planning Region, and on the west by the Trans-Pecos Planning Region. See Appendix VII for a
list of counties in the Lower Pecos subregion. No bibliography for this region has been compiled
by the THC.

Southern Coastal Corridor

This subregion consists of 15 counties along the central and lower coast of Texas. It is
defined on the north by the Central Coastal Plains subregion, on the south by the border with
Mexico, on the east by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the west by the Rio Grande Plains subregion.
See Appendix VII for a list of counties in the Southern Coastal Corridor subregion. Gail Bailey
(1987) compiled Archeological Bibliography for the Southern Coastal Corridor Region of Texas.

Rio Grande Plains

This region consists of 19 counties. It is defined on the north by the Central Texas
subregion; on the south by the border with Mexico; on the east by the Southern Coastal Corridor
and Central Coastal Plains subregions; and on the west by the border with Mexico. See
Appendix VII for a list of counties in the Rio Grande Plains subregion. This region has not been
published as part of the Planning Document series, and there are no current plans to do so
(Patricia A. Mercado-Allinger, personal communication 2018). No bibliography for this region
has been compiled by the THC.

Plains Planning Region

This planning document contains one defined subregion – Northern Panhandle

(Figure 12) and a large group of counties not included in the planning region at this time,
referred to here as an “Unnamed Region.” The area covered encompasses portions of the
Canadian River Basin and adjacent sections of the High Plains. Per Patricia Mercado-Allinger
(personal communication 2020), the Unnamed Region to the south is not likely to be published
in this series.

49
 Figure 12. Northern Panhandle and Unnamed Regions.

Northern Panhandle

This subregion consists of 20 counties in the northernmost part of Texas. It is defined on

the north and east by the border with Oklahoma, on the south by the Trans-Pecos and Central
and Southern subregions, and on the west by the border with New Mexico. See Appendix VII for
a list of counties in the Northern Panhandle subregion. Helen Simons (1988) compiled
Archeological Bibliography for the Northern Panhandle Region of Texas.

Unnamed Region

The 69 counties that comprise this subregion are bounded by the Northern Panhandle
subregion on the north, the Central and Southern Planning Region on the south, the Eastern
Planning Region on the east, and the Trans-Pecos. See Appendix VII for a list of counties in the
region.
Trans-Pecos Planning Region

This region consists of nine counties in far western Texas (see Figure 8). The
boundaries of this region are New Mexico to the north, Mexico to the south and west, and the
Plains and Central and Southern Planning Regions to the east. See Appendix VII for a list of
counties in the Trans-Pecos Planning Region.

50
 Chapter 5: Relevant Literature
Updates on the status of the various archaeological regions in Texas appear periodically
in the literature. Obviously, the counties defined in these regions don’t match exactly with those
established by the THC for planning purposes. These reports are not about projectile point
typology, but many discuss types of points associated with each region. Cyrus N. Ray was
President of the newly organized Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society that
published its initial Bulletin in 1929. His article titled “A Differentiation of the Prehistoric Cultures
of the Abilene Section” discussed the Sand Dune Culture and the Culture of the Bifurcated Base
(Ray 1929:7-22). Although he refers to this region solely as “…near Abilene, Texas,” this article
exemplifies an early attempt at discussing a broad area.
The first statewide overview was the highly acclaimed Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society (Volume 25) that was published in 1954 and authored by Dee Ann Suhm
and Alex D. Krieger with a contribution by Edward B. Jelks. The areas discussed are Trans-
Pecos, Panhandle-Plains, North-Central Texas, Central Texas, Coastal Texas, Southwest
Texas, and East Texas. This extremely popular volume was out of print in 1956, and there were
numerous requests for a reprint.
In the Foreword to Volume 29 of the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
(published in 1960 for 1958), Edward B. Jelks, E. Mott Davis, and Henry F. Sturgis discuss the
sequence of events that transpired following the issuance of the 1954 bulletin. “A word of
explanation is in order for the many members of the Society who have long awaited the 1958
issue of the Bulletin, published here two years late, and who have anticipated eagerly the
reissuing of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology, by Suhm, Krieger, and Jelks,
which was published in 1954 as Volume 25 of the Bulletin and which has been out of print for
several years. It was originally planned that the Handbook would be reissued in essentially its
original form, and that in addition a series of papers on special problems in the different parts of
Texas would be published. Also, a volume on field techniques was to be prepared. Most of
these plans went awry because of pressure on the editors’ time and slowness on the part of the
authors submitting manuscripts, and therefore a different order of events is now contemplated.
“The first part of the Handbook – the part dealing with areas and complexes – is not to be
reissued, its place is to be taken in part by A Review of Texas Archeology, of which the present
volume is the first part.” It contained the following articles:

51
 Indian Tribes of Texas by W. W. Newcomb, Jr.
A Review of Northeast Texas Archeology by Clarence H. Webb
A Review of Central Texas Archeology by Dee Ann Suhm
A Review of Trans-Pecos Texas Archeology by Donald J. Lehmer
Archeology of the Central and Southern Sections of the Texas Coast by T. N. Campbell
Texas Archeology: A Guide to the Literature by T. N. Campbell

Part II, the discussion of projectile points and ceramics was finally issued in 1962 as a
special publication by the Society and the Texas Memorial Museum and titled Handbook of
Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions (Suhm and Jelks 1962).

LeRoy Johnson’s (1967) study titled “Toward a Statistical Overview of the Archaic
Cultures of Central and Southwestern Texas” appeared as Bulletin 12 of the Texas Memorial
Museum. His approach was to compare total lithic collections from nine Texas sites by a
“simple form of cluster analysis with ordered matrix.” In the Abstract he discusses his methods.
“Lithic artifacts from site columns are isolated into collectives representing given intervals of
time, described typologically, and compared quantitatively to produce Robinson (1951) indexes
of agreement. These indexes are grouped into clusters by matrix analysis, to reveal spatial
temporal patterns of uniformity amenable to cultural and ecological interpretations.” He
concluded that “ … the desert area of southwestern Texas is more stable, archeologically, from
one period to another than the semi-wooded area of central Texas and that the two areas stand
apart as separate archeological provinces throughout much of their history.” Most the focus of
his research is the Texas Archaic, arrow points Bonham, Livermore, Perdiz, and Scallorn were
included in this study. His Figure 2 depicts outlines of points he refers to as period markers.
In 1975, the Division of Natural Resources and Environment divided the state into eight
natural areas that were “scientifically and historically surveyed, mapped and photographed.” A
field team of geologists, archaeologists, botanists, zoologists, cartographers, photographers,
historians, and landmen were assembled for this enormous task. These areas are as follows:

Capote Falls, Part I; Matagorda Island, Part II; Mount Livermore-Sawtooth Mountain, Part III;
Victoria Canyon, Part IV; Mount Livermore-Sawtooth Mountain, a supplement to Part III; Blue
Elbow Swamp, Part V; No mention of a Part VI; Devil’s Sinkhole, Part VII; and Devil’s River,
Part VIII.

52
 Thomas R. Hester is one of the more prolific publishers of information regarding Texas
archaeology. In 1980, he published Digging into South Texas Prehistory: A Guide for Amateur
Archaeologists, a most useful book that includes chapters titled “Archaeological Field Methods,”
“Cultural and Environmental Setting of South Texas,” “Historic Indians of South Texas,”
“Prehistoric Sites in South Texas,” “Major Artifact Types of South Texas,” “11,000 Years of
South Texas Prehistory,” and “Preserving South Texas Prehistory.” He also played a major role
in the creation of the journal La Tierra published by the Southeast Texas Archaeological
Association beginning with the first issue appearing in 1971. Several volumes were published
each year with four being the standard.
Lawrence E. Aten published his critically acclaimed study titled Indians of the Upper
Texas Coast in 1983 that was an outgrowth of his PhD dissertation (Aten 1979). His research
focused on a wide swath along the Texas coast from the Louisiana border to the Guadalupe
River northeast of Goliad, Texas. In his Preface he writes that this book is “pertinent to scholars
interested in the Archaeology of Texas, of the Southeastern United States, and of coastal zones
in General.”
Daniel E. Fox is a noted Texas historical archaeologist. His very well researched book
Traces of Texas History: Archeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years was published in 1983.
It is still regarded as a major source for information regarding the colonization and future
development of Texas. Of importance here, is the fact that he discusses the archaeological
investigations at missions in Texas. This information provides insight into the lives of the
Indians that inhabited the missions who made arrow points of stone, metal, and glass.
The utility of computers to document records became realized in the late 1970s, and
their role today is mandatory if the vast cultural resources of Texas are to be made available for
research. The first systematic computerization of the prehistoric record in Texas appeared in
1984 in Prehistoric Archeological Sites in Texas: A Statistical Overview (Biesaart et al. 1985). It
quickly became a popular research tool, but it went out of print shortly after it was issued.
The Department of Antiquities Protection, Texas Historical Commission, published
several major documents dividing the state into four planning regions, but only two were
published, Overviews of the Eastern Planning Region (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993) and the
Central and Southern Planning Region (Mercado-Allinger, et al. 1996). These are discussed in
Chapter 4. This agency also published Volume 1 of Advances in Texas Archeology:
Contributions from Cultural Resource Managementin 1995 (James E. Bruseth and Timothy K.
Perttula editors). Albeit not a source that focuses on artifact typology, it is a valuable
companion source as it’s more than simple reportage.

53
 Most pertinent to this work is inclusive statements about associated artifacts to include
types and age. It provides detailed information on work (as of 1995) under the following titles:

• Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations along Richland. Creek, North-Central Texas

(James E. Bruseth, Daniel R. McGregor, and William A. Martin)

• Cultural and Paleoenvironmental Successions Revealed by the Hog Creek

Archeological Investigations, Central Texas (Donald O. Henry)

• Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Strategies in the Oak Woodlands of East-Central

Texas (Ross C. Fields)

• Early Ceramic Settlement in Northeast Texas: Archeological Investigations of the

Hurricane Hill Site (41HP206), Cooper Lake (Timothy K. Perttula)

• The Early Archaic Structure at the Turkey Bend Ranch Site (41CC112), Concho
County (Christopher Lintz, Abby Treece, and Fred Oglesby)

• Lithic Resource Availability in the Upper Trinity Region: The Evidence from Joe
Pool Lake (Daniel E. McGregor)

• Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies in North-Central Texas: Evidence from Joe

Pool Lake and Richland/Chambers Reservoir (William A. Martin).

The Texas Archeological Society published Bulletin 66 in 1995 that focused on the
current knowledge of the prehistory and early history of the state.

Part I contained “The Present and Future of Texas Archeology: An Introduction to the
1995 BTAS” by Timothy K. Perttula; “(Texas) Archeology” by Stephen L. Black; Paleoindians of
Texas: An Update on the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey” by David L. Meltzer and Michael R.
Bever; “Distributions of Typed Points in Texas” by Elton R. Prewitt; and “Prehistoric and Historic
Aboriginal Ceramics in Texas” by Timothy K. Perttula, Myles R. Miller, Robert R. Ricklis, Daniel
J. Prikryl, and Christopher Lintz.

Part II contained “The Archeology of Southeast Texas” by Leland Patterson; “Occupation

of the Central and Lower Texas Coast” by Robert A. Ricklis; “The Archeology of the Post Oak
Savannah of East Central Texas” by Ross C. Fields; “The Archeology of the Piney Woods and
Post Oak Savannah of Northeast Texas” by Timothy K. Perttula; “Forty Years of Archeology in
Central Texas” by Michael B. Collins; “Implications of Biological Diversity in the Central Texas
Environmental Region” by Linda Wootan Ellis, G. Lain Ellis, and Charles D. Frederick; “The
Prehistory of South Texas” by Thomas R. Hester; “The Palo Duro Complex; Redefining the
Early Ceramic Period in the Caprock Canyonlands” by Douglas K. Boyd; “Archeology and Late
Quaternary Environments of the Southern High Plains” by Eileen Johnson and Vance T.
Holliday; and “The Lower Pecos Region of Texas and Northern Mexico” by Solveig A. Turpin.

54
 The same year, avocational archaeologist Dan R. Davis Jr.’s book Prehistoric Artifacts of
the Texas Indians: An Identification and Reference Guide was published by the Pecos Publishing
Company in Fort Sumner, New Mexico. His work was a compilation of data from other sources.
The points are illustrated by photographs accompanied by a scale. No dimensions are given.

Timothy K. Perttula (2004) edited a major work titled The Prehistory of Texas. Some of
the chapters in this volume were updated as more comprehensive/expanded versions of papers
that had originally been published as Bulletin 66 by the Texas Archeological Society in 1995.

Part I is titled Texas Prehistory. Chapter 1, “An Introduction to Texas Prehistory,” was
authored by Perttula and Chapter 2, “Paleoindian Archeology in Texas,” was authored by
C. Britt Bousman, Barry W. Baker, and Anne C. Kerr.

Part II is titled The Hunter-Gatherers of the Central and Southern Texas Prairies and
Plains. Chapter 3, “Archeology in Central Texas,” was authored by Michael B. Collins, and
Chapter 4, “The Prehistory of South Texas,” was authored by Thomas R. Hester.

Part III is titled Coastal Groups. Chapter 5, “Prehistoric Occupations of the Central and
Lower Texas Coast,” was authored by Robert A. Ricklis, and Chapter 6, “The Archeology of the
Native American Occupation of Southeast Texas,” was authored by Robert A. Ricklis.

Part IV is titled The Desert Archeology of Western Texas. Chapter 7, “Prehistory of the
Jornada Mogollon and Eastern Trans-Pecos Regions of West Texas” was authored by Myles R.
Miller and Nancy A. Kenmotsu. Chapter 8, “ was authored by Solveig A. Turpin.

Part V is titled The Hunters and Farmers of the High Plains and Canyonlands.
Chapter 9, “Archeology and Late Quaternary Environments of the Southern High Plains” was
authored by Eileen Johnson and Vance T. Holliday, Chapter 10, “The Palo Duro Complex,” was
authored by Douglas K. Boyd, and Chapter 11, “From Stone Slab Architecture to
Abandonment,” was authored by Robert L. Brooks.

Part VI is titled Hunter-Gatherer and Farming Groups in the Post Oak Savanna, Tall
Grass Prairies, and Pineywoods of Eastern and Northern Texas. Chapter 12, “The Archeology
of the Post Oak Savanna of East-Central Texas,” was authored by Ross C. Fields and Chapter
13, “The Prehistoric and Caddoan Archeology of the Northeastern Texas Pineywoods,” was
authored by Timothy K. Perttula.

55
 In 2015, Texas A&M University Press published Pioneering Archaeology in the Texas
Coastal Bend: The Pape-Tunnell Collection by John W. Tunnell, Jr. and Jace W. Tunnell. It is a
most valuable resource that documents the field work and collections by two avocational
archaeologists, John W. Tunnell and Harold Pape on the Texas coast in Aransas, Kleberg,
Nueces, Refugio, and San Patrice counties in the 1920s and 1930s. Not only did they amass a
huge collection of prehistoric artifacts, but they also kept detailed records of their finds. The
artifacts, notes, and maps were stored in boxes where they had been forgotten until the 1990s
when they were discovered by members of the family. John W. Tunnell, Jr. and Jace W. Tunnel
collaborated to organize the collection and notes that were eventually published in 2015. The
contribution that can be made by avocational archaeologists is evident in this book. At the time
of their explorations, the archaeology of Texas was in its infancy, and few sites were being
investigated by professional archaeologists. Consequently, the Pape-Tunnell collection
represents a huge amount of archaeological data that would be literally impossible to replicate
today. One of their most prolific areas, Webb Island in San Pedro Bay, no longer exists. Other
sites have been lost to erosion and development. Many of their sites are Late Prehistoric, and
photos of arrow points from the coastal area of Texas are abundant. Much of this collection was
donated to TARL where it is housed as the Pape-Tunnel Collection. Thomas R. Hester praised
the Tunnells for the efforts they spent documenting their collection. Other efforts to analyze
private collections include the following. Mary Jo Galindo (1988) analyzed the Riley Point
Collection from Mier, Tamaulipas. Her results can be found in an unpublished manuscript on
file at TARL. Kindall and Patterson (1986) examined Andy Kyle’s collection that includes Alba,
Bonham, Catahoula, Friley, Perdiz, and Scallorn arrow points.
“E. Mott Davis is respected by his professional peers and revered by a vast legion of
volunteer and professional archeologists in Texas. (Curtis Tunnell 1998)”. The Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory published a collection of his writings titled Chapters in the
History of Texas Archeology: Selected Papers by E. Mott Davis. The contents are “Archeology
and Anthropology,” Effect of Pioneers on Regional Archaeology: The Texas Example,” “The
First Quarter Century of the Texas Archeological Society,” “A Personal Journal of an
Archeological Survey of Diablo Reservoir by Boat, March 1958,” and “References Relevant to a
History of Texas Archeology.” Gail L. Bailey authored the final chapter “Spadework for History:
A Film Series Directed by E. Mott Davis.”

56
 Chapter 6: Final Thoughts
The Late Prehistoric and early Historic periods are well represented in Texas in terms of
arrow point types. Numerous types have been identified, while others remain questionable.
Overlapping shapes are interpreted as variations of a known type or a type yet to be identified.
Types of materials available are also abundant and, in some cases, widespread across the
state. Within these materials is a variability in quality that affects the appearance of the finished
product. A point that may be defined as crudely made should not be considered to have been
knapped by someone with poor skills as some archaeologists have posited. Factors such as
type of raw material and expediency may have been the main contributors. Valid conclusions
drawn from the examination of arrow points are based on empirical data and not speculation
and untested hypotheses. Diaries of early explorers have provided a wealth of information about
the lifeways of the indigenous peoples of Texas, but they offer little insight to arrow point
production. Artificial boundaries have no meaning in terms of the separation of different groups
and their material culture. Arrow points such as Catahoula were first identified in Louisiana, and
they are a common type in much of East Texas. Arrow points found in Texas and adjacent
states are listed in Appendix IV. Although it is true that large numbers of artifacts are removed
legally from private property and illegally from public lands by persons interested solely in the
collection of specimens for their personal collections, not all collecting is as detrimental as
claimed by professionals. Of course, the preference among the archaeological community is for
no sites to be collected from by anyone save professionals. However, the reality is that there is
a divide between professionals and some collectors regarding the right to collect. Many
archaeological sites are on private land where collecting is legal, and it is unlikely that
archaeologists will ever have a reason or permission to visit these sites. Therefore, cooperation
with collectors can be very productive, especially those who can identify the source of their
collections and are willing to share information. Albeit artifacts found on the surface of a plowed
field or otherwise disturbed sites yield less data than those collected under controlled
conditions, they still provide useful information in terms of site location, material used, types
present, and associated artifacts and features. Archaeological sites are rapidly disappearing
due to vandalism, erosion, and development. Consequently, pristine sites are rare.

57
 The intended audience for this book is professional archaeologists and non-
professionals such as avocational archaeologists as well as persons with an interest in learning
more about the types of arrow points found in Texas. There are numerous sources that provide
lists of archaeological terms and their definitions. In Texas, there are archaeological societies at
the local, regional, and state level. These groups are open to membership of persons interested
in learning about their collections and have a desire to educate themselves about Texas
prehistory. Regular meetings and supervised field trips provide members with opportunities to
learn how to properly collect and document their finds.
The Boy Scouts of America has a long tradition of interest in Indian lore and many
present-day archeologists got their start in this manner. In the formative years of the Boy
Scouts, the interest in Indian lore unfortunately resulted in instances of indiscriminate collecting,
resulting in the destruction of numerous sites throughout the country. This phenomenon was
discussed by the renown Texas archaeologist J. E. Pearce (1936:46). “All over the country,
archeologists are having trouble with Boy Scouts whose surplus time and energies have been
mis-directed by ill-informed leaders into making ‘Indian Collections.’ Once they get started at
this, they often become more destructive than all other agencies combined.” S. Alan Skinner is
a well-known Texas archaeologist who was acutely aware of these practices. To educate our
youth on the importance of the documentation and preservation of archaeological sites, he
developed the archaeology merit badge for the Boy Scouts of America to educate our youth on
the importance of the documentation and preservation of archaeological sites.
To be fair, many archeologists (including me) had personal collections of Indian artifacts
during their younger days. The artifacts I collected were never mixed, and I kept records of site
locations and obtained site numbers, when possible, from TARL. Later, I documented much of
my work as articles in professional journals. My professional career spanned more than 40
years. Hopefully, this treatise will be of some benefit to those who follow after me.

58
 Chapter 7: Arrow Points

Agee

Original Recorder: W. Raymond Wood (1963) defined this arrow point based on examples
found at the Crenshaw site in Miller County, Arkansas (Figure 13). He named it for W. P. Agee,
Jr. who identified this point in 1906.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Alba, Catahoula, Homan, and Rockwall (Duncan et al. 2007:3).

Age: Davis (1995) offers an approximate time frame for the use of this point as A.D. 700 to A.D.
1300.

Description: Duncan et al. (2007:3) cites Wood (1963), White et al. (1963), and Perino (1968:4)
in his physical description of Agee. This type has a convex base with fairly deep U- and V-
shaped corner notches. The blade shape is referred to as excurvate/incurvate. Notches on the
blade are a prominent feature and occur at an angle of 45 degrees. Some specimens have two
sets of notches. The barbs are pointed or flat-ended, depending on the orientation of the
notches. These points were manufactured by carefully controlled pressure flaking. The edges
were trimmed by minute flaking, and some points are serrated. At the Crenshaw site, the length
varied from 3.5 cm to 5.5 cm. The width varied from 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm, and the maximum
thickness was 0.25 cm. This type is not discussed by Suhm and Jelks (1962) or Turner et al.
(2011).

Cultural Affiliation: Wood (1963) associates Agee with the Coles Creek culture (primarily as
grave goods) and with the Caddo. James Brown (1996) believes it is associated with the Early
Caddoan period in Oklahoma.

Distribution: Gregory Perino (1968:4) writes that it is primarily found in southwest Arkansas,
but specimens have been reported in northwestern Louisiana, northeastern Texas, and
southeastern Oklahoma.

59
Known Sites: Sam C. Johnson (personal communication, April 29, 2022) says that the main
source for Agee points is Crenshaw Mounds (3-MI-0006) in Miller County, the Bowman site (3
LR 00046) in Little River County, and the Kidd site in Pike County (Figure 14). Specimen “a” is
made from novaculite. Examples have been documented at 3-CN-000117 in Calhoun County
Arkansas and Spiro Mounds (34LF40) in eastern Oklahoma.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Brown (1976), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007)
Perino (1968, 1985, 1991), and Wood (1963).

Comments: Davis (1995) states that Agee may have been a ceremonial point because it has
been found in caches associated with burials. He also believes that Agee and Homan points
may be part of a continuum since they are very similar in general appearance. Lemley (1936)
discusses the Crenshaw Mounds in Arkansas as a pre-Caddo culture. Perino (1991) refers to
his illustrations of Agee points as variants used for special occasions. The excellent
workmanship, length of some specimens, extreme thinness of this type, and association with
burials suggests to me that their function may have been other than as an actual projectile.

James A. Brown (1976) refers to “Specimen E” in Perino’s (1991) figure as a socio-technic point
of the Spiro Phase and earlier. He describes the rest of the specimens as socio-technic points
of the late Coles Creek culture that were intended as non-utilitarian ceremonial objects.

According to Duncan et al. (2007:4), the distinctions between Agee and other types “… appear
to relate to barb length, flaking, size, and width.”

Duncan et al. (2007:3) reports the dimensions of Agee points at the Crenshaw site as follows.

Length: 3.5 cm to 5.5 cm

Maximum width: 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm
Maximum thickness: .25 cm

Crenshaw is the type site. Duncan et al. (2007:5-7) illustrate 32 Agee points from this site.

60
 Ahumada

Original Recorder: Milton F. Krone (1976) named it for the nearby town of
Villa Ahumada in Chihuahua, Mexico.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Livermore, Maljamar, Pendejo, and Van Horn.

Age: A.D. 750 to A.D. 900 (Krone 1976).

Description: Krone (1976:42) describes this type (Figure 15) as a medium-sized arrow point
with a narrow triangular blade, short protruding barbs, and a bulbous stem. The blades are
always serrated. Krone does not provide dimensions.

The following dimensions are taken from

[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 55 mm (average 30 mm to 35 mm)

Stem length: 6 mm to 10 mm
Blade width: 15 mm to 25 mm (average 21 mm)
Stem width at shoulders: 7 mm to 11 mm
Basal width: 9 mm to 16 mm
Thickness: 5 mm to 9 mm

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: The geographical center of this type is near the town of Villa Ahumada in Mexico
(Krone 1976), but it has also been encountered in Culberson and Hudspeth counties in the
Trans-Pecos Region of Texas (Prewitt 1995). Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018)
says this type is frequently found in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend region.

Known Sites: In Mexico, this type has been reported at Villa Ahumada, Rio Santa Maria, and
Soto Ranch.

61
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Krone (1976).

Comments: Krone (1976:42) found this point on hunter-gatherer complex sites scattered
throughout areas where water was available, and centered in northern Chihuahua, Mexico. He
describes these sites as ranging from small single-fire hearths to large scatters of lithic debris
that continue for miles along arroyos and rivers. These sites contain little or no pottery.

According to Krone (1976), Alan L. Phelps (1966) offered the best relative estimate of the age of
this type based on cruciform artifacts he found at sites like those where Ahumada points occur.
His dates for the Cruciform type are based on pottery analysis, with the Ahumada point being
associated with the pre-pottery phase of the culture.

The Maljamar point is also similar in form to Ahumada, but it is mainly found at sites in southern
New Mexico and the adjacent panhandle of Texas to both the south and east. Andy Cloud
(personal communication, 2018) observed that the term Ahumada is not used by most
archaeologists in the El Paso area. Cloud refers to the Van Horn arrow point as the correct
name for this type, but I have not yet found any reference to this type or any citation regarding
dimensions.

62
 Alazán

Original Recorder: This arrow point was first recognized by John A. (Jack) Hedrick of the El
Paso Archaeological Society during surveys of the Van Horn Plateau area in the 1970s and
1980s. Hedrick (1975) published the initial descriptions of this point in The Artifact, but it was
never given an official name. He later discussed it in a publication describing five arrow point
types from the Plateau Complex (Hedrick 1986). Robert J. Mallouf formally named this point for
specimens found in the Alazán Hills of southeastern Presidio County, Texas. He published
information related to Alazán in 1985, 2009, 2012, and 2013. The following discussions were
taken from his 2012 article in La Tierra.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Cuney, Livermore, and Scallorn.

Age: Hedrick (1986) does not attempt to place this arrow point style chronologically, other than
noting its repeated occurrence in surface contexts with Late Prehistoric types Perdiz, Scallorn,
and Toyah. A specimen that is very similar to this type found at 41PS915 was dated at A.D.
1130 to A.D. 1380 (Seebach 2007).

The presence of Alazán arrow points (Figure 16) with Livermore, Toyah, and other types in the
John Z. and Exa Means Cache in the Y-6 Hills near Lobo Valley (Culberson County) implies a
possible age range of from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1350 (Mallouf 1985a, 2012:16).

Recent radiocarbon assays of cultural features at sites in the Big Bend region appear to narrow
the chronological range for Alazán arrow points (through association with Toyah points) to circa
A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1350 or somewhat later (Corrick 2000; Cloud et al. 1994; Cloud and Piehl
2008).

Description: Mallouf (2012:14) describes this type as possessing triangular blades. “The lateral
edges are usually straight but may be slightly concave to slightly convex or sometimes slightly
recurved. The blades range in size from wide to narrow, and the lateral edges are frequently
serrated. Refurbishing of blades was a common practice. Sometimes, the distal tips were
beveled, giving them a needle-like appearance.

63
The barbs may project out at right angles to the long axis of the point or slope downward.
Occasionally, they flare outward. Stem necks vary from narrow to wide and are typically short
and small relative to the overall size of the point. They may be parallel sided to moderately
expanding with a concave or ‘fish tail’ base. Finally, they are lenticular to plano-convex in cross-
section.” Mallouf (2012:15) provided the following measurements for Alazán points.

Range of maximum length: 17.7 cm to 31.7 cm

Mean length: 22.3 cm
Range of maximum width: 8.1 cm to 21.5 cm
Mean width: 15.3 cm
Range of maximum neck width: 4,5 cm. to 8.3 cm
Mean neck width: 5.9 cm
Range of maximum thickness: 2.1 cm. to 4.3 cm
Mean thickness: 2.9 cm

Cultural Affiliation: The association of Alazán arrow points with Livermore and Toyah from the
John Z. and Exa Means Cache is suggestive, but not conclusive, of affinities with the Livermore
Phase of the eastern Trans-Pecos Region. As noted above, Alazán points have been recovered
from most, if not all areas of the eastern Trans-Pecos and from a wide variety of contexts.
However, additional research is necessary to confidently assign cultural affinities to this point
type (Mallouf 1985a, 2012:13).

Distribution: Based on archaeological surveys and private collections, this type is frequently
found in the eastern and Big Bend areas of the Trans-Pecos Region. Mallouf (2012:15) states
that it is, “… known to occur in the Terlingua Creek, Bear Creek, Mountains, Big Canyon,
Chisos Mountains, Maravillas Creek, and Persimmon Gap areas of the Big Bend Proper.” He
writes that they “appear to have an increasing frequency to the north, being known from the
Davis Mountains, Y-6 Hills, Lobo Valley, and Plateau areas.” Specimens have also been
reported from sites in the Guadalupe Mountains, Deleware Mountains, and Salt Basin areas.

Known Sites: John Z. and Exa Means Projectile Point Cache (41JD212), Roark Cave (41BS3),
Tres Metates Rockshelter (41PS915), 41BS466, 41BS522, 41CU658, and private collections.
Turner et al. (2011) report that this type has been found at sites in the salt flats and Rosillos
Mountains.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Hedrick (1975, 1986), Ing et al. (1996), Katz and
Lukowski (1981), Mallouf (1985, 2009, 2012, 2013), Mallouf and Wulfkuhle (1989), Marmaduke
(1978), Ricklis and Collins (1994:45), Roney (1995), Turner et al. (2011),and Turpin (1998).

Comments: Data recovery since the middle of the 1980s supports Hedrick’s original contention
that this point style is distinctive and in need of further research (Mallouf 2012).

Robert J. Mallouf’s (2009, 2012, 2013) classification of projectile points in the Eastern Trans-
Pecos and Big Bend Region of Texas is the most recent and comprehensive discussion of this
type. The artifacts illustrated above were taken from Alazán: An Arrow Point Type from the
Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region of Texas (Mallouf 2009).
Mallouf (2012:16) notes that “Leslie (1978) does not include this arrow point style in his typology
of the Mescalero Escarpment area of New Mexico.”

64
Hedrick (1986:15) refers to the geographical distribution of this type as the Plateau Complex in
southern Culberson County. The sites in this area are found in “hard-packed sand and dune
sand areas parallel to intermittent water courses of Plateau and Sacaton Draws in the northern
part of the complex and China and Michigan Draws in the southern part of the complex. These
draws flow to the north and northwest and empty into the southern end of Wild Horse Basin.”

Brockmoller (1987) Identified and classified projectile points from the Plateau Complex in The
Artifact.

65
 Alba

Original Recorder: Alex D. Krieger (1946) named this point for the town of Alba in Wood
County where the first specimens were found. The initial description was based on examples
found at the M. D. Harrell site (41YN1) in Young County.

Other Names: Alba Barbed (Krieger 1946; Newell and Krieger 1949). Suhm and Krieger (1954)
shortened the name to Alba and described it in more detail (Figure 17). The Alba point
illustrated above was found at 41SJ13 in San Jacinto County by the author.

Similar Types: Bonham (Shafer 2006); Colbert, Hayes, and Homan (Duncan et al. 2007).

Age: Crook and Hughston (2015b:34-35) were able to get radiometric data from a femur at the
Lower Rockwall site (41RW1). The results were reported as 1240 ± 30 B.P., with a 1 Sigma
Calibration date range of A.D. 715 to A.D. 775, and a 2 Sigma Calibration of A.D. 680 to A.D.
880. Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate the age of this point at about A.D. 2000 to A.D. 1200 or
later. Turner et al. (2011) date it to sometime between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1200. Alba points
were common in Coles Creek, Plaquemine, and early Caddoan cultures around A.D. 500 to
A.D. 700 (Webb 2000). Crook (2017) dates this type to the Wylie Phase, circa A.D. 700 or A.D.
800 to A.D. 1250.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:494) describe Alba as a “triangular point with lateral
edges that are usually concave or recurved but seldom straight. Sometimes the edges are finely
serrated. The shoulders are wide, ‘outflaring’ and usually barbed. The edges of the stems are
usually parallel, but occasionally they are contracted or slightly expanded.” Stems can be
straight or bulbous (Figure 18). Some specimens were made from flakes.

Suhm and Krieger (1954:494) provide the following measurements for Alba points:

Length:1.8 to 3.5 cm
Maximum width: uniform at about 1.5 cm
Average stem length: 0.7 cm or one-fourth to one-fifth of the total point.

66
Webb (2000:14) presents the following average measurements from a sample of 82 specimens
in Louisiana.

Length – 32 mm
Width – 18.35 mm
Weight – 1.06 grams
Stem – about ¼ of total length

Cultural Affiliation: Webb (1959:162) cites Webb and Dobb (1939) and
Newell and Krieger (1949) when stating, “This is the typical resident small point of Alto and
Gahagan foci of the Gibson Aspect.” Ford (1951) found Alba points in Louisiana at sites
described as Haley- and Spiro-era. He also cites Alba as a less common type in Coles Creek-
and Plaquemine-era sites in central Louisiana. Crook (2017:53) places it in the Wylie Phase.

Distribution: East Texas and adjacent parts of Louisiana (Suhm and Krieger 1954); According
to Davis (1995), this type is primarily found in eastern and northeastern Texas. Although
specimens have been found in other areas of the state, but in fewer numbers such as a lone
specimen from the Kyle site (41HI1), a rockshelter in Hill County. Examples from Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma have also been reported (Duncan et al. 2007:9). Webb (2000:14)
writes that this type has been found “as far north as the Cahokia site (11-MS-2) in East St.
Louis, Illinois probably as trade items.”

Turner et al. (2011) cite its distribution as eastern and central Texas, the coastal plain, and
Louisiana. Aten (1983) reports Alba points in the area he refers to as the Upper Texas Coast.

Known Sites: Examples in Texas have been found at M. D. Harrell (41YN1), George C. Davis
(41CE13), Pecan Springs (41EL11), A. C. Mackin (41LR39), the Reese site (41WA55), J. B.
White (41MM341), Bentsen-Clark (41RR41), the Kyle site (41HI1), Lower Rockwall (41RW1),
Trammell Crow Pond (41WD185), Tankersley Creek (41TT108), 41CX5, 41DL148, 41DL149,
41DL406, 41SJ13, 41HR279, and sites in the Cedar Creek Reservoir (Henderson and Kaufman
counties) (Story 1965).

In Louisiana, Alba points have been reported at Belcher Mound (16CD13) in Caddo Parish. In
Oklahoma, examples have been reported at Spiro mounds (34LF40) and Craig Mound
(34LF46).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Aten (1983), Banks and Winters (1975), Bell
(1958), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Fields (1988a, 2004), Gadus et al. (2006), Jelks
(1962, 1993), Krieger (1946), Moore (1976), Newell and Krieger (1949), Perino (1985), Shafer
(1973), Sorrow (1966), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Turner and Hester
(1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Webb (1959, 2000), Young (1981b), Perttula et al.
(1986), Story (1981).and Crook (2009b, 2011).

Comments: Harry J. Shafer (2006) proposed a Bonham-Alba classification that encompasses

specimens dating around A.D. 100 from central Texas into eastern Texas. In his dissertation
titled Lithic Technology at the George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas, Shafer (1973)
describes and illustrates a “very compact cluster” of 150 Alba points that are very similar
morphologically and were likely stored in a basket-like container of wood or cane. These
specimens were made of non-local chert. Alba points were the predominant type at the Davis
site.

67
Alba points made from novaculite were found at the Bentsen-Clark site (41RR41) (Banks and
Winters 1975). One example from 41WD185 was made from Ogallala chert (Perttula et al.
1986:544).

Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Alba points and other Late Prehistoric
types from a sample of 750 specimens.

Joe Ben Wheat (1953:Plate 53) illustrates points that he describes as Alba. Some specimens
are clearly Catahoula, a type that was not recognized until 1956.

Webb (2000:14) states that ¾ of Alba points in found in Louisiana are “made of local pebble
cherts or quartzites in tan, gray, brown, black, and red colors. Most of the others are made of
novaculite and quartzite from the Ouachita or Kiamichi Mountains. Occasionally, specimens are
made of gray chert.

Two arrow points were found near the skeletal remains of Bison bison in Navarro County
(41NV670). One has a bulbar stem and closely resembles the Alba type. The other is missing
the stem and was not typed (Moore et al. 1997:Figure 9).

Figure 19. Arrow Points from 41NV670.

At the Gilkey Hill Site (41KF/41DL406), the Alba type is the most common. A total of 189 arrow
points were recovered with 77 specimens classified as Alba. Eighteen were made of chert, and
59 were fashioned from quartzite (Crook 2011:Table 1).

Alba-like points made of obsidian have been reported in Collin County at the Upper Farmersville
site (41COL34), the Branch site (41COL9), and the Branch #2 site
(Crook 2013:Table 1). X-Ray Florescence Analysis revealed the probable source of the Alba
points from 41COL9 is Browns Bench (Idaho-Nevada-Utah) and Massacre Lake/Guano Valley
in Oregon (Crook 2016:27). Crook (2016) presents a thorough discussion of the methods used
to determine the source of obsidian for these points and other relevant data regarding obsidian.

One Alba point made from Manning Fused Glass was recovered from the George C. Davis site
(Baskin 1981, Brown 1976).

68
Baskin (1981:264) divides Alba points from the George C. Davis site into the following
categories: Contracting Stem Edge Group, Form 1 (concave base); Contracting Stem Edge
Group, Form 2 (convex base); Contracting Stem Edge Group, Form 4 (platform base); and
Parallel Stem Edge Group, Form 1 (convex base). Examples of these forms are illustrated in
his Figure 32.

Newell and Krieger (1949:161) refer to Alba Barbed as the only “resident type in the arrow
category” at the George C. Davis site. Six of the 174 specimens are certainly from Phase I
(Table 18). “This is enough to prove, however, that Alba Barbed points (and by inference, the
bow and arow) were first in use before the mound was erected. In fact, the occurrence of these
small points in Features 30, 31, and 45 (Table 16) shows the type present beneath the initial
four ‘small mounds.’ This also means they were adopted before ‘dart points,’ and sandy pottery
were abandoned.”

69
 Anagua

Original Recorder: Unknown

Other Names: None reported

Similar Types: Scallorn

Age: Anagua (Figure 20) is a Late Prehistoric type that Turner et al. (2011) say is possibly
contemporaneous with Scallorn.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:178) describe this type as a slender, triangular, corner-notched
point. “The edges are straight or lateral and sometimes slightly convex, culminating in prominent
barbs. The lateral edges are well-flaked, serrated, and/or notched. The bases are deeply
concave, and the cross-section is lenticular.” The following dimensions were taken from the
following website on the Internet:
[Link]

The authors state that these dimensions are based on a small sample size.

Total length: 30 mm to 45 mm
Stem length: 4 mm to 7 mm
Blade width: 7 mm to 12 mm
Neck width: 4 mm to 6 mm
Basal width: 8 mm to 11 mm

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Turner et al. (2011) write that this type is common to the lower Guadalupe River
drainage system within the Southern Coastal Corridor Archeological Region.

70
Known Sites: In Victoria County, Anagua points have been reported at sites 41VT3, 41VT9,
41VT12, 41VT34, 41VT69, 41VT81, and 41VT98. In Refugio County, they have been found at
sites 41RF10 and 41RF11.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Examples of this type are housed at the Museum of the Coastal Bend at Victoria
College in Victoria, Texas. They are part of the Birmingham, Bluhm, Branch, and Vogt
collections. Anagua points are often found in association with ceramics, Scallorn and Perdiz
points.

71
 Bassett

Original Recorder: This type was named and described by Clarence H. Webb (1948) for
examples found near the community of Bassett, Texas, in Bowie County. He originally referred
to it as Bassett Pointed Stem. Suhm and Krieger (1954:494) shortened the name to Bassett
(Figure 21) and described it in more detail.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported. However, a glass point bears similarities to this type
(See Figure 41).

Age: A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1600 (Suhm and Krieger 1954). Turner et al. (2011) estimate its age at
A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1700. Webb (2000) places it at A. D. 1200 to A.D. 1500.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:494) describe the Basset point as very small with a
triangular blade. The edges can be straight or sometimes slightly concave or convex. The stem
is tiny and protrudes from the center of a concave base. This is a well-made point that often
exhibits exceedingly fine edge serrations. Webb (2000:15) writes that Louisiana specimens
“were made from flakes of local materials, like tan, brown, gray, and black cherts, petrified
wood, or occasionally novaculite.” Some were made on flakes.

Suhm and Krieger (1954) provided the following measurements.

Length: 1.7 cm to 4.2 cm with a few more than 3.5 cm

Width: 1.2 cm to 1.8 cm
Stem length: 0.1 cm to 0.5 cm, but rarely more than 0.3 cm

Cultural Affiliation: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954), Bassett points are a common type
in the Belcher and Texarkana foci, and they occur less frequently in the Titus Focus and during
the Fulton Aspect of the Neo-American stage. They are common in Louisiana and often
associated with Caddoan pottery from the middle period of the Bossier and Belcher foci (Webb
2000).

72
Distribution: Northeastern Texas and parts of Arkansas and Louisiana (Suhm and Krieger
1954; Turner et al. 2011).

Known Sites: Sites in Texas where Bassett points have been recorded include Carpenter
(41CP5), A. C. Mackin (41LR39), Jones Hill (41PK8), Williams (41CP10), Womack (41LR1),
Resch (41HS16), Goldsmith (41WO208), and 41BP206. Four specimens have also been
reported from Belcher Mound (16CD13) in Louisiana.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1958), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007),
Harris et al. (1965), McClurkan (1968), Perino (1985), Suhm and Jelks (1962, 1993), Suhm and
Krieger (1954), Taylor (1987), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011),
Turner and Smith (2002), (Thurmond 1985), and Webb (1948, 1959, 2000).

Comments: Suhm and Krieger (1954:494) state that these points are “very fine and thinly
chipped” and “exceedingly fine edge serration is common.” Harris et al. (1965) interpreted the
two Basset points found at the Womack site (41LR1) as representing trade from the east.

McClurkan (1968:11, Table 6) states that all but one of the four Bassett points found at the
Jones Hill site are stemmed types with no discernable pattern to their distribution, which he
cautions might have been due to a small sample of 41 specimens.

Mallouf (1976:228) writes that the one Bassett point from the A. C. Makin site retains the
“characteristic exaggerated percussion bulb of bipolar knapping technique on one face.” The
blow originated from the proximal end of the specimen.

In Louisiana, Basset points are found around lakes, in valleys, and upland streams (Webb
2000). Webb states they were usually made of local materials such as chert, silicified wood, and
occasionally novaculite.

Duncan et al. (2007:19) identify the type site as Belcher Mound (16CD13) in Caddo Parish,
Louisiana.

Thurmond (1985:189-191) places the Bassett point in the Late Caddoan Period, Titus Phase
(A.D. 1600 – A.D. 1700). It is accompanied by arrow points Maud, Reed and Talco. The Reed
point does not appear in Turner et al. (2011).

Authentic Bassett points are housed at TARL. The one depicted above is a replica knapped by
Matt Soultz for this project. Figure 22 depicts a variation of shape and material in this type.

73
 Bayou Goula

Original Recorder: This type was named and described by George I. Quimby and Clarence H.
Webb (1948) for examples found at the type site, Bayou Goula in Iberville Parish, Louisiana
(Figure 23).

Other Names: Bayou Goula Fishtail, Bayogoula

Similar Types: Collins (Mississippi type)

Age: A.D. 950 – A.D. 1000

Description: McGahey (2000:204) describes this point in the following. “Bayougoula Fishtailed
points are small to medium-sized arrow points with side notches, concave bases, and leaf or
ovate blades. Occasional specimens are serrated along the blade edges, and reworked
specimens lose the ovate shape as resharpening occurs. The outline then becomes an
elongated diamond shape. Many distal ends, like those of the Collins type, are sharp and
needle-like. Many specimens reveal evidence of heat treating, and an occasional specimen may
be completely reddened by the process.” “The raw material is almost invariably the nearest
available tan gravel chert.

Average length: 32 mm
Range of length: 23 mm to 45 mm
Average width: 14 mm
Range of width: 11 mm to 20 mm
Average thickness: 4 mm
Range of thickness: 3 mm to 6 mm

Cultural Affiliation: Late prehistoric, possibly Mississippian

Distribution: Perino (1985:29) writes that this type is found in southern Louisiana and
Mississippi and northward to Illinois and Wisconsin. There are scattered reports of this type
extending into East Texas.

Known Sites: Bayou Goula (16-IV-11)

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Williams and Brain (1983:222), McGahey
(2000:204-205), Perino (1985:29), Webb (1975:5-6), and Quimby (1957).

74
 Bonham

Original Recorder: This point (Figure 24) was named by Alex D. Krieger (1946) for examples
found at the Sanders site (41LR2) in Lamar County. He referred to this type as Bonham Barbed,
but the name was shortened to Bonham by Suhm and Krieger (1954).

Other Names: Bonham Barbed

Similar Types: Suhm and Krieger (1954) note its similarity to Alba and Hayes.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate its age at A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200. Davis (1995) dates it
to circa A.D. 800 to A.D. 1600. In Louisiana, Webb (2000) dates them to circa A.D. 900 to A.D.
1200.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:496) describe Bonham as having a slender triangular
blade that is occasionally serrated. The edges are usually straight but sometimes are recurved
or slightly convex. The shoulders can be squared or have small barbs. Stems are very narrow
and have parallel edges. Bases are straight to slightly convex.

Turner et al. (2011:180) write that most specimens are fully bifacial and have lenticular cross
sections. They provided the following measurements for Bonham points.

Length: 2 to 4 cm to 4.5 cm
Width: 1 cm to 1.5 cm
Stem length: 0.5 cm to 0.7 cm

Cultural Affiliation: According to Krieger (1946) and Suhm and Krieger (1954), this is a
common type of the Sander Focus, and it also occurs the later stages of the Spiro Focus.
Turner et al. (2011) describe it as a Late Prehistoric type that extends into historic times.

75
Distribution: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that Bonham points are found in the northern part
of East Texas, especially in the Red River Valley, eastern Oklahoma, and North-Central Texas.
A few specimens have been reported from the northern part of Central Texas and possibly as
far west as the Pecos River. Turner et al. (2011) say that it is found at sites in north central and
northeastern Texas. Webb (2000) reports that they are found in Oklahoma but less frequently
than in northeastern Texas.

Known Sites: Kyle (41HI1), A. C. Mackin (41LR39), Sanders (41LR2), Hoxie Bridge
(41WM103), Love-Fox (41WM230), George C. Davis (41CE19), Baylor (41ML35), Roark Cave
(41BS3), Limerick (41RA8), 41SE17, 41VT38, and sites in the Cedar Creek Reservoir
(Henderson and Kaufman counties) (Story 1965).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Bell and Hall (1953), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Kelley (1963), Krieger (1946), Perino (1985), Ricklis (2010), Shafer
(2006), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993,
1999), Turner et al. (2011), Hedrick (1989), and Webb (2000).

Comments: According to Davis (1995), Bonham and Alba points are quite similar in general
outline and appearance, but the primary difference is that the parallel stem on the Bonham point
is narrower than those on the Alba type. Harry J. Shafer (2006) proposed a Bonham-Alba
classification that encompasses specimens dating around A.D. 100 from central Texas into
eastern Texas. Mallouf (1976) describes the four Bonham points from the A. C. Makin site as
being made from dark red jasper, dark purple novaculite, and Bigfork chert (black and green
varieties).

Smitty Schmeidlin (1997) reports a single Bonham point at 41VT38, the presumed third location
of Mission Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga (41VT11).

Authentic Bohnam points are housed at TARL but were not available for photographing. Those
illustrated above are part of the John Fish collection.

76
 Bulbar Stemmed

Original Recorder: James E. Corbin (1963) first observed this type during his work at sites in
the Coastal Bend of Texas, initially, referring to it as an “unknown arrow point.” In his 1974
article titled “A Model for Cultural Succession for the Coastal Bend Area of Texas,” he does not
describe this point, but refers to it as “Bulbar” in figures 9 and 10 (Corbin 1974). This type was
not formally described until Turner and Hester (1985:166) did so in their Field Guide to Stone
Artifacts of Texas Indians.

Other Names: Bulbar

Similar Types: Turner et al. (2011:181) state “These points are sometimes similar to Perdiz
and may represent a regional variant in the Corpus Christi region and northern Padre Island.”
However, according to Corbin (1974), they are a type separate from Perdiz. Bulbar Stemmed
points (Figure 25) are also similar in form to Alba.

Age: Late Prehistoric point that was still in use during historic times (Turner et al. 2011:181).
Davis (1995) assigns it a time frame of circa A.D. 700 to A.D. 1700.

Description: The stem shape reportedly varies in length and width, according to Turner et al.
(2011:181). The defining characteristic is a pronounced rounded or bulbous stem (Corbin 1974),
unlike its Alba counterpart that has parallel stem edges and straight bases. No average
dimensions were found for this type.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Southern Coastal Corridor and Southeastern Texas.

Known Sites: McGloin Bluff (41SP11), Shanklin (41WH8), Mitchell Ridge (41GV66),
Guadalupe Bay (41CL2), and 41WH19.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Corbin (1963, 1974), Hester (1980), Davis
(1995), Gunter (1985), Perino (1985), Ricklis (1994, 2004a), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993,
1999), Turner et al. (2011), and Weinstein (2002).

77
Comments: This type is reported as being in a historic context at site 41WH19 in Wharton
County. If it was present in historic times, it is possible that the Karankawa who lived in the area
may have used it. Richard A. Weinstein (2002) has identified three varieties based on the shape
of the stem that he refers to as Bulbar Stemmed, var. bulbar, calhoun, and rupley lake. They are
described in Volume 2 (Appendix K) of his report on the Guadalupe Bay site.

The example illustrated above is housed at TARL.

78
 Cameron

Original Recorder: R. S. MacNeish (1958) named this point for examples from Cameron
County in the Lower Rio Grande Valley where it is most commonly found. Originally, it was
referred to as Cameron Triangular. Robert J. Mallouf and Anthony Zavaleta (1979) shortened
the name to Cameron based on their work at the Unland site.

Other names: Cameron Triangular.

Similar Types: Cameron (Figure 26) is similar to Fresno, but smaller and thicker (Turner et al.
2011:182). Davis (1995:200) states that Cameron points are no more than 17 mm long, and the
Fresno point is no less than 20 mm long.

Age: This point was made and used sometime between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1750. Its
placement in the Historic Period is based on the fact that some Cameron points were made
from glass (Turner et al. 2011:182).

Description: Turner et al. (2011:182) write “…this is a tiny equilateral point with straight to
slightly convex edges.” Some specimens are unifacial. Dimensions are not given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Turner et al. (2011) place its location as the Rio Grande Delta, Baffin Bay, and the
Corpus Christi area.

Known Sites: Unland (41CF111), 41KL13, 41KL14, 41KL26, 41KL27, 41KL30, 41KL35 through
41KL38, and McGill Ranch (no TARL number).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Gunter (1985), Hester (1969,
1980), Mallouf et al. (1977), Perino (1991), Saunders (1985), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993,
1999), Jelks (1993), and Turner et al. (2011).

79
Comments: Hester (1969) reported on investigations in Kenedy and Kleberg counties, and he
described 36 arrow points that he classified as Cameron. He was unable to identify consistent
morphological patterns in the entire sample of triangular points. Therefore, he arbitrarily classified
those specimens that were less than 20 mm in length as Cameron, while points greater than 20
mm were classified as Fresno. Hester (1969) believes that it is possible that both arbitrary groups
are the same type.

Perino (1991) theorized that Cameron may have developed from the earlier Catán arrow point.
He also states that in historic times Cameron was sometimes made of glass. Most often, they
were made from cobbles of Edwards Plateau chert found in riverine systems flowing into the
Gulf (Perino (1991).

Like Hester, Davis (1995) believes that the Cameron point may be part of a continuum that
includes the Matamoros dart point and the Fresno arrow point.

Robert J. Mallouf, Barbara J. Baskin, and K. L. Killen (1977) collaborated to write a predictive
assessment of cultural resources in Hidalgo and Willacy counties. This report is relevant to the
Cameron type and the area in which it is found.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet.
[Link]

Total length: 6 mm to 17 mm (average 13 mm)

Width: 8 mm to 13 mm
Thickness: 3 mm to 7 mm

The example above is a replica fashioned by Matt Soultz.

80
 Caracara

Original Recorder: R. K. Saunders (Saunders and Hester 1993:22-31) described this point, but
no report or other reference is mentioned (Figure 27).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: This type was previously referred to as Harrell and Scallorn by artifact
collectors.

Age: Turner et al. (2011) estimate the age of the Caracara point at A.D. 700 to
A.D. 1100.

Description: This is small very thin point that exhibits side-notching. According to Turner et al.
(2011:183), “the lateral edges are “convex to nearly straight and are often serrated. The
rounded or basal ‘ears’ usually extend slightly beyond the width of the shoulders. The bases are
typically straight, but they also may be slightly concave or convex.” Although examples
illustrated by Boyd and Perttula (2000) are accompanied by scales, no average dimensions are
given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: This type is from southern Texas. Examples have been found in Duval, Hidalgo,
Starr, Webb, and Zapata counties and on the adjacent Mexican side of the border. Boyd and
Perttula (2000:6) believe the core region for this type is in and around Falcon Reservoir.

Known Sites: Sites in Texas are Beacon Harbor Lodge (41ZP7), Old Zapata Burial (41ZP85),
and Rough Enough Rockshelter (41VV1987). Sites in Mexico are the Arroyo Salinillas
Cremation Burial and Southern Island Burials 2 and 3.

81
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Boyd (1997), Boyd and Wilson (1999), Boyd and
Perttula (2000), Perino (1991), Saunders and Hester (1993), Turner and Hester (1993, 1999),
Hester (1995), Turner et al. (2011), Stillwell (2011), and Wilson and Hester (1996).

Comments: According to James B. Boyd and Timothy K. Perttula (2000), Caracara points have
been found at burials in the Falcon Lake area, and some were embedded in human bones as
evidence of violence or warfare. At the Old Zapata Burial site, 13 Carcara points, broken and
complete, were found with a disturbed burial by Cynthia Scott of Zapata that had been exposed
and vandalized when the lake levels were low. The complete specimens were sold to a private
collector and were not available for study. Fortunately, the five broken ones were loaned to the
Boyd and Perttula for examination. This is the most thorough discussion of Caracara points I
have found.

James Boyd (n.d.) discovered and salvaged a burial of two adults and an infant from 41ZP7.
His efforts are discussed in detail along with osteological analysis by Wilson and Hester (1996).
Grave goods with the primary individual consisted of Caracara arrow points, bone beads, and
perforated human teeth that possibly function as a necklace.

Saunders and Hester (1993:22-31) discuss side-notched arrow points from the Falcon Lake
region of Texas and Mexico. Their discussion of Caracara includes two figures of example of
this type.

The following dimensions taken from a web page on the Internet.

[Link]

Total length: 24 mm to 53 mm
Stem length: 5 mm to 10 mm
Blade width: 13 mm to 25 mm
Neck width: 7 mm to 14 mm
Stem width: 13 mm to 25 mm

The illustrated examples were made by Adrien Facouis.

82
 Catahoula

Original Recorder: This type was first named in 1956 by Clarence H. Webb and Hiram F.
Gregory (Baker and Webb 1976:226) based on specimens found at the Sanson site (16RA1)
near Catahoula Lake in central Louisiana. The point was not described in detail until 1960 when
it appeared in Special Bulletin Number 2 of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society (Bell 1960).

Other Names: Referred to by Wheat (1953) as Alba Barbed.

Similar Types: Catahoula points (Figure 28) are like the Agee type. Both have short stems, but
Agee points expand more strongly toward the base, which is markedly convex (Davis 1995).
The examples illustrated above are from site 41WA55 in Walker County.

Age: The age of this point is uncertain, but it was probably associated with Plaquemine
materials in Louisiana (Bell 1960). Based on research by Baker and Webb (1976), it was most
common from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1100 with the possibility that it began as a type in A.D. 500 to
A.D. 600 and lasted until A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1300. Turner et al. (2011:185) estimate its age
between A.D. 700 to A.D. 1100. Crook and Hughston (2015b:34-35) were able to get
radiometric data from a femur at the Lower Rockwall site (41RW1). The results were reported
as 1240 ± 30 B.P. The 1 Sigma Calibration is A.D. 715 to A.D. 775, and the 2 Sigma Calibration
is A.D. 680 to A.D. 880. In a later article, Crook (2017) dates this type to circa A.D. 700 or A.D.
800 to A.D. 1250.

Description: Baker and Webb (1976:225-251) describe this point as having a wide base with a
fan-shaped stem and distinctive square barbs. “The blade edges are commonly recurved, often
markedly concave, so that the blade appears short in reference to the broad shoulders. The
stem is short, wide, expanding and normally convex at the base. The notches are likely to be
rather narrow and delimit a large and broad barb which is its most distinctive. Some specimens
are almost as wide as they are long” (Baker and Webb 1976).

83
Webb (2000:15) provides the following average measurements for Louisiana specimens.

Length: 28.4 mm
Width: 21.6 mm
Thickness: 4 mm
Weight: 1.9 grams

Cultural Affiliation: Some sites in Louisiana that yielded Catahoula points date to the Alto
Focus. Webb (2000) maintains that this type is only occasionally found in Caddo village
middens or burials. Crook (2017) dates this type to the Wylie Phase, circa A.D. 700 or A.D. 800
to A.D. 1250.

Distribution: Leland W. Patterson (1976:219) presented a study of the Catahoula type. His
research found that it has an “east-west spatial distribution from Alabama to Nevada, and a
north-south distribution from Missouri to the Gulf Coast.” I doubt the validity of this statement. In
Texas, it is most common in the Northeast and Southeast Texas subregions. Elsewhere, it has
been reported from sites in Louisiana, southwestern Arkansas, and southeastern Oklahoma.

Known Sites: 41HR273, 41HR269, 41HR301, 41HR616, 41HR696, Resch (41HS16), Jones
Hill (41PK8), 41PK69, Gilbert (41RA13), Upper Rockwall (41RW2), Glen Hill (41RW4),
Tankersley Creek (41TT108), 41TN11, 41WA55, 41DL406, and sites in the San Jacinto River
Basin and Addicks Reservoir.

In Louisiana, they have been recorded at 16BO2, 16BI1, 16CD8, 16CD12, 16CT11, 16CT89,
16CT128, 16DS4, 16DS5, 16GR2, 16GR7, 16NA5, 16NA7, 16NA10, 16RA1, and 16RR1.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Allen et al. (1967), Baker and Webb (1976), Bell
(1960), Davis (1995), Fields (1988a, 2004), Moore (1976), Patterson (1976), Perino (1985),
Skinner et al. (1969), Sollberger (1967), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al.
(2011), Crook (2011), Young (1981b), Ross (1966), and Webb (2000). Points described as
Catahoula-like were found at sites in the Cedar Creek Reservoir (Henderson and Kaufman
counties) (Story 1965).

Comments: Following Bell (1960), the next major reference to this type was in Volume 3 of the
Bulletin of the Louisiana Archaeological Society by Baker and Webb (1976). At that time, the
authors had examined nearly 150 Catahoula points from more than 40 sites in central and
northern Louisiana. In addition, they studied 63 preforms from sites where Catahoula points
were predominant. Most of the specimens appear to have been collected from campsites, but
they have also been found at mound sites with ceremonial burials.

Six Catahoula points were found at the Gahagan site (16RR1) by Webb and Dodd (1939) and
an equal number were recovered from Mounds Plantation (16CD12) (Webb and McKinney
1975). Both sites contained Caddoan burials dating to the Alto Focus.
Most of the examples (93%) studied by Baker and Webb (1976) were made from local chert
available in pebble form in the area where the Catahoula points were found. Others were made
from fossiliferous chert, flint, and quartzite.

84
The specimen illustrated in Figure 4 above was made from fine-grained silicified wood. The
presence of Catahoula points at mound sites suggests it may have had some ceremonial
significance, and some archaeologists postulate that it may have been used in trade. However,
the presence of performs at some sites may be evidence that they were also produced at the
sites where they were found.

At the Gilkey Hill Site (41KF/41DL406), the Catahoula type is the second most common. A total
of 189 arrow points were recovered with 39 specimens classified as Catahoula. Two were made
of chert, and 37 were fashioned from quartzite (Crook 2011:Table 1).

The article by Baker and Webb (1976) provided a well-researched discussion of the history and
distribution of this type in Louisiana and other states, published measurements of 143
specimens, and discussed the relationship of the Catahoula point to other types. Their article is
the most thorough on this type that I have encountered.

Leland W. Patterson (1987) describes a new artifact type named Catahoula Perforator. This
artifact is a Catahoula point that has been reworked to create a drill or perforator. The examples
he describes were found on the surface of site 41HR182 in Harris County. Patterson refers to
them as a separate type because similar specimens have been found at sites on the Upper
Texas Coast. According to Patterson (1976), Wheat (1953) and Greengo (1964) incorrectly
described Catahoula points as Alba.

Other sources include Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) who discusses types of damage to Catahoula
points and other Late Prehistoric types from a sample of 750 points, Skinner et al. (1969:Figure
26) illustrates the steps involved in making a Catahoula point, and Joe Ben Wheat (1953:Plate
53) illustrates points that he describes as Alba, although some specimens are clearly
Catahoula.

Catahoula-like points made of obsidian have been reported in Collin County at 41COL34 (Crook
2013:37) and 41COL9 (Crook 2013:39). X-Ray Florescence Analysis revealed the probable
source of the Catahoula-like points from 41COL9 is Owyhee, Toy Pass (Idaho) and Browns
Bench (Idaho-Nevada-Utah) (Crook 2016:27). Crook (2016) presents a thorough discussion of
the methods used to determine the source of obsidian for these points and other relevant data
regarding obsidian.

Twenty-two Catahoula points were recovered from site 41SJ160. The length ranged from 1.7
cm to 2.5 cm. Shoulder width ranged from 1.6 cm to 2.3 cm. The weight varied from 0.8 g to
1.0 g (Keller and Weir 1979:39).

The specimens illustrated above are part of the William E. Moore collection. Catahoula points
are curated at TARL.

85
 Chadbourne

Original Recorder: Darrell G. Creel named the Chadbourne point (Figure 29) based on its
occurrence in the area around Fort Chadbourne in Coke County, Texas. Illustrated example
housed at TARL and not to scale.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: circa A.D. 900 to A.D. 1300 (Turner et al. 2011) and possibly earlier.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:186) describe this type as elongate and triangular. The lateral
edges are straight to convex. It has small shoulders and a wide and slightly expanding stem that
often ends in a concave base. No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Darrell Creel attributed this type to the Blow Out Mountain Complex, whose
type site is 41TA30 (TARL files).

Distribution: According to Turner et al. (2011), the Chadbourne type is found in west-central
Texas and sites in the drainages of the Colorado River, Concho River, and the Clear Fork of the
Brazos. It has been found in the Central Texas archeological subregion and the unnamed
subregion of the Texas panhandle.

Known Sites: 41CK87, 41TA58, and 41TA66. Joe Ben Wheat (1947) encountered Chadbourne
points at the W. A. Myatt site (no TARL number).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Turner and Hester (1993, 1999),
Wheat (1947), and Turner et al. (2011).

86
Comments: Chadbourne points are often found with Scallorn and Moran points (Turner et al.
2011:186). Examples of this type are housed in the Sayles Collection at TARL (Sayles n.d.).
Creel (1990) proposed that the Chadbourne type is a Darl variant that was made small for use
with the bow and arrow. Before Creel (1990) identified this type as Chadbourne, he discussed
its characteristics in his report on the excavations at 41TG91.

87
 Cliffton

Original Recorder: The Cliffton point (Figure 30) was named Contracting Stem by Alex D.
Krieger (1946) for examples found in northern Texas near the town of Clifton in Bosque County.
Krieger misspelled the name of the town, but Suhm and Krieger (1954) decided to use his
spelling rather than correct it. J. Charles Kelley (1947) referred to this point as Clinton
Contracting Stem (obviously a typographical error). The name was shortened by Suhm and
Krieger (1954) during the writing of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Walter W.
Taylor (1966) referred to it as the Ojo Point based on examples found in northeastern Mexico;
however, I have found no evidence of a proposal to make Ojo a valid type in Texas.

Other Names: Cliffton Contracting Stem and Ojo.

Similar Types: Bassett

Age: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954), Cliffton dates to circa A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1500.
Prewitt (1981) places it in the Neo-Archaic.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:496) describe Cliffton as having a “roughly triangular
blade, crudely chipped, often modified on only one face, or one face more than the other.
Shoulders may project at right-angle but often are difficult to distinguish from the short, pointed
stem. Blade edges may be fairly straight but often convex, concave, or asymmetrical.” They
provide the following dimensions.

Length: 2 cm to 4 cm
Width: 1.5 cm to 2 cm
Stems vary from barely visible to about 0.5 cm in length.

Cultural Affiliation: Henrietta Focus (Suhm and Krieger 1954); Toyah Phase
(Prewitt 1981)

Distribution: From the Red River to the central Gulf Coast (Turner and Hester 1999).
Archeological regions include Central Texas, Rio Grande Plains, Trans-Pecos, the Upper Texas
Coast, and the Prairie-Savanna.

88
Known sites: Kyle (41HI1), Oblate (41CM1), Roark Cave (41BS3), Peerless Bottoms
(41HP175), 41HR279, 41HR301, 41SE17, 41AU37, and 41JW8. and sites in the Cedar Creek
Reservoir (Henderson and Kaufman counties) (Story 1965).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Beasley (1978), Bell (1960), Davis (1995),
Duffield (1963), Fields (1988a, 2004), Kelley (1947, 1963), Krieger (1946), McClurkan (1968),
Mitchell and Van der Veer (1983), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Tunnell (1962), Jelks (1993),
Hester (1980), Hall (1981), and Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, and 1999).

Comments: According to Turner et al. (2011:206), “Preforms or poorly made Perdiz points have
sometimes been called ‘Cliffton.’ A detailed study of Perdiz points from the Buckhollow site
points to technological data that invalidate Cliffton as a type.”

Prewitt (1981) presents a detailed discussion of the Toyah Phase in his article titled “Cultural
Chronology in Central Texas.”

A glass point is similar to the Cliffton type.

Grant D. Hall (1981) conducted one of the major archaeological surveys in the lower Brazos
River Valley of Texas (Austin County). A variety of arrow and dart points were recovered, along
with numerous burials and occupational features. In addition to illustrations of each type, he
provides dimensions, provenience (vertical and horizontal), and color taken from the Munsell
soil color chart. One specimen identified as Cliffton was found at 41AU37.

The point illustrated above is a replica made by Matt Soultz. Authentic specimens are housed
at TARL (Figure 31).

89
 Colbert

Original Recorder: This point (Figure 32) was named and described by Clarence H. Webb
based on examples found at the Colbert site in Bienville Parish, Louisiana where this type was
frequently encountered.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Webb (1963), Colbert resembles Alba, Hayes, Homan, and
Scallorn.

Age: Turner and Hester (1985) estimate the age of this type at A.D. 950 to
A.D. 1585. Webb (2000) dates this type at Louisiana sites to circa A.D. 900 to A.D. 1100.

Description: This type is not described by Suhm and Krieger (1954) or Turner et al. (2011).
Davis (1995:206) refers to it as “A small point with a triangular outline. The lateral edges are
concave to recurved and may exhibit minute serrations. The strong shoulders are barbed and
have a flared appearance. The short stem expands toward the base. The base is usually
straight or mildly convex but is occasionally concave.” Webb (1963:180) writes that they
typically measure 1.2 cm to 3.2 cm in length and 9 mm to 2 cm in width.

Cultural Affiliation: Webb found this type at an Alto Focus site, and he says there is an
association with late Coles Creek cultures.

Distribution: Northeast and Southeast Texas Archeological Regions, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
In Louisiana, it occurs on pottery sites in the uplands and on lateral lakes like Caddo, Cross,
and Clear and made of local materials (Webb 2000:16)

Known Sites: Trichel (41SJ16), 41PK21, and sites at Cooper Lake. Examples from Louisiana
have been found at Colbert (16 BI 2), Smithport Landing
(16 DS 4), and Mound Plantation (16 CD 12). In Arkansas, it has been found at Crenshaw
Mounds (3 MI 0006).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Fields (2004), Turner and Hester
(1985, 1993, 1999), and Webb (1948, 1963, 2000).

90
Comments: According to Webb (1948), Colbert was the first site to be identified as having an
Alto Focus component. He mentions the Colbert point in his 1963 article but does not discuss
the Colbert site. Webb (1963) writes that 21 arrow points found at Smithport Landing were
characterized by expanding stems produced by corner notching and blades like those on the
Alba type.

Webb also states that this point has been the subject of considerable discussion because of its
frequency in Louisiana and Arkansas. Some reports present it as Alba or Scallorn, but Webb
(1963:180) believed that Colbert has “meaningful and distinct differences” from those types. He
(Webb 2000) states that this type is found on pottery sites in the uplands and on lateral lakes in
Louisiana (e.g., Caddo, Cross, and Clear lakes). According to Davis (1995), the main distinction
is that Colbert points have shoulders and barbs that are flared, which is uncharacteristic of the
Alba point.

Six Colbert points were recovered from site 41SJ160. The length ranged from 2.5 cm to 2.6 cm.
Shoulder width ranged from 1.4 cm to 1.7 cm. The weight for each specimen weighed was 0.8 g
(Keller and Weir 1979:39).

Since it is not illustrated in Turner et al. (2011), the authors must believe that it is no longer a
valid type. The specimens illustrated above are from the Thomas Oakes collection.

91
 Cuney

Original Recorder: The Cuney point (Figure 33) was named by Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D.
Krieger (1954) for examples found at the Jim Allen site in Cherokee County. It was named for
the nearby town of Cuney.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Perino (1991), Cuney points are similar to Sabinal, a later type,
and Rockwall, except the stems on Rockwall are broader and more expanded. Davis (1995)
recognizes a similarity between Cuney and Alba.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate its age at A.D. 1600 to A.D. 1800. Turner et al. (2011)
refer to it as a Late Prehistoric type that persisted into historic times, but they do not give a date.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:498) describe Cuney as having a triangular blade with
straight or concave edges. The barbs extend downward or flare outward. Stems are parallel-
edged or slightly expanded. The base is concave and varies from a “shallow curve to a deep U-
shaped notch” (Suhm and Krieger 1954:498). Some were made on flakes.

Cultural Affiliation: Suhm and Krieger (1954) believe this type was associated with the Allen
Focus (Fulton Aspect) during the Historic Stage. They suggest that it might have been a type
made by Caddoan tribes of the Hasinai branch. Turner et al. (2011) say that it is associated with
the Allen Phase in the Caddo area.

Distribution: When this type was first introduced, its distribution was principally in Cherokee,
Anderson, and Henderson counties with lesser numbers reported as far north as the Red River
and westward into Central Texas. It has also been found at sites in the Southern Coastal
Corridor, Rio Grande Plains, and Prairie-Savanna subregions.

Known Sites: Jim Allen (41CE12) (aka J. P. Allen site), Pecan Springs (41EL11), Scorpion
Cave (41ME7), Smith Rockshelter (41TV42), Shanklin (41WH8), Hagler (41PP325), 41DM31,
41DM33, 41KR600, 41ZV155, and sites at Lake Monticello and sites in the Cedar Creek
Reservoir (Henderson and Kaufman counties) (Story 1965).

92
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Duncan et al. (2007), Perino (1991), Saner, et al.
(2019), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993,
1999), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Davis (1995) states that the primary difference between Cuney and Alba is that the
stem on the Cuney type expands more strongly toward the base, while the base of the Alba type
is straight or mildly convex.

Suhm and Krieger (1954:498) give the following dimensions for Cuney points.

Total Length: 2 to 4.5 cm

Maximum width: about 1 to 2 cm
Stem: 0.4 to 0.7 cm wide and length about the same
Stems about one-half to one-sixth of total length

Two Cuney points were recovered from site 41SJ160. Dimensions are reported for only one
specimen. Length 2.5 cm. Shoulder width 1.6 cm. Weight 0.8 g Keller and Weir 1979:39).

Authentic Cuney points are housed at TARL (Figure 34). The specimen illustrated above is part
of the John Fish collection.

93
 Deadman’s

Original Recorder: The Deadman’s point (Figure 35) was named and described by Patrick S.
Willey and Jack T. Hughes (1978) based on examples found at Deadman’s Shelter in Swisher
County in the Texas Panhandle. It was the predominant point at this site and was described as
a distinctive base-notched arrowpoint with long slender barbs and stem.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Bulbar Stemmed, Moran, and Scallorn (Duncan et al. 2007).

Age: This may be the earliest known arrow point in Texas with an estimated age of A.D. 400 to
A.D. 800 (Davis 1995). Turner et al. (2011) refer to it as simply Late Prehistoric.

Description: This type does not appear in Suhm and Krieger (1954). Per Turner et al.
2011:188), this is a “…short, wide triangular point that has convex lateral edges that are
sometimes serrated. The long, slender stem is straight to expanding with a rounded basal edge.
Deep basal notches are rarely one-third the length of the point.” Dimensions are not given.

Cultural Affiliation: Douglas K. Boyd (1995) includes this type in the Late Prehistoric Palo Duro
complex of the Caprock Canyonlands in the Texas Panhandle.

Distribution: The distribution of this type is primarily in the Texas Panhandle and Llano
Estacado regions. According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication 2016), this type is
sometimes found in the Eastern and Big Bend areas of the Trans-Pecos. He describes its
frequency as rare.

Known Sites: Deadman’s Shelter (41SW23) and sites at Palo Duro Canyon in Armstrong and
Randall counties, McKenzie Reservoir in Briscoe and Swisher counties, and Lake Alan Henry in
Garza County. Other specific sites in Garza County include 41GR256, 41GR291, 41GR325,
and 41GR438. Sites 41LU34 in Lubbock County and 41HL66 along Kent Creek in Hall County
(Brown 1985). Site 41OC93 in Ochiltree County yielded a Deadman’s point made from Alibates
chert.

94
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Boyd (1995, 2004) and 10.15), Brown (1985),
Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Perino (1985), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999),
Turner et al. (2011), and Willey and Hughes (1978).

Comments: According to Davis (1995), this point is unique, and there are no types similar
enough to cause confusion in the identification of a specimen as Deadman’s.

Dimensions from the type site are reported as follows (Hughes and Willey 1978:187).

Total length: 11 mm to 42 mm (average 21.9 mm)

Total width: 9 mm to 19 mm (average 13.9 mm)
Total thickness: 2 mm to 4 mm (average 3 mm)
Stem length: 3 mm to 9 mm (average 7.25 mm)
Maximum stem width: 3 mm to 8.5 mm (average 6 mm)
Maximum stem length: 2 mm to 6 mm (average 4.25 mm)

Deadman’s Shelter was formerly referred to as the Deadman’s Terrace Site with the same
trinomial – 41SW23 (Hughes and Willey 1978:149).

“Breakage is frequent, especially from the stem to the body (Figure 55 w-a’), and lateral edges
from the body (Figure 55 b-j’),

The specimen illustrated above is part of the John Fish collection.

95
 Diablo

Original Recorder: Robert J. Mallouf (2013) described this type based on examples found in
the Sierra Diablo mountains in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas (Figure 36).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Guadalupe, Livermore, and Neff.

Age: Mallouf (2013:198) writes that the “direct association of Diablo points with Livermore,
Toyah, and other arrow point styles in the John Z. and Exa Means Cache (41JD212) is strongly
suggestive of an age range of circa A.D. 800 to A.D. 1350.” Cloud (2004:96, Figure 46) reported
an arrow point that conforms well to the Diablo type at the Arroyo de la Presa site on the Rio
Grande near Presidio. It was recovered from a stratum radiocarbon dated A.D. 690 to A.D. 890
(Beta 155178). Leslie (1978:114) has suggested an age range of A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1200 for
similar points in southeastern New Mexico. Justice (2002:231) believes a reasonable span of
use was circa A.D. 100 to A.D. 800 with a possible extension to A.D. 1200. Donald Lehmer
(1948:30, Plate VII-f) mentioned an intrusive Livermore point at the Mesilla Phase site of Los
Tules in the El Paso Area, which Mallouf (2012:8) called an excellent example of a Diablo point.
Radiocarbon assays for Toyah points in the Texas Big Bend range from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1350
(Mallouf 2012:8; Corrick 2000; Cloud 2001). Mallouf believes that this time frame may also
provide an approximate terminal span for Diablo points.

Description: This type does not appear in Suhm and Krieger (1954). Mallouf’s (2013:195-198)
description of Diablo “…is based on an examination of 18 complete or nearly complete
specimens from the Means Cache, multiple examples in private collections, and comparative
data from examples in the archaeological literature of the region.” Mallouf (2013:195-198) writes
that, “Diablo arrow points are typified by narrow, short to moderately long triangular blades
having straight to slightly convex lateral edges. In some examples, blade edges are recurved.
Moderate to strong serration of lateral edges that extend all the way to the distal blade tip is
common, and occasional notching of the blade just above the barbs serves to exaggerate the
blade/barb juncture.

96
Remnants of the original flake removal scar are sometimes present on one blade face.”
“The barbs are often wide relative to the overall point length and are typically strong to
exaggerated, often exhibiting a severe arching curve that results in a hook-like configuration that
is enhanced by deep corner notching. In some examples, barbs simply project at right angles to
the long axis of the point. Stems are variable and may be slightly bulbous, parallel-sided, or
expanding. In both expanding and bulbous stem examples, stem elements usually constitute
only 20 to 30 percent of overall specimen length.” In cross-section, this type is usually lenticular,
but some examples may be plano-convex.

Cultural Affiliation: Mallouf (2013) believes the Diablo point may belong to the Late Prehistoric
Livermore Phase because of the presence of Diablo points in the Livermore Cache assemblage
that is dominated by Livermore points. He also states that this designation is problematical
because Diablo points are not an element of Livermore Phase components at Tall Rockshelter
in the Davis Mountains.

Distribution: Its known distribution in Texas includes the Davis Mountains, northern Lobo
Valley, Salt Basin, Sierra Diablo, Delaware Mountains, and Guadalupe Mountains. Diablo points
are much less common south of the Davis Mountains in the Big Bend area of Texas. Other
specimens have been found in the Chinati Mountains and Midland County. In southeastern New
Mexico, the distribution includes the Guadalupe Mountains north to the Capitan Mountains and
east to the Mescalero Escarpment. According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication,
2018), this type has been found at sites in the Eastern and Big Bend areas of the Trans-Pecos.

Known Sites: Arroyo de la Presa (41PS800), Tall Rockshelter (41JD10), John Z. Livermore
Cache (41JD66), and Exa Means Projectile Point Cache (41JD212).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Applegarth (1976), Boisvert (1985), Cloud (2004),
Justice (2002), Katz and Katz (1974), Leslie (1978), Mallouf (2009, 2012, 2013), Roney
(1995:53, Figure 6,e-l), , Turner et al. (2011), Wheaton (2009), and Wiseman (1971).

Comments: According to Mallouf (2013), this point style has recently been lumped within a
Livermore Cluster construct and included in a typological subset termed the Guadalupe point by
Justice (2002).

Justice (2002) describes this point as “…being comprised of a confusing array of projectile
styles that includes both dart and arrow points. Unfortunately, this commendable attempt by
Justice to resolve several long-standing regional typological issues serves only to complicate
matters further.”

Boisvert (1985) illustrates four Livermore points that bear some resemblance to Diablo. The
major contribution of his article is the very thorough discussion of lithics found in the Guadalupe
region where the Diablo type has been reported.

Robert J. Mallouf’s (2013) classification of projectile points in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big
Bend of Texas is the most recent and comprehensive discussion of this type available.

Wiseman (1971) reported on an arrow point from the Neff site in New Mexico that is like Diablo.
Mallouf (2012:4) writes that “Similarities with the Diablo point with the Neff point style as defined
by Wiseman (1971) are noted, and there can be little doubt that the two types are interrelated.
However,

97
Neff points are narrowly characterized as having expanding stems and L-shaped tangs
(barbs?), while Diablo points are morphologically more diverse, the latter including parallel-sided
and bulbous, as well as expanded stems – all apparently representative of a single
technological tradition. In addition, while Diablo points, like Neff points, usually exhibit hook-like
barbs, they may also have barbs that are essentially perpendicular to the long axis of the
specimen – in a fashion more similar to Livermore points. Wiseman (1971:24) does note that
examples of Neff points from the Neff site are ‘…not truly representative’ of type specimens
examined in private collections but does go on to describe the range of variability that
distinguishes the type.”

Mallouf (2013:196) provides the following dimensions.

Length: 25.5 to 40.6 cm

Width: 14.0 cm to 21.3 cm
Thickness: 3.3 cm to 4.8 cm

Neff points may best be described as a provisional type.

The specimens illustrated above are housed at TARL and the Center for Big Bend Studies.

98
 Edwards

Original Recorder: J. B. Sollberger (1967) was the first to recognize this type and describe it.
The name was derived from the Edwards Plateau where these specimens were initially found.
Much of Sollberger’s early studies were in Kerr County where he found and described Edwards
points at the Lamb’s Creek site and rockshelters such as Goat’s Bluff and August’s Bluff, which
have not been assigned trinomials.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Edwards points (Figure 37) are similar to the Scallorn type as both have
prominent barbs and stems that expand strongly at the base. The major difference is that the
stem of an Edwards point is deeply divided into two long barb-like projections with a concave
base, while Scallorn bases expand.

Age: It may be the earliest arrow point in the state based on a radiocarbon date that indicates it
first appeared circa A.D. 900 to A.D. 1000 (Beasley 1978). Other researchers believe it may
have persisted as a specific type until A.D. 1050. Radiocarbon dates from the Ernest Rainey
site date it to the 10th and 11th centuries (A.D. 900 to A.D. 1000) (Turner et al. 2011:190).

Description: This type does not appear in Suhm and Jelks (1954). Davis (1995:212) describes
this type as a “small to large triangular point with lateral edges that may be straight or slightly
concave or convex. The lateral edges may be slightly serrated. The point has strong shoulders
that are usually well-barbed. The stem is short and expands greatly into two long barb-like
projections with a concave base.”

Turner et al. (2011:190) writes that these barb-like projections may curve upward or downward.
Edwards is described as one of the largest arrow points found in Texas, but dimensions are not
provided by Davis (1995) or Turner et al. (2011).

Cultural Affiliation: This type dates to the early part of the Late Prehistoric. Duncan et al.
(2007) say that it may have been associated with the initial adoption of the bow in parts of
Texas.

99
Distribution: Trans-Pecos, Central Texas, and Rio Grande Plains Archeological Regions.
Edwards points are a rare occurrence in the Trans-Pecos Region (Mallouf, personal
communication 2018).

Known Sites: Panther Springs Creek (41BX228), sites at Camp Bullis (41BX36, 41BX377,
41BX379, 41BX383, 41BX385, and 41BX811), Crystal Rivers (41BX195), 41BN113, 41GL19,
Lambs Creek (41KR356), La Jita (41UV21), Mingo (41BN101), Ernest Rainey (41BN33), and
Goat’s Bluff and August’s Bluff in Kerr County (No TARL numbers for these two sites).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Beasley (1978), Davis

(1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Hester (1970b, 1978, 2004), Moore (1988a), Perino (1968),
Sollberger (1967, 1978), Hester (1980), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Jelks (1993),
and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Sollberger (1967) believes that Edwards points were modeled after a variety of
central Texas dart points such as Ensor, Fairland, Frio, and Martindale. Because of its size and
early dates, some archaeologists think Edwards may have been the earliest arrow point style
adopted in Texas when the bow and arrow technology was a reduction in the size of projectile
points. It is one of the largest arrow points from the Central Texas area. Edwards-like points
have been found in apparent association with Frio, Montell, and Pedernales dart points and
Scallorn arrow points.” No type site was identified. Edwards points have been found associated
with burials, and some specimens were embedded in the victim’s bones.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 25 mm to 45 mm
Stem length: 8 mm to 20 mm
Blade width: 10 mm to 17 mm
Neck width: 5 mm to 8 mm
Stem width: 10 mm to 16 mm

The specimen illustrated above is part of the John Fish collection. Additional examples are
housed at TARL in the type collection.

100
 Form 2

Original Recorder: The article by Kumpe and McReynolds (2017-2018) reports that Form 2
appeared in a report by Frank Weir (1956), but they do not state who named this type (Figure
38).

Other Names: Boomerang

Similar Types: Revilla and Starr

Description: Kumpe and McReynolds (2017-2018:43-45) describe this type as “…very thin,
skillfully made arrow points,” using quality chert. “Form 2 arrow points are generally triangular in
outline with remarkedly deep (8 to 16 mm deep) concave bases. The basal notch has convex
sides and a rounded apex, which is unlike Starr. Beginning at the base, lateral edges of larger
complete specimens are convex until above the apex of the basal notch, where they straighten
towards the tip. The lateral edges of these larger specimens that have been minimally
refurbished are concave overall. Smaller specimens, which have been heavily reworked, may
have slightly convex, slightly concave, or even straight lateral edges. They provide the following
dimensions.

Length: 27.2 cm to 55.0 cm

Width: 16.9 cm to 29.4 cm
Thickness: 2.5 cm to 4.2 cm
Weight: 0.8 g to 2.3 g

Age: Late Prehistoric

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown

Distribution: Most Form 2 points have been found at Falcon Reservoir in Zapata County and
Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Known Sites: 41ZP83, 41ZP154

101
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Kumpe et al. (2000), and Kumpe and
McReynolds (2017-2018), Saunders (1985), and Weir (1956).

Comments: Kumpe and McReynolds (2017-2018:43) describe this type as very thin and
skillfully made of quality chert. The distinguishing characteristic is the concave base that can be
as deep as 16 mm. This type bears some resemblance to the Starr point, but the authors note
its convex sides and rounded apex of the basal notch. Turner et al. (2011) report that smaller,
heavily reworked specimens are often mistaken for Starr. Complete points that have not been
reworked are often larger and wider than most, if not all, Texas arrow point types.

Authentic Form 2 points are housed at TARL.

102
 Fresno

Original Recorder: Alex D. Krieger (1946) was the first to describe the Fresno point, but he did
not name it. He first observed this type at the Harrell site in Young County. J. Charles Kelley
(1947) referred to examples found at the Lehman Rock Shelter in Gillespie County as Fresno
Triangular Blade, but he did not describe them. Joe Ben Wheat (1953) called similar specimens
Kobs Triangular Points based on examples from the Kobs site at Addicks Reservoir in Harris
County. Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger (1954) shortened the name to Fresno during the
writing of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology.

Other Names: Fresno Triangular Blade, Kobs Triangular Point, and El Muerto.

Similar Types: Cameron, Guerrero, and Kobs (Wheat 1953). Suhm and Krieger (1954) say
Fresno grades into the Turney type, which belongs to the historic Allen Focus of East Texas.
Specimens also grade into Talco of the Titus Focus and the Starr type. Forrester (1987b)
believes some Fresno points (Figure 39) may be preforms for side-notched triangular types
found at Henrietta Focus sites.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate the age of this type as A.D. 800 or A.D. 900 to A.D.
1600 or later. They say that it was found at historic-age sites Spanish Fort and Womack on the
Red River. These sites have also produced Late Prehistoric artifacts. Turner et al. (2011) simply
refer to Fresno as Late Prehistoric, A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1600. Crook (personal communication,
2019) believes it dates to circa A.D. 800 to about A.D. 1250.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:498) describe these points as simple triangles with
straight to slightly convex edges, and bases that are usually straight but may be concave or
slightly convex. The lateral edges are sometimes finely serrated. The length is 2.0 cm to 3.5 cm,
and the width is 1.0 cm to 2.0 cm.

Cultural Affiliation: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954), this type is associated with the
Bravo Valley Aspect; Central Texas Aspect; Brownsville, Galveston Bay, Henrietta, Mier,
Rockport, and Wyle foci; and probably other foci in the Historic Stage. Crook (2017:51) reports
that Fresno points are associated with the Farmersville Phase.

Distribution: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that Fresno points are found throughout Texas
with the fewest examples found in counties next to the Louisiana border. According to Turner et
al. (2011), this type has been widely reported throughout Texas. It occurs most frequently in the
central, eastern, and southern parts. Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018) states
that this type is frequently found in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend regions.

Known Sites: Arrowhead Peak Ruin (41HC19), Harrell (41YN1), Unland (41CF111), Landslide
(41BL85), Wunderlich (41CM3), Spanish Fort sites (41MU12, 41MU24, and 41MU28), Womack
(41LR1), Lubbock Lake (41LU1), Dillard (41CO174), Pearson (41RA5), Gilbert (41RA13),
Peerless Bottoms (41HP175), Presidio Nuestra Señora de Loreto de la Bahia del Espiritu Santo
(41VT8), Tortuga Flat (41ZV155), Polvo (41PS21), Greenbelt (41DY17), Baker Cave
(41VV213), 41DL406, 41HG4, 41HG5, 41HG9, 41SE17, 41NU33, and 41KL13.

103
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Allen et al. (1966), Beasley (1978), Bell (1960),
Hester (1980), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Fields (2004), Fox and Tomka (2016),
Johnson et al. (1962), Kelley (1947), Krieger (1946), Mallouf et al. (1977), Mokry (1977), Perino
(1985), Ricklis (2004a), Saunders and Saunders (1978), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Turner and
Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Weir (1956), Tunnell and Tunnell (2015), Jelks
(1993), Shackelford (1955), Campbell (n.d.), Crook (2011), Hedrick (1989), Word and Douglas
(1970), and Wheat (1953).

Comments: This is a simple triangular shaped point, and the edges are rarely serrated. Suhm
et al. (1954) stated that the type described by Joe Ben Wheat (1953) as Kobs should probably
be included with this type.

John T. and Elaine L. Saunders (1978:2-18) discuss a private collection belonging to J. R.

Saunders of San Antonio. Mr. Saunders had collected 1,822 pieces of worked stone from his
3,120-acre ranch. The purpose of their analysis was to, “devise a method or system by which
collections of amateurs can be used in conjunction with professional archaeology.” At the time
of their study, they found “… a paucity of published archaeological data from the Webb County
area of Southern Texas.” They identified 17 points in the collection as Fresno. They also
conducted two small area surveys along the east and west banks of Isabella Creek. One Fresno
point was found along each bank in areas that were thickly vegetated.

Duncan et al. (2007) presents a lengthy discussion of this type and similar types found in other
states. Forrester (1987b) believes Fresno points may be preforms for side-notched triangular
types found at Henrietta Focus sites. Several side-notched points were found a 41RA13 in
association with 173 Fresno points.

Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Fresno points and other Late
Prehistoric types from a sample of 750 points. Tomka (2016) illustrates his version of how the
Fresno point was hafted as compared to the Guerrero type. These points were found with Late
Prehistoric burials at 41ZV155.

At the Gilbert site (Allen et al. 1966), Fresno was the dominant type with 173 specimens. All but
two were made of chert or another fine cryptocrystalline quartz material. The two exceptions
were made of quartzite.

Jelks (1993:12) writes the following. “Some Fresno points in Texas were undoubtedly preforms
and not completed points, making accurate definition of the type’s distribution difficult.” Jelks
recalls finding Fresno points in the same field contexts with Scallorn. “Later, when experimental
knappers tried their hands at making Scallorn points, it became obvious that many, if not all of
the so-called Fresno points represented a stage in the production of Scallorn points, lacking
only the final step of corner-notching. For that reason, the legitimacy of identifying Fresno as a
discrete type is highly questionable.” “Further refinement of the type and its relationship to more
distinctive types is needed for a better understanding of the cultural-temporal affinities of the
type.”

At the Gilkey Hill Site (41KF/41DL406), the Fresno type is represented by nine specimens.
Three were made of chert, and six were fashioned from quartzite (Crook 2011:Table 1).

104
Six complete Fresno points and eight fragments were recovered from the Greenbelt site
(41DY17). The edges vary from straight, slightly convex, to slightly concave. Bases are straight
to concave. Widths range from 0.8 cm to 1.8 cm. Lengths range from 1.6 cm to at least 3.5 cm.
All were made of Alibates agate (Campbell n.d.:44-45).

The specimens illustrated above are part of the Trent Jackson collection. Authentic Fresno
points are housed at TARL.

105
 Friley

Original Recorder: According to Robert E. Bell (1960), Friley (Figure 40) was named by
Clarence H. Webb (1963) for examples found at the Friley site in Louisiana. No trinomial has
been assigned to this site.

Other Names: Webb (2000:16) states that “these points were originally referred to as Gem
points because of their frequency on Jim’s (Gem?) Island.” The name was changed by Webb
and Gregory to Friley.

Similar Types: Davis (1995) says that Friley is like the Steiner type, except Friley has strong
broad recurved and barbed shoulders.

Age: When Bell’s (1960) work was published, the age and cultural associations of Friley points
were not clearly known. Since it was found with pottery it was presumed to be a Late Prehistoric
type. According to Turner et al. (2011), Friley is one of the earliest arrow points to have been
used in Texas with an estimated time span of A.D. 700 to A.D. 1100.

Description: Davis (1995:216) described Friley as a small point with a triangular outline and
lateral edges that are usually straight to recurved, and commonly serrated. “The strong
shoulders expand with barbs that recurve toward the tip of the point. The stem may be parallel
or slightly expanding toward the base. The bases are usually straight but are occasionally
slightly concave or convex” (Davis 1995:216). Dimensions are not stated.

Cultural Affiliation: The Friley points found at the Smithport Landing site in De Soto Parish,
Louisiana were assigned to the Alto Focus by Webb (1963). The specimen from 41MX65 was
part of a “poorly known Titus Phase cemetery in Ellison Creek Reservoir” (King and Turner
1993:25).

Distribution: Bell (1960) says that the Friley type is apparently most common in Natchitoches
Parish, Louisiana. It has also been reported from sites in the Northeast and Southeast Texas
Archeological Regions.

106
Known Sites: Friley is the type site in Louisiana, but it has not been assigned a unique
trinomial. In Texas, Friley points have been found at Roitsch (formerly Sam Kaufman -
41RR16), Jones Hill (41PK8), Wolfshead (41SA117), 41PK21, West Island (41MX65), Williams
site (41CP10), and various sites in the Cedar Creek Reservoir in Henderson and Kaufman
counties (Story 1965). Fields et al. (1997) report specimens in the Cooper Lake area of Delta
County. Keller and Weir (1979) illustrate an example of this type from the Strawberry Hill site
(41SJ160). Story (1965) reports this type from sites in the Cedar Creek Reservoir (Henderson
and Kaufman counties). In Louisiana, it has been found at Smithport Landing (16DS4).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Davis (1995), Duffield (1963),
Duncan et al. (2007), Fields (2004), Fields et al. (1997), Keller and Weir (1979), King and
Turner (1993:31), Perino (1985), Perttula et al. (2001), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993), 1999),
Turner et al. (2011), Webb (1963, 2000), and Turner and Smith (2002).

Comments: Texas Indians began to use metal for arrow points once Europeans introduced this
material. Many of the metal points were made available to tribes as trade goods. Points
manufactured by the Indians were made from any form of scrap metal available such as sheet
iron, copper, files, clocks, door hinges, and cuperous metals such as brass cartridge cases.
Barrel hoops were the preferred raw material when it was available (Parker 1983). McReynolds
and Kumpe (2008) discuss various historic Indian groups in Texas that probably used metal
points.

Comments: Duffield (1963) divided this type into two subgroups based on recurved or laterally
projecting shoulder treatments. He stated that the significance of the variations cannot be
accurately determined until specimens at other sites are analyzed.

Bell’s discussion of Friley is in the 5th printing of his guidebook that was published in 1969.

They are often made of silicified wood of near-opalized quality (Turner et al. 2011:192).

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 35 mm
Stem length: 3 mm to 7 mm
Maximum blade width: 12 mm to 25 mm
Neck width: 4 mm to 8 mm
Stem width: 7 mm to 12 mm

Two Friley points were recovered from site 41SJ160. Length ranged from 1.8 cm and 1.9 cm.
Shoulder width not measured. Weight 0.4 g and 05 g (Keller and Weir 1979:39).

Authentic Friley points are housed at TARL. The examples illustrated above are from the
Thomas Oakes collection.

107
 Gar Scales

Original Recorder: The first mention of this artifact in Texas is in An Introductory Handbook of
Texas Archeology by Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger (1954). Gar scales are the bony
scales of the Alligator Gar (Atractoseus spatula) that some archaeologists believe were used as
arrow points (Figure 41).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: (Davis 1995) estimates the age of these presumed points at A.D. 700 to A.D. 1600. The
latest edition of a typology book (Turner et al. 2011) does not discuss gar scales as possible
points.

Description: Davis (1995:218) describes gar scale points as small thin points with a triangular
outline and lateral edges that may be straight, concave, or convex. “The shoulders may appear
strong to non-existent. The stem usually contracts toward the base giving this point a bi-pointed
appearance.” Dimensions are not stated.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Gar scales have been found in numerous sites on the Texas coast and some
inland sites, especially those on the lower reaches of rivers entering the Gulf of Mexico.

Known Sites: 41HR133 (shell midden on Peggy Lake); Kendrick’s Hill site (41JK35) and
Possum Bluff (41JK24). Site 41JK35 contained 13 scales with asphaltum, but it covered the
faces of the scales as well as the stems.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Aten (1983), Costa and Fox (2016), Davis (1995),
Jelks (1962), Olsen (1968), Moore (1985), Patterson (1994, 2001), Perino (1985), Suhm and
Krieger (1954), and Tunnell and Tunnell (2015).

108
Comments: Gar scales are found on Alligator Garfish (Atractosteus spatula). They are hard,
boney interlocking scales known as ganoid scales. Their purpose is to provide a protective
armor. The shape of these scales is ideal for hafting without serious modification. The natural
stem of some specimens has been altered, and cut marks are sometimes present (Suhm and
Krieger 1954).

Davis (1995) and Costa and Fox (2016) believe that they could have also been used as flaking
tools for making arrow points. Because of their diminutive size, they are believed to have only
functioned as arrowpoints.

Costa and Fox (2016) examined gar scales in terms of their durability for use as projectile
points. They concluded that they were just as effective as flint if the serrated edges were
removed by grinding. Test firing with a calibrated crossbow demonstrated that some points
fractured with one shot, while others survived two or more. Four points were shot at pork ribs
and passed easily through the skin and rib tissue. Even hits on bone resulted in good
penetration. Costa and Fox (2016:28-29) write that, “the results of these experiments support
the hypothesis that alligator gar scales can be easily modified and utilized as tips for projectile
weaponry.”

Agogino and Shelley (1988) discuss the possibilities of gar scales having been used as
projectile points in the southern United States and northern Mexico.

Carl Welch has conducted experimentally with hafting alligator gar scales to wooden shafts to
make complete arrows with feathers, etc. He used scales from Missouri. Welch (personal
communication 2022) states that the scales are razor sharp, especially those with a serrated
edge. While describing his experiment he writes that he used a Dermal tool to shorten the long
extension of the bottom of the scale to remove some of its slight curvature and to create
notches for hafting. An argument for their utility to function as a projectile point is due to their
toughness. They are made of enamel like human teeth, the hardest bone associated with living
creatures. He also argues that another fact that supports their use as projectiles is they have
been found in archaeological sites away from their native habitat.

Gar scales (aka ganoid scales) are the bony armor of the North American freshwater fish of the
family Lepisosteidae.

109
 Garza

Original Recorder: Garza (Figure 42) was named and described by Frank A. Runkles (1964)
for examples found at the Garza site near the town of Post in Garza County. Runkles proposed
this type for 13 triangular points that exhibited a centrally placed basal notch.

Other Names: Soto

Similar Types: Walter W. Taylor (1966) referred to a similar type found in Mexico as the
Cienegas point. Davis (1995) stated that Lott is also a similar type. Garza points lack shoulders,
while Lott specimens exhibit weak to strong shoulders and occasionally small barbs. Davis
(1995:232) said that a “weak shouldered Lott point and a Garza point are somewhat similar in
appearance.” Perino (1968) believes Garza points are like some Toyah points and would
become Toyah if notched on the sides. He adds that they also resemble the Harrell type, and
the two are often found together.

Age: Runkles (1964) believes Garza is the same age as Lott and Perdiz. Earl Green (1962)
believes that the Garza point from the Lubbock Lake site dates to sometime prior to A.D. 1500.
Turner et al. (2011:193) estimate the age of this point at A.D. 1540 to A.D. 1665. Boyd (2001)
refers to sites with Garza points as protohistoric.

Description: Davis (1995:220) describes Garza as a “small stemless point with triangular
blades and lateral edges that may be straight or convex and serrated or smooth. The base is
straight to slightly concave with a centrally notched base that is either V- or U-shaped. Basal
corners may be slightly rounded but are more often pointed in appearance.” Dimensions are not
given.

Cultural Affiliation: Duncan (1995:51), citing others, said, “These points are considered part of
the cultural inventory of the protohistoric Garza complex, which is considered a westward
extension of the Wheeler Phase on the southern plains, and affiliated with the Tejas” (Plains
Caddoan or Wichita).

110
Distribution: At the time the Garza point was proposed, its known extent was bounded on the
north by Lamb and Bailey counties, on the east by southern Floyd to Taylor counties, on the
southwest by Crane County, and on the west by El Paso County (Runkles 1964). A few
specimens were reported from widely scattered areas in eastern New Mexico (Donna Ana and
Otero counties) and west to the Pecos River. Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018)
says that this type is found in the eastern part of the Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region, but it is
not a common type in the area. Duncan et al. (2007:51) write that “the Garza complex villages
are concentrated along the White River in Blanco Canyon around Lubbock, Texas.” Boyd
(2001:Figure 5) presents a map of the distribution of Garza and Lott points in the Texas
panhandle-plains.

Known Sites: Garza (41GR40), Lubbock Lake (41LU1), Blue Mountain Rockshelter (41WK4),
Cielo Bravo (41PS52), Lott (41GR56), and Pete Creek site (Parsons 1967).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Holden (1938), Parsons (1967), Boyd (2001),
Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Perino (1968, 1985), Runkles (1964), Turner and Hester
(1985, 1993, 1999), Hedrick (1989), Johnson et al. (1977), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Most Garza points from 41GR40 were made from local flint and chert. One
specimen was made from obsidian. Eighty-two percent of the triangular points found at the
Garza site were fragmentary, and this suggested to Runkles (1964) that they might represent an
intermediate step in the production of Garza or Harrell points. Evidence from the Garza site
indicates that it is associated primarily (or even exclusively) with the triple-notched Harrell point
and not with the side-notched Harrell point. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018) informed
me of a triple-notched arrowpoint at 41PS194 that he believes to be a Harrell.

Captain Alan L. Phelps (1964:8) of the U.S. Army, reported a new type he named Soto that he
discovered in northern Chihuahua, Mexico. The name was derived from a nearby ranch. Phelps
(1964:8) said, “The Soto points range in size from 1.3 cm to 3.5 cm in length and .5 cm to 1.5
cm in width at the base. The base is always notched, sometimes deeply, sometimes shallow,
and can be straight or concave. The favored material is agate, but flint and obsidian points are
found.”

Eileen Johnson and others (1977) discuss the Garza occupation in their article “Garza
Occupation at the Lubbock Lake Site.” Two Garza points found in activity area FA8-4. One
specimen is described as a unifacially flaked basal section with a bifacially flaked notch. The
other is represented by two sections in close proximity to each other, suggestive of a break
during manufacture.

Boyd (2001:Figure 5) maps the distribution of Garza and Lott points in the Texas Panhandle
Plains.

The example illustrated above is part of the John Fish collection. Authentic Garza points are
housed at TARL.

111
 Glass

Original Recorder: This point receives its name from the material it was made from.

Other Names: I am not aware of glass points being typed like their stone or metal counterparts.
However, some bear a resemblance to valid types. One such specimen closely resembles the
Guerrero type (Figure 43). Another is similar to Bassett and Cliffton (Figure 44).

Similar Types: Bassett, Cameron, Cliffton, and Guerrero

Age: Dee Ann Suhm and Krieger (1954:119) write that glass arrow points and scrapers are
associated with the Historic Stage. Guerrero points made of glass were used in the 18th century
by mission Indians (Turner et al. 2011:194). The glass arrow point described by Perttula and
Marceaux (2018) dates from circa 1680 to 1720. George Avery shared an example of a glass
arrow point from Mission Dolores (41SA25) in San Augustine County (see Figure 40).

Description: See the descriptions for Bassett, Cameron, Cliffton, and Guerrero.

Cultural Affiliation: All historic groups. Suhm and Krieger (1954:119-120) state that “surface
finds of glass arrow points have been reported at sites associated with the Brownsville Focus.”
They assert that “…since none of these have been excavated, it is uncertain whether this is
fortuitous, or the Brownsville Focus lasted into European times.” Prewitt et al. (1987:24-25)
argue that the presence of glass arrow points and other European made objects may associate
these sites with the Rockport Focus and beyond.

Distribution: Statewide.

Known Sites: Swan Lake site (41AS16), Live Oak Point site (41AS2), Spradley site (41NA206),
Mission Dolores de los Ais (41SA25), Gilbert (41RA13), and Candelario Olivo site in Aransas
County (no trinomial).

112
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Campbell (1958, 1960), Harris and Tunnell
(1966), Prewitt et al. (1987), Tunnell and Tunnell (2015), Corbin et al. (1990), Perttula and
Marceaux (2018). Two glass arrow points are on display at the Bullock Texas State History
Museum in Austin as part of a loan by TARL.

Comments: Two green glass arrow points were found on Webb Island in the Laguna Madre, 25
miles south of Puerto Bay by George Martin and Henry Fulton. Sadly, Fulton’s find was lost
after leaving the site (Tunnell and Tunnell 2015:198).

The glass point depicted in Figure 45 was found on a deflated surface in Aransas County. It
was associated with other points, pottery, and scrapers, a small knife blade, and sherds of
green glass believed to be part of a wine bottle used in colonial times (Tunnell and Tunnell
2015:198, Figure 7.12). The authors speculated that, if complete, it would have measured
“nearly two inches in length by three-quarters inch in width. The thickness corresponds to that of
the wall of the bottle fragments found here.”

Six green glass arrow points were found at the Swan Lake site (41AS16) in Aransas County
(Prewitt et al. 1987:24).

Campbell (1958:163) mentioned previous work in the Rio Grande Delta Region by A. E.
Anderson (1930) in the following quote. “Anderson attributed all of his artifacts to a single
culture. He mentioned a few projectile points made of glass, but no attempt was made to link the
archeological remains with any specific Indian group.” Anderson’s (1930:31) also stated “Green
bottle glass projectile points, similar to those of flint, are found but are scarce.”

Campbell (1958) believes glass arrow points at the Live Oak Point site (41AS2) may be linked
to the historic Karankawa.

Perttula and Marceaux (2018:22) describe and illustrate a glass point from 41NA206
Nacogdoches County. “It is made of bluish-green glass that is flat and only 2.5 mm in thickness.
It was recovered from Unit N54-W59, level 2 (10-20 cm below the surface). The point is broken,
and only the tip and serrated blade remain. The blade is 17.5 mm in width.”

Harris and Tunnell (1967:111) describe seven pieces of clear flat glass that have been bifacially
retouched into points or knives. One sherd of clear, flat glass and two green bottle fragments
have unifacial flaking alone one edge which may be intentional retouch or wear from use as
scrapers. One example is illustrated in his Figure 48.

Claude McCrocklin (1993:8-13) discusses chipped glass found at historic Indian sites. Even
though his article is not about arrow points, he provides insight into methods and materials used
that may be applicable to the manufacture of arrow points. He writes that “bottle glass,
especially wine bottles, was the object of choice. All parts of the bottle; neck, sides, and bottom,
were used. Flaking removed large chips as well as pressure flakes. Only the sides of bottles
were bifacially chipped,” and he states that these resemble prehistoric scrapers or knives.

113
 Granbury

Original Recorder: Granbury points (Figure 46) were first recognized at the Kyle site in Hill
County by Edward B. Jelks (1962). He named it for Lake Granbury where some of the first
specimens were found. This new type was proposed based on thirty-eight specimens described
as a series of triangular to subtriangular artifacts classified as arrow points.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Jelks (1962:35) states that the var. bono is similar to the Fresno type, but he
states that “as a group they are distinct from that type, being generally thicker, heavier, and
cruder than Fresno.” Other varieties noted by Jelks are Granbury var. joshua and parker, but
they “lack sharp angles at the basal corners, which makes them readily distinguishable from the
Fresno type.”

Age: According to (Prewitt 1981), the Granbury point dates to circa A.D. 700 to A.D. 1300 due
to its association with the Austin Phase.

Description: Jelks (1962:35) describes Granbury in the following. “This provisional type
includes a series of triangular to subtriangular artifacts that are classed as arrow points. The
blade is triangular “with straight to slightly concave base; lateral edges straight to mildly
concave.” His discussion of this type includes physical characteristics of the three proposed
varieties.

bono– Length 2 cm to 4 cm; maximum width at base: 1.4 cm to 2.1 cm; maximum thickness: 3
mm to 6 mm.

joshua – Length 2.6 cm to 5 cm; maximum width at base: 1.5 cm to 2.3 cm; maximum
thickness: 3 mm to 7 mm.

parker – Length 3.4 cm to 4 cm; maximum width at base: 1.7 cm to 2.5 cm; maximum thickness:
4 mm to 7 mm.

114
Cultural Affiliation: Granbury is a diagnostic type of the Austin Focus (aka Austin Phase) of
the Central Texas Aspect (Jelks 1962; Prewitt 1981). No specimens from the Kyle site were
found in the Toyah Focus zone.

Distribution: In Texas, it is found “from the Brazos River on the northwest to the Nueces River
on the southwest; on the south and east from a line running parallel to, and 50 to 100 miles
south and east of the Balcones Escarpment, and on the northwest from a line drawn between
Young and Edwards counties” (Perino 1991:90). According to Prewitt’s (1995) distribution and
density study, most Granbury points are found in Central and South-Central Texas. The most
specimens (50 or more) have been reported from Young County in North-Central Texas.

Known Sites: Kyle (41HI1), Footbridge (41CM2), Oblate (41CM1), Pecan Springs (41EL11),
and 41SE17.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Johnson et al. (1962), Sorrow (1966), Forrester
(1987b), Perino (1991), and Prewitt (1981).

Comments: Prewitt (1981) presents a detailed discussion of the Austin Phase/Focus in his
article titled “Cultural Chronology in Central Texas.” This type was recognized after the TAS
bulletin by Suhm and Krieger (1954) and the typology book by Suhm and Jelks (1962) were
published. Forrester (1987b) mentions Granbury points, var. parker (n=21), joshua (n=8), and
bono (n=4) at 41SE17.

Sorrow (1966:24) reported 12 Granbury points at the Pecan Springs site (41EL11) in Ellis
County. All three varieties were present. Two additional specimens were tentatively identified
as Granbury, but they did not fit the definition of either of the three varieties.

The Granbury point illustrated above is housed at TARL.

115
 Guadalupe

Original Recorder: Noel D. Justice (2002:231-240) is credited with naming this point (Figure
47).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar types: Livermore, Neff.

Age: Not stated.

Description: No physical description available.

Cultural Affiliation: Late Prehistoric.

Distribution: Not stated.

Known Sites: Not stated.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Justice (2002:231-240).

Comments: Mallouf (2012:3), writes that “Recently this point style [Diablo] has been lumped
within a ‘Livermore Cluster’ construct and included in a typological subset termed the
‘Guadalupe point’” by Justice (2002). “In order to separate and clarify the chronological, stylistic,
and distributional parameters of a distinctive point style included as ‘Guadalupe’ by Justice, the
designation, Guadalupe arrow point is herein proposed.”

Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, October 9, 2020) believes that this type is
problematical.

116
Justice (2002:231) incorporates the Neff point into his Guadalupe point construct, noting that
“The Neff type is ‘…well within the overall variation described for Guadalupe but it typically
exhibits strongly angled shoulders (L-shaped) with straight sides below a narrow blade with
serrations which may show progressively smaller serrations moving up the blade.”

The following measurements were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 10 mm to 51 mm (average 35 mm to 45 mm)

Stem length: 7 mm to 13 mm
Blade width: 14 mm to 24 mm
Neck width: 5 mm to 8 mm
Basal width: 8 mm to 13 mm
Thickness: 4 mm to 7 mm

No reference to Neff as a valid type was found.

117
 Guerrero

Original Recorder: The Guerrero point was named and described by Thomas R. Hester (1977)
based on examples found at San Bernard Mission located near the city of Guerrero in Coahuila,
Mexico. The points illustrated here have been curated at TARL (Figure 48).

Other Names: Mission triangular points.

Similar types: According to Davis (1995), this type resembles Fresno in its general outline. The
difference is that Fresno has a more triangular appearance and a straight to mildly concave
base, whereas the shape of the Guerrero point is triangular to lanceolate with a basal concavity
that is usually deeper. It is similar to the Cameron type described by MacNeish (1958) and
Turner et al. (2011).

Age: This point was used in the 18th century by mission Indians, and some specimens were
made from glass (Turner et al. 2011:194).

Description: Turner et al. (2011:194) refers to Guerrero as a triangular to lanceolate point.

“Most examples are triangular in outline, and distal tips are often reworked.” Some have “very
careful parallel flaking.” Hester’s illustrated examples depict bases that are ‘straight and slightly
to markedly concave. Lateral edges are straight and convex.” Dimensions are not given. Some
are made of glass.

Cultural Affiliation: Historic Stage.

Distribution: Guerrero points are found in Central Texas, Southern Texas, and northern
Mexico. Robert J. Mallouf writes that is an infrequent type in the Trans-Pecos Region. Arrow
points described as Guerrero were found at Mission de los Ais in San Augustine County (Corbin
et al. 1990).

118
Known Sites: Mission San Jose y San Miguel de Aguayo (41BX3), San Juan de Espada
(41BX4), Mission Nuestra Soñora de la Purísima Concepción de Acuña (41BX12), Mission San
Antonio de Valero (Alamo) (41BX6), Mission Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga (41GD1), Mission Señora
de Rosario (41GD2), Mission Presidio la Bahia (Fort St. Louis) (41VT4), Mission Espíritu Santo
de Zuñiga (41VT11), Mission San Juan de Capistrano (41BX5), Shanklin (41WH8), and
41VT38.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Fox (1979),
Hester (1977, 1980, 1989), Hester and Whatley (1997), Hudgins (1982, 1984), Inman (1999),
Lohse (1999), Perino (1991), Ricklis (2000), Tomka (2016), Jelks (1993), Schmeidlin (1997),
Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), and Turner et al. (2011).

Mitchell (1980) illustrates five Guerrero points from Mission San Juan de Capistrano. The
complete specimens vary in length from 2.0 cm to 4.0 cm and 1.2 cm to 2.2 cm in width. Some
specimens are completely bifacially thinned to the extent that all original flake surfaces have
been obliterated” (Mitchell 1980:23). Mitchell writes that these points were made by
Coahuiltecans.

Comments: This is a historic arrow point that was made by the Coahuiltecan Indians in the
1700s. It is most often found at Spanish Colonial mission sites, ranchos, and native villages.
Turner et al. (2011:194) state that “a longer, more lanceolate form found at 41VT11 may have
been used by the Aranama Indians.” Daniel E. Fox (1979) discusses this type in his report on
lithic artifacts at Spanish Colonial missions. In 1997, Hester and Whatley (1997) mentioned the
kinds of archaeological materials found in Southern Texas

Steve A. Tomka (2016) presents a detailed discussion of the Guerrero type based on a study of
283 specimens recovered from controlled excavations at five Spanish missions sponsored by
the National Park Service. He describes them as existing in triangular and lenticular forms. The
other form consists of two principal variants. He describes the first variant as having a “leaf
shape characterized by a contracting stem and a widening blade toward the distal tip.” “The
second variant is virtually parallel for much of its length” (Tomka 2016:102-103). His Figure 4
illustrates his version of how the Guerrero point was hafted as compared to the Fresno type.

Hester (1980:106) writes that Guerreo represents the “survival of chipped stone technology
among the missionized Indians of south Texas and northeastern Mexico.

Smitty Schmeidlin (1997) reports a single Guerrero point at 41VT38, the presumed third location
of Mission Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga (41VT11).

119
 Harrell

Original Recorder: Jack Hughes (1942) described 78 specimens found at the Harrell site in
Young County as triangular points with notches on the sides. An additional 33 points had
notches in the base as well. Suhm and Krieger (1954) assigned the name Harrell to these two
groups based on their first appearance at the Harrell site. Bell (1958) believes that the variation
in notching represented two separate types, and he proposed Harrell for those with side and
basal notches (Figure 49) and Washita for those without basal notches.

Other Names: Triple-Notched point

Similar Types: Washita

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954:500) estimate the age of Harrell points in Texas at circa A.D.
1100 to A.D. 1500. Elsewhere, it may be considerably older. Turner et al. (2011:196) state that it
is a Late Prehistoric type that dates to circa A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1500. Crook (2017:51) dates it to
circa A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1600.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:500) describe Harrell points as “Triangular points with
edges straight to slightly convex. Two small side notches occur from one-fourth to one-half the
distance from base toward tip.” They provide the following dimensions.

Length: 1.5 cm to 3.5 cm

Width: 1.2 cm to 2 cm
Notches: 0.2 cm to 0.3 cm deep

The points illustrated above were provided by John Fish. Other specimens are housed at TARL
(Figure 50).

Cultural Affiliation: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954:500), Harrell is a major type of the
Antelope Focus and one of several types in the Henrietta and Wylie foci. Duncan et al.
(2007:57) write that this point is “…commonly associated with the Washita River, Turkey Creek,
Custer, Paoli and Antelope Creek phases as well as the Edwards complex and to some extent,
the Wheeler phase in central and western Oklahoma Farmersville Phase” (Crook 2017:51).

120
Distribution: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that Texas specimens are found across the
northern part of the state and southward to the Upper Brazos and Trinity River drainages with
occasional specimens found to the south. This type occurs widely in the Panhandle-Plains area
where no definite complexes have been recognized. It is unknown in eastern Texas except for
rare intrusive specimens. Hester (1980:106) writes that Harrell points are a rare occurrence in
South Texas.

According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018), this type is found in the eastern
Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region, but it is not a common type. Turner et al. (2011) state that it
is found mainly in the Panhandle and Trans-Pecos regions, and similar forms have been
reported over much of North America. Duncan et al. (2007) lists specific sites in Colorado,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and New Mexico where this type has been found.

Known Sites: Harrell (41YN1), Roark Cave (41BS3), Lubbock Lake (41LU1), 41TG91 (Creel
1990), 41SE17, 41PS194, Greenbelt site (41DY17), Esquivel Burial Cache (41CR33), Baker Cave
(41VV213), 41CR30, 41CR33, and sites in Possum Kingdom and Texarkana reservoirs.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1958), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. 2007),
Krieger (1946), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954:500), Kelley (1963), Hester
(1980), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Schneider (1966), Perino
(1985), Smyers et al. (2019), Campbell (n.d.), Word and Douglas (1970), and Glasrud and
Mallouf (2013).

Comments: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that it appears that two sub-groups or sub-types
may be valid. They are those with a third notch in the center of the base and those without a
basal notch. In Texas, they say that there is no difference in distribution or time between these
two sub-types, although a wider study in the Plains and Southwest United States may show
significant differences.

Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Harrell points and other Late
Prehistoric types from a sample of 750 specimens.

Three Harrell points were found at a burial cache at site 41CR33 in Crane County (Smyers, et
al. 2019). One specimen has a classic impact fracture. Cindy Smyers (personal communication,
October 28, 2022) mentioned that Harrell points were found in direct association with Washita
points at a bison kill site (41CR30).

Four Harrel points were found at 41DY17. Only GS-22 is complete (Figure 1c). It has one pair
of lateral notches and a centrally located basal notch. It measures 1.5 cm wide and 2.5 cm
long. Two specimens are made from Alibates, and two are from Tecovas jasper (Campbell
n.d.:44-45).

121
 Hayes

Original Recorder: Newell and Krieger (1949) wrote about the Gibson Aspect in
the Caddoan area, and it was in this discussion that this type was first mentioned. It was later
described by Suhm and Krieger (1954) in An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. The
type site is George C. Davis in Cherokee County.

Other Names: Hayes Barbed Point (Bell and Hall 1953).

Similar Types: Newell and Krieger (1949) write that Hayes (Figure 51) is similar to Alba, but is
longer and slimmer with needle-like tips and diamond-shaped stems. Suhm and Krieger (1954)
state that this point is like Alba except for stem shape and “incut tips” and to Bonham except for
stem shape and general proportions.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954:502) state that the age of this type “corresponds with the Haley
Focus, A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 or the greater part thereof.” Turner et al. (2011:197) refer to it as
Late Prehistoric with no specific date. Webb (2000:15) writes that Hayes points in Louisiana
“occur chiefly in early Caddo villages and burials, probably from 800 to 1100 A.D.”

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:502) describe this type as having a “Slender triangular
blade with edges usually concave or recurved, occasionally straight, rarely convex. Some are
square shouldered without real barbs, but others have barbs sweeping out laterally rather than
pointing downward. Stems are bulb-shaped in some cases but are often featured by a diamond
shaped from which tiny protrusions emerge on one or more edges. Blade edges sometimes
finely serrated, and tips may be sharply incut. The stems are about one-fourth to one-sixth the
total length of the point.” They provide the following dimensions.

Length: 3 cm to 5 cm
Width: 1.5 cm to 2 cm
Stem Length: 0.6 mm to 1.0 cm
Stem Width: 0.5 cm to 0.8 cm

122
Cultural Affiliation: Krieger (1946) associated it with the Late Gibson Aspect. Suhm and
Krieger (1954) say it is a characteristic type of not only the Haley Focus of the Gibson Aspect,
but it may occur as a minor type or intrusion in the latter phases of the Alto, Gahagan, and Spiro
foci.

Distribution: It is only found in the Great Bend of the Red River in adjacent corners of Texas,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and possibly Oklahoma (Suhm and Krieger 1954; Turner et al. 2011:197).

Known Sites: In Texas it has been reported from the George C. Davis (41CE19) and A.C.
Mackin (41LR39) sites. In Arkansas, specimens have been documented from Crenshaw
Mounds (3 MI 0006) and various sites in Pike County. One point identified as Hayes was found
at Belcher Mound (16 CD 13) in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1958), Bell and Hall (1953), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Newell and Krieger (1949), Suhm and Krieger. (1954), Suhm and Jelks
(1962), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Perino (1985), and Webb
(1959, 2000).

Comments: Newell and Krieger (1949:162) point out the “near-identity of the Hayes points and
the common form of the classic Teotihuacan culture in central Mexico” stating that “the only real
difference being that the Mexican specimens are almost always obsidian rather than flint.” Webb
(2000) writes that the Hayes point is a companion to Alba and occurred mainly in early Caddo
villages and burials.

The example illustrated above (Figure 51) is from site 41CE19 and housed at TARL. Figure 52
depicts variations of this type by material and shape.

123
 Homan

Original Recorder: W. Raymond Wood (1963) was the first to describe Homan based on
examples found at the Crenshaw site in Miller County Arkansas (Figure 53). The origin of its
name is not known.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Turner and Hester (1985) believe Homan may be a variant of the Agee type, but
they state that it does not have the needle-like point or the typically flat-tipped barb. Davis
(1995) states that Homan and Agee points are similar in general appearance, and they may be
part of a continuum. Webb (2000) compares Homan to Alba because of the triangular body and
recurved edges. The distinguishing feature of the Homan point is the “globular stem.” The
specimen illustrated here may represent a variation of the Homan point. It has the characteristic
bulbous stem and recurved edges, but the barbs are squared, reminiscent of Catahoula.

Age: Turner and Hester (1999) estimate its age as A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1300. In Louisiana, Webb
(2000) dates it to circa A.D. 800 to A.D. 900.

Description: Davis (1995:228) describes this point as triangular with a sub-triangular outline.
“The lateral edges are recurved, and the blade becomes wide or convex toward the distal end,
tapering to a needle-like tip. The shoulders are strong with flared barbs. The barbs may have a
rounded to pointed appearance. The stem is notched near the blade and the deep notches are
U-shaped or V-shaped. The stem expands toward the base which is strongly convex giving the
stem a bulbous appearance.” In Louisiana, they are usually made of novaculite or tan chert.
(Webb 2000:16)

Cultural Affiliation: Woodland, Fourche Maline (Bruseth et al. 2009). They date the site to circa
A.D. 800 to A.D. 900. Webb (2000) associates it with late Coles Creek ceramics in Louisiana.

Distribution: Northeastern Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

Known Sites: Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999) do not mention any specific Texas sites.
Bruseth et al. (2009) illustrate two Homan points from the Stallings Ranch site (41LR297).
Examples have been found at Crenshaw Mounds (3 MI 0006) in Arkansas and Mounds
Plantation (16 CD 12) in Louisiana.

124
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Perino (1968,
1985), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Webb (2000), Wood (1963), Turner and Smith
(2002), Perttula, et al. (2001), and Bruseth et al. (2009). Homan is not included in Turner et al.
2011.

Comments: According to Turner and Hester (1985:180), this type is identified by its unusual
“flared, fan-shaped” stem. Davis (1995) believes that Homan may have also functioned as a
ceremonial point because it has been found in caches associated with burials.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 15 mm to 40 mm (average 25 mm to 30 mm)

Stem length: 5 mm to 7 mm (typically 1/5 to 1/4 of total length)
Neck width: 3 mm to 6 mm
Stem width: 6 mm to 9 mm
Thickness: 2 mm to 5 mm

The example illustrated above is from the John Fish collection.

125
 Kobs Triangular

Original Recorder: The Kobs point was first mentioned by Joe Ben Wheat (1953) for examples
found at Addicks Reservoir in Harris County (Figure 54).

Other Names: None.

Similar Types: Alba, Fresno.

Age: Late Prehistoric.

Description: Wheat (1953:203) describes this provisional type as follows. The blade is “Usually
concave from base to mid-blade, convex to tip; a few are straight to convex, sometimes
serrated; basically triangular. The base is usually convex. Wheat provides the following
dimensions - length: 45 mm; width: 22 mm; thickness: 4 mm

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: This type has only been reported at sites within the Addicks Basin Reservoir in
Harris County.

Known Sites: Kobs (41HR7).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Wheat (1953:203, Plate 35).

Comments: Joe Ben Wheat (1953) referred to the Fresno point found by Kelley (1947) as a
“Kobs Triangular Point” based on examples from the Kobs site at Addicks Reservoir in Harris
County (Suhm and Krieger 1954). No image suitable for publication was available during this
study.

126
 Livermore

Original Recorder: J. Charles Kelley, T. N. Campbell, and Donald J. Lehmer (1940) described
this point and named it for Mount Livermore in the Davis Mountains (Jeff Davis County) where a
large cache of more than 1,200 points were found by Susan M. Jones (Davis 1995) and named
the Livermore Cache. It was later described and illustrated by Suhm and Krieger (1954).

Other Names: Livermore Barbed.

Similar Types: Perdiz (Greer 1968a) and Sabinal.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate its age at 800 A.D. to 1200 A.D. According to Turner et
al. (2011), this is one of the earliest arrow points yet documented in the eastern Trans-Pecos
Region, and its age is estimated at A.D. 800 to A.D. 1350. J. Charles Kelley (1957:51) believes
“… that the Livermore Focus was “best developed in the Texas Trans-Pecos region during the
period circa A.D. 900 to A.D. 1200 with the possibility of a still earlier appearance and a
somewhat later survival in the Pecos River drainage.”

Description: Davis (1995:230) describes Livermore as “A small to large arrow point with a
general outline that looks somewhat like a cross as the stem and blade are quite narrow with
laterally barbed shoulders (Figure 55). The lateral edges may be straight or convex but are
usually concave and are often serrated. The strong shoulders often flare or jut out at a ninety-
degree angle to the blade axis. The narrow stem may be straight, contract, or expand toward
the base. The base may be straight to pointed or rounded with a bulbous appearance.
Dimensions are not given. Additional examples were provided by the Center for Big Bend
Studies (Figure 56).

Cultural Affiliation: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that Livermore is a major type of the
Livermore Focus, and it also extends intrusively into the Jornada Branch (Mesilla Phase) in New
Mexico.

Distribution: Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that it is found mainly in the central part of the
Trans-Pecos Region. According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018), this type
is commonly found in the eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend regions.

127
Known Sites: Livermore Cache (41JD66), Wolf Den Cave (41JD191), Tall Rockshelter
(41JD10), Midden Circle site (no trinomial), Roark Cave (41BS3), Squawteat Peak (41PC14),
Ram’s Head (41PC35), Perro Salvaje (41PC2), John Z. and Exa Means Cache (41JD212).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Davis (1995), Kelley et al. (1940),
Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Kelley (1963), Greer (1968a), Turner and
Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Perino (1985), Katz (1978), Young (1981a, 1982), Jelks (1993),
Jarvis and Crawford (1974), Hedrick (1989), Young (1982b), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments Many Livermore and Toyah arrowpoints made of local material indicate that this is a
core area for Kelley’s (1957) Livermore Focus.”

(Davis 1995:230) provides the following description. “Some specimens are identified by lateral
barbs as opposed to those that point downward as on most other point types. The blade edges
are sometimes finely serrated, and the tips may be sharply incut. The shoulders of the
Livermore type ‘jut out’ at an almost ninety-degree angle from the blade axis while the strong
barbs of the Sabinal point sweep outward and recurve. The stem of the Sabinal point expands
slightly toward the base that is relatively straight compared to the pointed or strongly convex
basal area of the Livermore point. Overall workmanship on the Sabinal point is better.”

Greer (1968b) writes about excavated ring midden sites in the Lower Pecos and Trans-Pecos
regions. He refers to a type that he names Perdiz/Livermore, but he does not describe it in
detail.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 21 mm to 50 mm
Blade width: 5 mm to 10 mm
Shoulder width: 12 mm to 30 mm
Stem width: 4 mm to 10 mm
Thickness: 5 mm to 7 mm

The examples illustrated above are from the John Fish and Museum of the Big Bend collections.
Authentic Livermore points are housed at TARL (Figure 57).

128
 Lott

Original Recorder: The first known reference to this type was by Ronnie Shawn (1975) who
described a single specimen found at the Blue Hill site in Midland County. It was not complete,
and he described it as a triangular point with convex lateral edges and a concave base (Figure
58). F. E. Green (1962) found the basal tang of a Lott point at the Lubbock Reservoir site (aka
Lubbock Lake site) that was known at the time as an “informally named point.” Although the
name Lott appeared in earlier reports, Frank A. Runkles and E. D. Dorchester (1986) are
credited for officially naming and describing this point in honor of John Lott, the owner of the Lott
site in Garza County.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Davis (1995:232), “the Lott point and the Garza point are similar in
general appearance. However, Garza lacks shoulders while the Lott point sometimes has weak
barbs.”

Age: Turner et al. (2011) estimate its age at A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1500. Boyd (2001) places this type
as protohistoric.

Description: Davis (1995:232) describes Lott as “A small point with a triangular outline. The
lateral edges are straight or slightly convex and may exhibit miniature serrations. The shoulders
range from weak to slightly barbed. The bifurcated stem expands toward the base and has a
deep basal notch. The flared basal corners range from square to pointed. This point may be
widest at the shoulders but more often at the base when the basal corners are flared.”
Dimensions are not given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: It is found at sites in the Llano Estacado and the rolling plains of North-Central
Texas. According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018), this type is infrequently
found in the eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region. Boyd (2001:Figure 5) depicts the
distribution of Garza and Lott points in the Texas Panhandle Plains.

129
Known sites: Lott (41GR56), Lubbock Lake (41LU1), Floydada Country Club (41FL1), Blue
Mountain Rockshelter (41RK4), Pete Creek site (41CB63), 41GR56, 41CC131, and the
Wooden Bow Burial site in Floyd County.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Johnson et al. (1977), Runkles and
Dorchester (1986), Shawn (1975), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), and Turner et al.
(2011).

Comments: According to Johnson et al. (1977:88), “Lott points were associated with Garza
points in the upper two occupation levels at Blue Mountain Rock Shelter.”

Turner and Hester (1985:182) describe and illustrate Lott as a “distinctive triangular point that
has an expanding stem and a central basal notch.”

Fifty-six examples were found at 41GR56 (Runkles and Dorchester 1986:92-93).

Most of the specimens are thin and finely made from local chert and flint. The points from this
site cover the range of Lott varieties, and these variations are illustrated in Runkles and
Dorchester (1986). They say that Specimen “C” in Figure 7 represents a typical Lott point.

Boyd (2001:11) maps the distribution of Garza and Lott points in the Texas Panhandle Plains.
He labels the Lott site as a bison kill site and hunting camp.

Lott points had also been found with Garza points in the upper two occupation levels at the Pete
Creek site (Parsons 1967). Parker (1982) briefly discussed this point in his report on the
Wooden Bow Burial site in Floyd County

The following dimensions are based on a small sample size and were taken from the following
web site:
[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 35 mm
Stem length: 6 mm to 8 mm
Blade width: 9 mm to 16 mm

130
 Lozenge

Original Recorder: This point was named by James E. Corbin for examples found in the
Coastal Bend area of Texas. He did not formally describe it. That was done by Ellen Sue Turner
and Thomas R. Hester (1985).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: Lozenge (Figure 59) was in use from A.D. 700 to A.D. 1600 (Davis 1995).

Description: Turner and Hester (1985:183, 2011:200) describe this point as “A distinctive point
that is characterized by an elongated, oval to diamond-shaped outline. One-half of the point is
bifacially worked, resulting in a lenticular cross-section; the opposite end is alternately beveled,
usually on the right. It is not always clear which end is the distal, and which is the proximal, or if
the beveling is the result of resharpening.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown

Distribution: Gulf Coast - Baffin Bay to Corpus Christi Bay (Turner et al. 2011:200).

Known Sites: Kent-Crane (41AS2), McGloin Bluff (41SP11), Mitchell Ridge (41GV66).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Corbin (1974), Hester (1980), Davis (1995),
Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), and Turner et al. (2011)

Comments: According to Davis (1995), this point was probably hafted and used as an arrow
point or hafted and used for etching or drilling. He recommends micro-wear analysis to make a
formal determination.

Hester (1980:106) says “They are in no way related to the lozenge-shaped Desmuke points of
Archaic times.”

131
 McGloin

Original Recorder: James E. Corbin (1963) discusses his surveys along the northern shore of
Corpus Christi Bay that yielded numerous artifacts. Six specimens did not appear to him to be
examples of a defined type. He discusses them, and they are illustrated in his Figure 1.
Specimens E-G may be examples of the McGloin type, but they are not named as such. Ellen
Sue Turner and Thomas R. Hester (1985) formally described it, and they may have named it as
well. This point is named for the McGloin Bluff site where Corbin found his examples.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Davis (1995), McGloin (Figure 60) is similar to the Turney and
Maud types. All three have a triangular outline. The McGloin point, however, does not usually
exhibit the very fine flaking found on the blades of Maud and Turney points.

Age: This type has an approximate age of A.D. 700 to A.D. 1550 (Davis 1995).

Description: Turner et al. 2011:202) describe McGloin as a “…triangular point that almost
always has a distinctively concave, V-shaped base.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: This type is primarily found in the Coastal Bend region of Texas, especially in the
Corpus Christi Bay area,

Known Sites: McGloin Bluff (41SP11), Kent-Crane (41AS2), and Mud Bridge (41NU27).
Possible examples were found at 41JW8 (Black 1986:64) and the Bert Johnson site (41AS1).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Martin (1930), Corbin (1974), Hester (1980),
Davis (1995), Perino (1991), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Jelks (1993), Campbell
(1952), and Turner et al. (2011).

132
Comments: The Kent-Crane site is discussed by Campbell (1952) who also reported on the
Johnson site (believed to be 41AS1) where possible examples of this type may have been
found. The specimens illustrated by Perino (1991) were found by William C. Valentine of
Blossom, Texas on a beach where they were exposed by shifting sands. Other types found by
Mr. Valentine at this site include Cameron, Fresno (plain and serrated), Lozenge, Padre, Perdiz
(plain and serrated), Scallorn (plain and serrated), Starr, and a glass arrow point (Perino 1991).

Martin (1930) illustrates a point from the Mud Bridge site on the Callo del Oso in Nueces County
that resembles the McGloin type.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 35 mm
Width: 10 mm to 20 mm

The example illustrated above is a replica created by Matt Soultz. Authentic McGloin points are
housed at TARL (Figure 61).

133
 Maud

Original Recorder: It was described and illustrated by Suhm and Krieger (1954). They named it
for the town of Maud in Bowie County. No type site was mentioned.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Suhm and Krieger (1954:504) state that Maud (Figure 62) is similar to Talco
“except for excessive depth of base, and the edges are usually straight rather than recurved.”
According to Davis (1995), Maud is similar in general appearance to McGloin and Turney.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954:504) estimate its age at “A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1500 or the greater
part thereof.” Webb (2011:15) writes that Maud points “may occur with Basset points” and “are
probably of the same time period.”

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:504) describe this type as “Slender triangular points with
edges usually straight, sometimes recurved with constriction near middle. Bases deeply
concave to deeply V-shaped. Commonly very finely chipped, thin, flat, with edges minutely
serrated.” Webb (2000:15) states that the Maud point in Louisiana was made from flakes of
usually local materials. He says that they are not as frequent in Louisiana as in East Texas.
They provide the following dimensions.

Length: 2.0 cm to 5.5 cm

Width: 1.0 to 1.5 cm
Basal Concavity: 0.3 cm to 0.7 cm

Cultural Affiliation: This is a common type in the Belcher and Texarkana foci, and it extends to
the easternmost components of the Titus Focus and all of the Fulton Aspect (Suhm and Krieger
1954).

Distribution: It is found in the northeastern corner of Texas and adjacent corners of Arkansas
and Louisiana (Suhm and Krieger 1954). Webb (2000) says that this type is less common in
Louisiana than in eastern Texas.

134
Known Sites: Jones Hill (41PK8), 41CS87, 41CS91, Tuck Carpenter (41CP5), Williams site
(41CP10), Alex Justiss (41TT13), Gilbert (41RA13), Dan Holdeman (41RR11), Roitsch, formerly
Sam Kaufman (41RR16), Goldsmith (41WD208), GG site (41UR136), 41SE17, and Lake
Monticello. In Oklahoma, examples have been recovered from the A. W. Davis site (34MC6)
and Roden (34MC253). Webb (1959:162) illustrates a Maud point from Belcher Mound (16 CD
13) in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Allen et al. (1967), Bell (1958), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Perino (1985), Tully
(1986), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Webb (1959, 1963, 2000),
Perttula et al. (20010, McCormick (1973), Jelks (1993), and Turner and Smith (2002).

Comments: Maud pre-dates Talco where they are found associated with burials. Davis also
states that this type was used as a grave offering in the Caddoan culture (Davis 1995:236).

Thurmond (1985:189-191) writes that Maud is often associated with arrow point types Bassett,
Reed, and Talco. The Reed point does not appear in Turner et al. (2011).

The Maud point depicted above is housed at TARL.

135
 Means

Original Recorder: Robert J. Mallouf (2013) described and named this point for twenty-two
specimens found at the John Z. and Exa Means Cache and eight specimens in private
collections. This type was named for the landowners, Alfred and Ruth Means of Valentine,
Texas.

Other Names: Scallorn variants.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: The Means point (Figure 63) is believed to date to sometime within the Late Prehistoric
period (circa A.D. 700 to A.D. 1350). This statement is based on average size, thickness,
stylistic parameters, and its direct association with Livermore and Toyah points in the John Z.
and Exa Means Cache (Mallouf 2013). Corrick (2000) and Cloud (2001) document radiocarbon
dates for Toyah points, and they propose that this type was most commonly used circa A.D.
1150 to A.D. 1350. They suspect that the terminal age for Means points is within that span.

Description: Mallouf (2013:198) describes the Means point in the following. “Means arrow
points typically have long, narrow blades with moderately to strongly serrated lateral edges.
Lateral blade edges, which are typically straight but may also be recurved, are in some
instances strongly beveled to obtain the desired narrow configuration. Distal blade tip beveling
is common, sometimes resulting in a tiny, perforator-like tip, but with no evidence of use wear.
Base width of the blade at its juncture with the barbs roughly equates to neck width below the
barbs but may be slightly wider or slightly narrower. Well-defined barbs project laterally at
roughly right angles to the long axis of the point. Specimen width at the barbs roughly equates
with the maximum width of the stem. In rare instances, strong shoulders may supplant true
barbs. Stem necks are short and fairly wide relative to the overall length of the point, with neck
width roughly equivalent to the basal blade width. Stems expand quickly and strongly from the
stem neck, and basal edges of stems are commonly straight, but may be slightly convex or
slightly concave. Width of the basal stem edge often approximates specimen width at the
barbs.” This point is lenticular in cross-section.

136
Mallouf (2013) provides the following dimensions.

Length: 22.3 mm to 36.1 mm.

Width: 10.0 mm to 14.5 mm.
Thickness: 2.3 mm to 4.4 mm.

Cultural Affiliation: The occurrence of Means points in direct association with Livermore and
Toyah in the John Z. and Exa Means Cache suggests cultural affiliation with the Livermore
Phase of the Late Prehistoric period. Because Means points were absent from the Livermore
Cache and from Livermore assemblages at Wolf Den Cave and Tall Rockshelter, more research
is needed before this type can definitely be considered to be associated with the Livermore
Phase. The above information was taken from Mallouf (2013).

Distribution: This point occurs primarily in the central and northern areas of the eastern Trans-
Pecos region and probably northward into southeastern New Mexico. More specifically, they are
known to occur in the Davis and Guadalupe Mountains, Lobo Valley, Salt Basin, Glass
Mountains, and areas north to the Toyah Basin. One specimen was found in Big Bend National
Park. The western extent of distribution is currently unknown. This information was taken from
Mallouf (2013).

Known Sites: John Z. and Exa Means Cache (41JD212), Wolf Den Cave (41JD191), and Tall
Rockshelter (41JD10).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Wheaton (2009), Mallouf (2012, 2013), and
Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Wheaton (2009) illustrates three specimens identified by him as “Scallorn variants,”
that he considers are good examples of Means points. All are from mixed midden components
containing ceramics in the vicinity of the southern Guadalupe Mountains.

The points illustrated above are housed at the Center for Big Bend Studies.

137
 Metal Arrow Points

Original Recorder: Not applicable

Names for Metal Points: Under the umbrella of metal points, several types have been
identified from sites in Texas. They are Benton, Harbison, Fillinger, Lipantitlan, and Watson.
There may be others, but I did not find them. The Claremore point was identified in Oklahoma.
See Taylor (1989) for examples.

Benton

The namesake for this point is the late Joe Benton, a pioneer cattle and oil man of Nocona,
Texas who was an avid collector of artifacts from the Spanish Fort sites in Montague County,
Texas and Jefferson County, Oklahoma. It has been found in sites along the Arkansas, Brazos,
Red, Sabine, and Trinity rivers in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Perino (1968:10) writes that
this type is based on 600 specimens from these sites. It dates to the Norteño Focus that lasted
from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century.

Nine metal arrow points were found at the Gilbert site in Rains County. They are described and
illustrated by Harris, et al. (1967:Figure 25). “Some of the types are like others found at Norteño
Focus sites that a name was considered to be warranted. Three were designated as Benton
Type A and Benton Type B. The remainder are referred to as miscellaneous. Three of the
points from the Gilbert site were made from scrap pieces of brass from kettles, while two were
worked from decorated gun fittings such as trigger guard bows, side plates, or butt plates The
most unique metal point in the sample was made from the engraved brass butt plate finial of a
trade gun. (Harris et al. 1967).

Benton points were generally made locally using scrap iron as opposed to commercially made
specimens used as trade goods by Europeans (Taylor 1989:18). Bell and Cross (1980:101)
write that Benton points were made by the proto-historic Wichita in southern Oklahoma and
northern Texas. Perino (1968:10-11) discusses and illustrates five Type A Benton points and
five Type B Benton points from sites in Oklahoma and Texas.

138
Harbison

This point was found on the surface as an isolated find in Medina County. It was named by C.
K. Chandler (1993) in honor of Ray Harbison who found it. Its dimensions are length 40.7 mm;
width 18 mm; thickness 2.5 mm; and stem 13 mm that contracts slightly to 7 mm at the base. It
is made of thin iron and was cut out with a chisel. There is no evidence of notching on the stem
edges.

Fillinger

This point was found on the surface as an isolated find in Medina County. It was named by C.
K. Chandler (1993) in honor of Tom Fillinger who found it. Its dimensions are length 46 mm;
width 18 mm; thickness 2.4 mm to 3 mm; stem length 21 mm; blade length 25 mm; base width
8.5 mm; weight 5.8 g. It is made of iron and appears to have been cut with metal shears. There
is no evidence of notching on the stem edges.

Lipantitlan

The Lipantitlan point was first reported by Skip Kennedy and Jim Mitchell (1988) for a type
found in the vicinity of Fort Lipantitlan in Nueces County. The preform for this type was chiseled
from sheet iron scrap or barrel hoops. It was made by the Lipan Apache tribe during the 1830s.
These points may have been traded to the Indians for meat from their hunts. This type does not
appear in the standard typology books for Texas projectile points. It is illustrated and described
by Kennedy and Mitchell (1988) and Perino (1991).

Similar Types: Other metal points.

Age: Historic Period. Paul R. Katz and Paul D. Lukowski (1981) write that the use of metal
implements in the Trans-Pecos area of Texas began circa A.D. 1500. The metal point at
41PS16 was associated with ceramics believed to date sometime after A.D. 1650. Bell and
Cross (1980:101) state that “In general, the Oklahoma metal arrow points date after A.D. 1750,
and they were commonly used for perhaps 100 years or more after that date.” Metal points
continued to be used until the early part of the 20th century even after firearms were adopted.
Specimens were recovered from the site of the Custer battle at the Little Big Horn in Montana
and other military engagements with Indians.

Cultural Affiliation: Metal arrow points were widely used by Indian tribes in Texas during the
historic period. The Apache and Comanche (McReynolds and Kumpe 2008) and the Tonkawa
(Jones 1969) are perhaps the best known and documented bands during this time.

Known Sites: Sites that have been assigned trinomials from TARL include 41BI34, 41BX5,
41CB29, 41ME74, 41ML38, Ayers site (41MU12), 41MU16, 41NU14, 41NU54, 41NU209,
41PS16, Gilbert site (41RA13), 41SE17, 41SF18, 41TA29, 41TA58, 41WH8, 41PR92, and
41TV1405. Brass arrow points have been reported at sites with Leon Plain sherds (Chandler
1986:29).

139
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Baker and Campbell (1959), Bauman (1988,
1989, 1991), Bell and Cross (1980), Brown and Taylor (1989), Chandler (1984, 1986, 1989,
1993), Chandler and Kumpe (1994), Collins and Collins (1990), Davis (1995), Fox (1982),
Goebel et al. (1987), Greer (1967), Gregory (1982), Harris et al. (1967), Hester (1968, 1970a,
1980), Jelks (1967), Johnson (1987), Kennedy and Mitchell (1988), McReynolds (1982),
McReynolds and Kumpe (2008), Mitchell (1974, 1980), Mitchell and Highley (1982), Mounger
(1959), Parker (1978, 1983, 1985), Perino (1968, 1971, 1985), Randall (1970), Runkles (1982),
Schuetz (1969), Smith (1984), Walters and Rogers (1975), Thompson (1980), Saner et al.
(2004), Taylor (1989), Word
and Campbell (1962), and 41TV1405.

Distribution: Metal points have been documented throughout Texas in the following counties:
Aransas, Atascosa, Bell, Bexar, Briscoe, Burnet, Coke, Colorado, Comanche, Crockett, Crosby,
Dimmit, Edwards, Floyd, Garza, Gillespie, Goliad, Hardeman, Hood, Kendall, Kerr, Lamb, Live
Oak, McCulloch, McMullen, Medina, Menard, Milam, Montague, Nueces, Parker, Presidio,
Rains, San Patricio, Shackelford, Stephens, Sterling, Taylor, Terrell, Travis, Uvalde, Val Verde,
Victoria, Wharton, Young, and Zapata. Examples are known from sites in the adjacent states of
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma

Comments: Texas Indians began to use metal for arrow points once Europeans introduced this
material. Many of the metal points were made available to tribes as trade goods. Points
manufactured by the Indians were made from any form of scrap metal available such as sheet
iron, copper, files, clocks, door hinges, and cuperous metals such as brass cartridge cases.
Barrel hoops were the preferred raw material when it was available (Parker 1983). McReynolds
and Kumpe (2008) discuss various historic Indian groups in Texas that probably used metal
points.

Metal arrow points (Figure 64) can be found in various types of metal, sizes, and shapes.
Regarding trade points, Hester (1980:108) writes “The most common form has a long narrow
blade and a rectangular stem with notching on both edges.” Figure 65 serves as an example.
The methods used to fashion points from metal are unlike knappers working with stone or glass.
Metal points were commonly made by local blacksmiths and Indians who had learned the trade.

The Smithsonian Institution published Notes on the History and Material Culture of the Tonkawa
Indians authored by William K. Jones (1969). Among the collection of artifacts are several bows
and arrows with metal points. They are illustrated in a series of photographs and described in
the chapter titled “Object Description” (Jones 1969:74-75). Three arrows are illustrated in
Figure 2 and described below.

“Three arrows were in the quiver.” “The top arrow is 67.2 cm

long and .73 cm in diameter. Its metal head is 4.45 cm long
and has a serrated shank. The arrowhead is lashed to the
shaft with sinew.” “The feathers are turkey (Meleagris pt.
gallopavo) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura septentrionalis).”

The middle arrow has a point 4.3 cm long and a plain

shank. It was attached to the shaft with sinew. The bottom arrow
has a point 3.59 cm long with a plain shank. It was attached to
the shaft with sinew.

140
A Tonkawa arrow housed at the Peabody Museum in Salem, Massachusetts is illustrated in
Figure 3. A Tonkawa bow and five arrows are illustrated in Figure 5 (USNM negative 2053-H).
A.J. Taylor (1989) conducted a very extensive study of metal arrow points. In all, she has
described over 700 specimens from Texas and other states. Her unpublished manuscript is on
file at TARL and titled “A Preliminary Study of Metal Arrow Points.” She presents a thorough
discussion of the methods of manufacture of metal points, their dispersal through trade, and
discussions of variations by regions of North America. It is well illustrated.

Taylor (1989:28) writes that shears were likely used to “cut a metal strip uniformly into roughly
formed points.” Some were shaped by chisels. Once a piece of metal has been cut to the
desired shape, the stem and/or blade were sometimes altered to create fine, irregular cut marks
that were probably made with a knife or some other sharp instrument such as a saw blade.
These alternations are referred to by Baker and Campbell (1959:51) as “hack marks.” Taylor
(1989:4) prefers the term serrated and writes that the notches may have been created by filing
or a chisel. Asymmetrical points are believed by some to have been made by Indians rather
than Europeans. Some of the trade points bear the name of the company that made them.
Grinnell (1962:71) mentions the practice of sharpening of iron points with a file.

An article by Brown and Taylor (1989) is the only published account by Ms. Taylor that I am
aware of. Apparently, the article was a revision of a class paper that she wrote that reviewed
published reports of historic North American metal arrow points.

Jean Louis Berlandier (1969:48) wrote about the Indians he encountered between 1828 and
1829. Regarding the manufacture of metal points, he writes that “The natives make most of their
own weapons …” “In the villages they buy iron barrel hoops which they cut and work into heads
for their arrows.”

Carl P. Russel (1967) presents historical accounts of the manufacture and trade of metal arrow
points throughout North America as well as illustrations of certain specimens. It is his opinion
that conformity to tribal tradition was evidenced by markings on the arrow shaft and fletching
rather than the shape of the point.

Metal points were fastened to wooden shafts much like their stone counterparts. A metal point
hafted to an arrow believed to be from a tribe from the northern plains is depicted in Figure 66.

Robert J. Mallouf photographed a large collection of metal points collected by James Davis in
Sterling County. Some are too large to have functioned as arrow points.

Jean Louis Berlandier (1969:48) wrote about the Indians he encountered between 1828 and
1829. Regarding the manufacture of metal points, he writes that “The natives make most of their
own weapons …” “In the villages they buy iron barrel hoops which they cut and work into heads
for their arrows.”

Carl P. Russel (1967) presents historical accounts of the manufacture and trade of metal arrow
points throughout North America as well as illustrations of certain specimens. It is his opinion
that conformity to tribal tradition was evidenced by markings on the arrow shaft and fletching
rather than the shape of the point.

141
As stated above, many metal points used by the Indians of North America were maintained
through trade. In some cases, the manufacturer’s trademark appears on the blade, but no such
examples have been reported in Texas at this time. Examples of known trademarks are “H.
Murphy, Harvard, Mass.,” J. Ward, Riverside,” and J. Russel & Co.” (Taylor 1989: Figure 7).
One specimen in a private collection bears the trademark Remington.

Baker and Campbell (1959) have stated that it is difficult at times to distinguish between metal
points made by Europeans and Indians. They discuss a collection of 53 metal arrow points
found in the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles. Fifty-one are made of iron, while the remainder
are brass and copper. The collection is available for viewing at No Man’s Land Historical
Museum in Goodwell, Oklahoma. They assigned 46 specimens to four morphological categories
and identified the remainder as “miscellaneous forms.” Their study is provided in detail in
Taylor’s (1989) unpublished manuscript. She also illustrates the collection. Metal arrow points
were also produced by commercial cutlery firms and local blacksmiths (Brown and Taylor 1989).

In Corbin’s (1974:47) article titled “A Model for Cultural Succession for the Coastal Bend Area of
Texas,” he does not mention metal arrow points per se, but he discusses the importance of
European objects obtained by the local Indians. “It has been mentioned that there are sites in
this vicinity which contain aboriginal materials mixed with the remains of European
manufactured goods. Thus, at this point in time (circa A.D. 1700) we are dealing with the
cultural remains of a people who were beginning to obtain goods from the French and the
Spanish (either in person or from shipwrecks) and these contacts should be recorded to some
extent in the historical record.”

In 1999, Heinz W. Pysczyk published Historic Period Metal Points and Arrows, Alberta, Canada:
A Theory for Aboriginal Arrow Design on the Great Plains. Not directly related to Texas, but a
useful source with information relevant to Texas. The utility and design of metal points are
compared to their stone counterparts. He states in his Abstract that “This Study considers
whether the design and performance of the Aboriginal arrow on the Great Plains changed after
the arrival of the Europeans.” … “On the northern Great Plains, Aboriginal people used metal
projectile points that were shaped differently, were larger (longer and wider), and weighed more
than Late Prehistoric stone projectile points. Some differences in projectile point attributes were
related to differences in other parts of the arrow between the two periods. Despite these
differences in the size, balance and design of arrows from the two periods, their basic
performance and that of the respective bows from which they were shot were remarkably
similar.”

Hester’s (1980:160-164) Book, Digging into South Texas Prehistory, A Guide for Amateur
Archaeologists, presents a discussion on the Historic Period, in which he writes “Up to the
present, few clearly identifiable Indian occupation sites of the Historic era have been found.
There have been a few sites at which metal arrow points or glass trade beads have been
discovered, but these have not been linked to occupational remains that were also present.”

In southern Texas, metal arrow points are primarily associated with missions. Taylor (1989:28)
writes that “Each presidio and many of the missions in Texas and in New Mexico as well, had its
own blacksmith to make and repair metal tools, weapons, and ornaments.” Greer (1967) reports
on a metal arrow point from the Alamo in Bexar County. Jimmy Mitchell (1980) authored an
article on five metal points from San Juan de Capistrano. Four are arrow points, and one is a
spear point made of copper believed to be Indian made. An iron arrow point was found that
Schuetz (1969:49) believes to be of Towakoni origin. It is strikingly similar to a stemmed point
found in Lamb County (Randall 1970).

142
T. N. Campbell (1988) and Thomas R. Hester (1989) discuss the life of the mission Indians and
their material culture on the border of South Texas and northeastern Mexico. Hester and Eaton
(1983) present a guide to literature on northern Mexico and the American Southwest. This
source contains information relevant to the subject of this book.

Bell and Cross (1980:101) write that “Most of the metal points [in Oklahoma] were made from
scrap pieces of metal that were cut and shaped by the Indians. They are commonly of iron or
steel although scraps of brass from gun parts were sometimes used. The metal iron hoops were
especially useful for making points as they were thin and required less effort in their
manufacture. In later times, metal arrow points were being manufactured and sold by Indian
traders.” They state that “There is considerable variation in the outline and size of the metal
arrow points. The size range tends to fall between 35 mm and 95 mm with most examples
measuring around 60 mm.

Metcalf (1963) also noted a change in the size of metal points as the historic period progressed.
His findings were based on the excavation of an Arikara Indian village in North Dakota. He
writes that they became larger and heavier over time. Eventually some weighed more than their
stone counterparts.

Clinton L. Smith and Jefferson D. Smith (1977) are the authors of The Boy Captives, the story of
two brothers who were captured by a band of Comanches in 1869 near San Antonio and lived
as Indians for several years. Clinton Smith discusses the use of metal points in the following.

“Here we met with another party of Mexicans, with their trading

clothes on. This time they brought with them all kinds of paint,
knives, steel with which to make arrow points and other trinkets”
(Smith and Smith 1977:64).

“One of the Indians happened to have a file which he used in

making arrows” (Smith and Smith 1977:147).

“Many people have asked me if we used stone arrow spikes.

We knew nothing about this kind of arrowhead, for they belonged
to tribes of a former age. The Mexican traders also brought in
iron or steel arrow spikes ready-made” (Smith and Smith 1977:159).

Bauman (1988) found a brass arrow point near the Bluntzer site in Nueces County, and he
mentions the possibility of a very active trade relationship between the local Indians and settlers
based on the manufacture of metal arrow points. He cites three possible places where this could
have taken place, a blacksmith shop at Fort Lipantitlan, a possible shop at the Bluntzer site, and
one in the town of San Patricio. This statement is based, in part, on the fact that twelve metal
arrow points had been found in this area.

A metal arrow point was found at site 41BI34 in the MacKenzie Reservoir (Willey and Hughes
1978). This stemmed iron arrow point was found on the surface. Its edges are beveled, and the
stem edges have been sawed to form “toothed” notches.

143
One of the more interesting finds was a metal arrow point embedded in a log house in Travis
County (Collins and Collins 1990). The point was discovered during restoration of the Moore-
Hancock house (41TV1405). Archival research suggests that the arrow with this point was fired
at the house sometime between the 1840s and 1850s.

Three unfinished metal points and three cut metal fragments were found at site 41CB29 in
Crosby County just off the rim of the caprock in the southern part of the county (Parker 1983).
The size of the three points is identical except two are missing the distal tip. Parker believes
they may have been manufactured by the Comanche between A.D. 1750 and A.D. 1875. He
says that there were three groups in the area at the time that could have made and used these
points. They are the Comanche, Lipan Apache, and Mexican Comancheros who were known to
have traded metal points to the Indians.

Parker (1978, 1985) also reported 24 iron arrow points and one lance blade as surface finds in
Crosby County and vicinity.

Mitchell (1980:20) writes that “At least three other metal points were recovered at Juan de
Capistrano.” These specimens are thought to be of Apache origin. This is because this mission
was attacked by the Apache. One point was embedded in a human vertebra, and this suggests
violence associated with a raid against the mission (Mitchell 1980). These three points conform
to the shapes and styles of the area known as Apachería as defined by Thompson (1980).

Schuetz (1969) states that metal points were found at Fort Belknap on the Brazos River where
the Towakoni and other tribes were held in the 1840s and 1850s. One metal point has been
typed as Lipantitlan (see discussion above) based on examples found at or near this fort in
Nueces County (Kennedy and Mitchell 1988).

The Coastal Bend Archaeological Society recovered seven metal arrow points from the site of
the fort. Kennedy and Mitchell (1988) report the finding of eight points. It has been suggested
that the metal points from the fort date to the early period of the fort (1831-1835) and were
probably manufactured there for trade with the Lipan Apache.

Baker and Campbell (1959) state that the criteria for distinguishing between metal points made
by Europeans and Indians are very inexact. An in-depth article describing the probable method
of manufacture of metal arrow points was authored by Brown and Taylor (1989).

David Keller found and recorded an arrowpoint made of a cuperous metal, either brass or
copper (Figure 67) in 1938 at the Coppenbarger site in Presidio County on the surface of a
badly eroded surface that was first documented as a site by J. Charles Kelley. This is a site rich
in ceramics. Kelley collected approximately 3,800 sherds, some of which dated to sometime
after A.D. 1650. This specimen is temporally curated at the Center for Big Bend Studies in
Alpine, Texas. The site and artifacts found there are privately owned.

Seven metal points reportedly found opposite the mouth of Live Oak Creek on the west side of
the Pecos River are illustrated by Walters and Rogers (1975). A large metal point from the
same area is depicted in Walters and Rogers (1975). Three metal points found near Iraan,
Texas in Crockett County are illustrated by Walters and Rogers (1975).

144
At site 41SE17 in Stephens County, a point made from a sheet of copper or brass was found in
a small fire pit with a small snub-nosed end-scraper of clear glass. This feature is described by
Forrester (1987b:13) as “at least a minor occupation in the Historic period.”

Saner et al. (2004) published an article titled “Four Metal Projectile Points from the Hill Country
of South Central Texas” in Ancient Echoes, the Journal of the Hill Country Archeological
Association. They describe and illustrate examples from Kerr, Kimble, and Real counties. The
four points were measured and examined under a 40x microscope and weighed.

Bob Bennett (1956) authored a history of Kerr County in which he described a raid near Kerrville
by a group of Indians in 1857 who were believed to be Comanches. Bennett (1956:178)
recounts the unfortunate events that caused a Mr. Kelso to suffer a wound from an arrow for
twenty years. “When Kelso drew the arrow from the wound during the fight and threw it down,
he did not notice that the spike failed to come out with the shaft. For twenty years the wound did
not heal until by an operation the iron arrowhead was discovered and removed.”

Jim Mitchell and Lynn Highley (1982:21-23) mention a metal point they examined in a local
collection belonging to Bromley F. Cooper. It is believed that this specimen was found in the
early 1900s by Theo Buhler, Jr. in Victoria County. The exact location of the find was not
disclosed to the authors who point out the significance of reporting on private collections. Its
dimensions are provided. The length of stem is unknown.

Weight: 4 grams
Total length: 4.6 cm (part of tip missing)
Maximum width: 1.8 cm
Thickness: .15 cm
Width of stem at neck: .8 cm
Width of stem at base: .5 cm

Chandler (1993:29-32) discusses four metal points in Medina County. Three are arrow points,
and the other one is believed to have functioned as a lance based on its size. All four are made
of iron and illustrated in his Figure 1. Specimen “A” came from the surface of 41ME74 by Eric
Hamby and is not named as a type. Specimen “B” was an isolated find by Tom Fillinger and is
referred to as the Fillinger type. Specimen “C” is an example of the Harbinger type. It was found
on a high bank above Seco Creek as an isolated find by Ray Harbison. The lance point was a
surface find in a cultivated field in 1992 by Malcom Watson. When Chandler plotted the
locations of these points, he concluded that they appear to follow one of the earliest roads from
Mexico to Texas.

Chandler (1984b:13-16) discusses and illustrates two metal points from Central Texas with
expanding and straight stems. Both are in private collections. The expanding stem point was
found by John Scott in Comanche County as a surface find between Rush Creek and the Leon
River. Chandler (1984:13) describes it as “… made from thin sheet metal and appears to have
been cut to shape with some form of metal chisel working against an anvil.” “The expanding
stem and sharp barbs of this point make it fairly unusual and thus unusual to document. Most
Texas metal arrow points are relatively straight stemmed, some with rounded bases and some
with straight bases; an example of the latter type is a point from the Meyer collection.” The
dimensions of this point are as follows.

145
Length – 55 mm
Maximum width – 17 mm
Maximum thickness – 1.75 mm
Weight – 6 g

The second point is made of iron and has a straight stem. Armin Elmendorf is credited with
finding it on the banks of the Pedernales River between 1905 and 1910. “The stem is 23 mm
long and 8 mm wide. Both stem edges have several small, shallow notches, six on one side
and seven on the other. Both blade edges have been thinned (sharpened) from both faces and
this appears to have been done with a file.” The blade edges exhibit irregularities due to
erosion. Its other dimensions are as follows.

Length – 52 mm
Width – 17 mm
Thickness – 2 cm

Site 41PR92 is a lithic scatter in Parker County. Two metal points were found at this site. The
landowner found a brass arrow point that was shallowly buried (Figure 68a). It measures 68 mm
long, 19 mm wide, and 3 mm thick. Marvin Glasgow (1996) visited the site and found a metal
point on the surface (Figure 68b). Its dimensions are 44 mm long and 16 mm at its widest point.

A complete iron metal point was found at site 41BI34 in Briscoe County. It is described by
Hughes and Willey (1978:262) as “asymmetrical.” “From tip to shoulder the point is 28 mm, from
base to shoulder 12 mm, maximum stem width 7 mm, and minimum stem width 6 mm.” The
authors illustrate it in Figure 94c. The two edges have been bifacially beveled. The stem edges
are notched

Patsy Goebel, Robert Goebel, and Jim Mitchel (1987) describe and illustrate an unusual metal
arrow point from McCulloch County found on a ridge near the San Saba River. It is part of a
collection of lithic artifacts that included a Scallorn arrow point and some earlier Archaic types.
The site of the find is known locally as “Comanche Hill.” The shape of the point when found is
described by the authors as a “… stemless triangular blade made of iron.” It has an irregular
basal notch that is somewhat off center. The authors conclude that it is “… likely that the point
was originally a stemmed form since a close examination of the notch reveals chisel cut marks
on the base of the blade, but not in the basal notch. The point was probably formed by chiseling
it from a thin, flat sheet of iron; there are no hammer marks which would indicate it had been
flattened (as from a barrel hoop or other curved form).”

Ray Smith (1984) documents and illustrates three metal arrow points reportedly found in Uvalde
County in the 1950s by Billy Evans. The provenience is not known and at the time of Smith’s
article they were in a private collection. Smith (1984:28) writes “The three specimens are all
heavily rusted iron points with various degrees of serration on the stem.”

The largest specimen (Figure 2a) “… appears to have been made from a flat metal sheet; it
shows very slight sharpening of the blade edges toward the point and notches have been filled
into the stem, presumably to facilitate hafting. The base appears to be snapped off. The
surfaces of the point are heavily rusted, and an irregular hole is obvious in the central portion of
the blade. This hole measures 7 mm by 6.5 mm; it is not clear whether this hole was eroded
through or was intentionally punched.” Its. Outer dimensions are as follows.

146
Length – 78 mm
Maximum blade width – 20.5 mm
Blade length – 63 mm
Stem length – 15 mm
Stem width – 9.5 mm

“The second specimen (Figure 2b) is smaller and damaged at the tip, where the metal was first
bent and then broken off.” “The upper edges of the blade evidence a slight sharpening, and the
stem appears to have been chisel cut and snapped off. There are slight horizontal hack marks
on both side of the stem for notching.” The point is not entirely flat in cross-section suggesting
that the metal was beaten flat from some other shape.” Dimensions are as follows.

Length – 48.5 mm
Maximum blade width – 18 mm
Blade length – 38.5 mm
Stem length – 10 mm
Stem width – 7 mm

“The third specimen (Figure 2c) is the smallest of the three.” “This specimen was made from a
flat piece of metal; the base appears to have been snapped off; and the shoulders were chisel
cut. This specimen also has a hole in the blade but, unlike the first specimen, the hole is very
regular in outline (a square shape with rounded corners) and appears to be punched out. The
hole is 4.5 mm in diameter. The stem of this iron point has hack marks which are angled; this
notching or serration occurs on both sides of the stem, presumably to aid the securing of
hafting. Dimensions are as follows.

Length – 41 mm
Maximum blade width – 18 mm
Blade length – 33 mm
Blade thickness – 1 mm
Stem length – 8 mm
Stem width – 8 mm
Thickness - 1.5 mm

Malcolm Johnson (1987:37-39) describes and illustrates two metal points at the site of the old
community of Osage in Colorado County in the 1930s by a local resident
(Figure 69). Both points, according to the author, appear to have been made from flat pieces of
scrap iron. Because the thickness of the points is not equal, the assumption is made that they
were created from separate pieces of iron. It is not clear as to the creator of these points.

Specimen “Figure 2a” is believed to have been cut with a chisel against an anvil or stone “as the
cuts are fairly clean.” “Apparently, it was first cut into a triangular shape, and then the basal
corners were cut away, to leave the forward sloping shoulders, and more or less straight-sided
stem with a square base. Then the blade was bifacially sharpened along both lateral edges,
either with a metal file or a coarse grinding stone.”

“The second point (Figure 2b) exhibits a different style of workmanship. In the center of the base
is a portion of a drilled or punched hole for a rivet or small bolt. The hole measured
approximately 6 mm (7/32 inch) diameter.” The material it was made from was not determined,
but the metal bands from a large trunk or chest is considered a possibility.

147
The author also states that “… it is not clear if the cutting was done by a chisel or some
combination of chiseling and sawing. The corners of the square shoulders appear to have been
slightly rounded off. The distal tip was fashioned to a bluntly rounded shape instead of to a
sharp point. This shaping of the blade seems to have been accomplished by heavy drilling or
grinding, but only unifacially. The opposite or bottom side of this point is flat and is not ground or
sharpened.”

Los Adaes was the capitol of Tejas (now Texas) on the frontier of New Spain from 1729 to
1770. The area included Mission San Miguell de Cuellar de. Los Adaes and Presidio Nuestra
Senora del Pilar de los Adaes. The name Adaes refers to the indigenous Adai who were
associated with the mission. It is now a historic site open to visitors. George Avery (1995)
summarizes the historical and archaeological components of the previous investigations at the
site by Hiram F. Gregory (1980, 1982) in 1979 and 1981-1982. Pertinent to this report is the
finding of two iron arrow points. They are not discussed in detail, and only one is illustrated
(Avery 1995:Figure 15).

A complete iron metal point was found at site 41BI34 in Briscoe County. It is described by
Hughes and Willey (1978:262) as “asymmetrical.” “From tip to shoulder the point is 28 mm, from
base to shoulder 12 mm, maximum stem width 7 mm, and minimum stem width 6 mm.” The
authors illustrate it in Figure 94c. The two edges have been bifacially beveled. The stem edges
are notched

Dwain Rogers of Temple, Texas has a large collection of metal points from Texas and other
states. Of special interest is a trade point made of silver and others made from an old trade gun
part, rifle side plate, clock part, wheel spoke, and several from Fort Kearny, Nebraska. I viewed
these points personally.

A copper arrow point is on display at the Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin as part
of the as part of a loan by TARL.

148
 Moran

Original Recorder: It was named by Robert E. Forrester (1987a) for specimens found at the
Salt Prong Burial Site near Moran, Texas in Shackelford County.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Moran (Figure 70) is similar to Bonham but is bigger, has larger serrations, and
does not have the strongly recurved sides found in some of the Bonham examples. They are
often found with Chadbourne points.

Age: According to Turner et al. (2011:204), this point is believed to have been used from circa
A.D. 700 to A.D. 1200 based on the presence of “Scallorn-like” points found in association with
Moran points in burials at the Salt Prong site.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:204) describe this point as “…slender, exceptionally well made,
and often have straight, serrated lateral edges. The shoulders are sometimes squared but
occasionally have small barbs. The stem is narrow (5 to 7 mm in width), parallel edged, and 4 to
9 mm long. The base is straight.”

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: It has been reported in Callahan, Coke, Fisher, Jones, Mitchell, Nolan, Runnels,
Scurry, Shackelford, and Taylor counties.

Known Sites: Salt Prong Burial Site (41SF18) and 41TA58

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Forrester (1951,1987a), Perino (1991), Shafer
(1969), Turner and Hester (1993, 1999), and Turner et al. (2011). Ray (1929) illustrates two
points that closely resemble Moran, but they are not named.

Comments: The Indian group associated with Moran points is unknown.

The points illustrated above are permanently curated at TARL.

149
 Morris

Original Recorder: It was named by Robert E. Bell and Roland S. Hall (1953) for specimens
found at the Morris site in Oklahoma.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Cuney, Edwards, and Haskell

Age: The Dan Holdeman site yielded a radiocarbon date from remains in a grave to a one
sigma range of A.D. 1410 to A.D. 1460 (Beta-75060 calibrated). Duncan et al. (2007) discuss
various dates for this type, but they conclude that the evidence for a definitive age is not
available. Perttula (1997:47) discusses the Middle Caddo period in the middle Red River valley
in northeast Texas and places Morris points in that period that is believed to date to circa A.D.
1100 to A.D. 1300/1350.

Description: A small side-notched point with a flattened cross section (Figure 71). The blade is
primarily straight but may vary to slightly excurvate and commonly has fine serrations. The
shoulders are primarily horizontal, but some examples have had shoulders that are slightly
barbed. Wide notches enter the preform forming a stem which expands with rounded basal
auricles (ears) giving a drooping ear appearance. The base has a U-shaped notch
approximately the same size notch as the notches that enter the side of the preform. This point
is manufactured using find pressure flaking forming a random flaking pattern.

Length: 20 mm to 40 mm.
Stem Length: 5 mm to 8 mm.
Blade Width: 8 to mm to 14 mm.
Neck Width: 6 mm to 8 mm.
Basal Width: 8 mm to 14 mm.

Cultural Affiliation: Morris points are associated with the Caddo culture.

Distribution: Duncan et al. (2007) report that Morris points occur primarily in eastern Oklahoma
and adjacent areas of Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri.

150
Known Sites: The Morris site (41CK39) in Cherokee County is the type site. It has been
reported at the Dan Holdeman site (41RR11) and sites in the Middle Red River Valley of
northeastern Texas (Perttula 1997).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1958), Bell and Hall (1953), Brown (1976,
1996), Perttula (1997), and Gregory H. Perino (1968, 1995).

Comments: This type has been found in burial contexts at several sites. No image suitable for
publication was available during this study. It is not included as a valid Texas type by Turner
and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999) and Turner et al. (2011).

151
 Padre

Original Recorder: First mentioned by T. N. Campbell in 1963 for examples found on Padre
Island (Davis 1995:242). Formally described by Turner and Thomas R. Hester (1985:186).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Davis (1995), the Padre point (Figure 72) is similar to the Young
type. Both points have a sub-triangular to leaf-shaped appearance with convex bases, but the
Young point is usually larger and wider and exhibits cruder flaking. Turner and Hester
(1985:186) liken it to Cameron and Fresno.

Age: Davis (1995) believes this type dates to sometime between A.D. 700 and A.D. 1600.

Description: Turner and Hester (1985:186) refer to this type as a “…small, triangular,
unstemmed point that has convex lateral edges and a rounded base.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Padre Island and the central part of the Texas coast.

Known Sites: McGloin Bluff (41SP11), Kent-Crane (41AS2), and Presidio Nuestra Señora de
Loreto de la Bahia del Espíritu Santo (41VT8).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Corbin (1974), Hester (1980), Prewitt et al.
(1987), Davis (1995), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Fox and Tomka (2006), and
Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Davis (1995) believes that the Padre point probably represents a continuum with
the Abasolo and Catán dart points. No dimensions were found.

152
 Perdiz

Original Recorders: J. Charles Kelley, T. N. Campbell, and Donald J. Lehmer (1940) were the
first to illustrate this type, but they did not name it. It was named Perdiz Pointed Stem by Kelley
(1947b) and the name was shortened to Perdiz by Suhm and Krieger (1954) during the writing
of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. This point was named for Perdiz Creek in
Presidio County. The Lehman Rock Shelter (41GL1) is the type site (Duncan et al. 2007).

Other Names: Foyle Flake Point, Perdiz Stemmed, and Perdiz Pointed Stem.

Similar Types: According to Davis (1995), Alba, Bonham, and Cuney resemble Perdiz in
general outline. Some archaeologists view Cliffton as a similar type.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) say that Perdiz (Figure 73) is a late type, and they estimate its
age at A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1500. Prewitt (1981) calls it Neo-Archaic. Turner et al. (2011) estimate
its age at A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1700. Crook (2017:51) dates it to circa A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1600
(Farmersville Phase). Webb (2000:15) believes that they were used from circa A.D. 1000 to
A.D. 1300 in Louisiana and are probably older than Bassett.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:504) describe Perdiz as “Triangular blade with edges
usually quite straight but sometimes slightly convex or concave. Shoulders sometimes at right
angles to stem but usually well barbed. Stem contracted, often quite sharp at base, but may be
somewhat rounded. Occasionally specimens may be worked on one face only, or mainly one
face.” They provide the following dimensions - length: 1.5 cm to 6 cm; width: 1.2 cm to 3 cm;
stems: 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm.

Cultural Affiliation: Newell and Krieger (1949) considered it to be later than the Alto Focus at
the George C. Davis site. Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that this is a common type in many
Neo-American complexes in Texas such as the Bravo Valley and Central Texas aspects and
the Frankston, Galveston Bay, Henrietta, Rockport, and Wylie foci. “Perdiz arrow points are
considered the epitome of the Late Prehistoric Toyah lithic assemblage in Texas … (Selden and
Dockall n.d.)”

153
Distribution: This point is found over much of Texas. Suhm and Krieger (1954) describe its
distribution as “from Rio Grande in extreme west to Neches River Valley on the east; from Red
River Valley in both Texas and Oklahoma southward to eastern and central parts of Gulf Coast.”
According to Turner et al. (2011:206), it is “Found throughout most of Texas and Louisiana.”
Aten (1983) places it in the region he calls the Upper Texas Coast. It also occurs into the border
area of the Rio Grande and into northern Chihuahua. According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal
communication, 2018), this type is commonly found in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend
Region. Webb (2000) refers to Perdiz as a Texas type occasionally found in Louisiana.

Known Sites: Attaway (41HE114), Devil’s Mouth (41VV188), Oblate (41CM1), Kyle (41HI1),
Sam Hemby (41KA101), Buckhollow (41KM16), Ernest Rainey (41BN33), Hinojosa (41JW8),
Sam Roberts (41CP8), Lott (41GR56), Lehman Rock Shelter (41GL1), Smith Rock Shelter
(41TV42), Baker Cave (41VV213), Mellon (41RF21), Roark Cave (41BS3), Wunderlich (41CM3),
Mission San Lorenzo de la Santa Cruz in Real County (Tunnell and Newcomb 1969), Peerless
Bottoms (41HP175), Washington Square Mound (41NA49), Mitchell Ridge (41GV66), Polvo
(41PS21), Jetta Court (41TV151), Rough Run Burial (41BS844), Brawley Cave (41BQ20), and
sites 41DL148, 41DL149, 41DL184, 41GL19, 41VT38, and 41VV1991.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Bell and Hall (1953), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Jelks (1953, 1993), Hester (1980), Mallouf (1987), Miller and Jelks (1952),
Stephenson (1952), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Kelley (1963), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993,
1999), Shafer (1981), Ricklis and Collins (1994), Turner et al. (2011), Ricklis (1995), Perino
(1985), Perttula, et al. (2009), Black (1986), Tunnell and Tunnell (2015), Roberts and Alvarado
(2011), Johnson (1994), Shackelford (1955), Moore (1988a), Wesolowsky et al. (1976), Word
and Douglas (1970), Cloud (2002), Olds (1965), Story (1981), Schmeidlin (1997), and Glasrud
and Mallouf (2013).

Comments: Some specimens are worked on one face only, while others overlap several dart
points in length, but they are much thinner and lighter than specimens that are classified as dart
points. Prewitt (1981) presents a detailed discussion of the Toyah Phase in his article titled
“Cultural Chronology in Central Texas.” This type is sometimes associated with bison kill sites.
Mallouf (1987) reports a burial cairn in northern Chihuahua that contained 180 Perdiz points.
Turner et al. (2011) state that Perdiz preforms or poorly made specimens have sometimes been
identified as Cliffton.

“Perdiz arrow points generally follow two manufacturing trajectories; one that enlists flakes, and
the other, blade flakes, and are known to encompass a greater range of variation and shape
than most arrow point types in Texas. (Selden and Dockall n.d.)”

Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Perdiz points and other Late
Prehistoric types from a sample of 750 examples.

More than 100 arrow points classified as Perdiz were recovered from 41JW8.
“The collection of stone tools from the Buckhollow site contains 70 finished Perdiz-style
arrowpoints and fragments, 15 Perdiz preforms, 8 arrowpoints of other styles, and 10 preforms
apparently for notched arrowheads” Johnson (1994:66). His report contains the most thorough
discussion of this type I have found with twenty pages devoted solely to Perdiz.

At 41HE114, twenty Perdiz points were recovered, and nine were from a single feature. Sixteen
were made from chert, three from quartzite, and one from silicified wood (Shafer 1981). Perttula
et al. (2009:185) also illustrates two Perdiz points made of quartzite from Nacogdoches County,

154
Greer (1968b:40) writes that Perdiz points were found scattered about the surface of two ring
middens in Sutton County. He also refers to a type that he refers to as Perdiz/Livermore, but he
does not describe it in detail.

A disturbed, prehistoric semi-subterranean cairn burial was discovered in the western portion of
Big Bend National Park in 1987. The grave goods consisted of 73 arrow points and point
fragments. All but one point was identified as Perdiz. The association of Perdiz points and a
burial “…offers a glimpse of the mortuary customs practiced by the makers and users of the
ubiquitous Perdiz arrow point.” (Cloud 2002:Abstract).

Stephen L. Black (1986:61), referring to Perdiz points from 41JW8, cites research by (Keeley
1980) in the following. “The hafting modification (stems) and presence of stem grinding, and
occasional stem edge and facial polish strongly support the idea that Perdiz points were hafted.
The most prevalent blade use wear patterns are edge and facial flake ridge rounding and polish.
The light irregular nature of the polish is consistent with use by hide or meat.”

Twenty Perdiz points were recovered from the Sam Hemby site. They were “predominantly
made from bifacial thinning flakes as evidenced by the curvature of the unifacial blades, while
some show a definite ‘arris’ that may indicate blade technology” (Schmiedlin 1993:37). All but
one is made from what Schmiedlin believes to be locally obtained chert. The single exception
was made from greenish-gray agate. Two are described as flake preforms. Schmiedlin
(1993:Table 1) provides measurements for each point and divides them into groups based on
recognizable differences.

William J. Shackelford (1955:262). described the Perdiz Stemmed point in the following from
work at the Polvo site. “The site yielded an unusual amount of stone work for the limited area
excavated. All the lithic materials found have been previously recognized as traits of the Brazos
Valley aspect. However, the few Perdiz Stemmed arrowpoints found, in conjunction with the
large numbers found in the Presidio area, would indicate that this type of projectile point has a
closer affinity with the Toyah focus than the Brazos Valley aspect.”

Grant D. Hall (1981) conducted one of the major archaeological surveys in the lower Brazos
River Valley of Texas (Austin County). A variety of arrow and dart points were recovered, along
with numerous burials and occupational features. In addition to illustrations of each type, he
provides dimensions, provenience (vertical and horizontal), and color taken from the Munsell
soil color chart. One specimen identified as Perdiz was found at 41AU37, and five Perdiz were
found at 41AU38.

Late stage unfinished Perdiz points are discussed and illustrated in Ricklis and Collins
(1994:214).

Perdiz points have been found in open sites and rockshelters such as Brawley’s Cave where
the stem of a Perdiz, var. whitney embedded in a wooden foreshaft was recorded (Olds
1965:114, Figure 1). Jelks (1962) describes and illustrates a similar foreshaft with a Perdiz
fragment encased and a Perdiz fragment that had been repurposed as a drill.

Schmiedlin (1993:38) divides Perdiz points from 41KA101 (Karnes County) into seven groups.

Group 1 is characterized by having well defined barbs that angle sharply downward.

Group 2 is characterized by short, slightly downward sloping barbs and short rounded stems.

155
Group 3 is characterized by barbs that are barely recognizable, and the blades are not well
made. The stems are slightly tapered and somewhat rounded.

Group 4 is characterized by serrated edges on the blades and broken barbs that may have
been reworked.

Group 5 is characterized by serrated edges on the blades. These points have been reworked to
the point that the barbs stick out at right angles

Group 6 is classified as a rough Perdiz preform with only a “slight hint of a stem and little
flaking.”

Group 7 is described as probable “Perdiz blanks with minimal shaping to partially shape the
flake.”

Baskin (1981:264, Figure 32) divides Perdiz points from the George C. Davis site into the
following categories: Contracting Stem Edge Group, Form 3 (pointed base) and Contracting
Stem Edge Group, Form 4 (platform base).

According to Turner et al. (2011), Perdiz is a key element of the Toyah Phase tool kit. Crook
(2017) places this type in the Farmersville Phase.

Robert Selden and others (2021) tested their hypothesis that the shape of the Perdiz point is a
function of time (aka protean). Factors that affect shape are time, raw material, and context in
burials. Their hypothesis was tested using geometric morphometrics.

Selden and Dockall (2022:n.d.) conducted a pilot study intended to assess whether metrics
collected for Perdiz arrow points (length, width, thickness, etc.) can be viewed as indicators of
regional shape boundaries as ceramics in Caddoan burial sites in the same behavioral region or
across different regions or boundaries. Their sample was based on 67 whole/intact Perdiz
points recovered from Caddo burial contexts in Camp, Nacogdoches, and Shelby counties.
They concluded that “This study demonstrated that linear metrics and shape variables collected
for Perdiz arrow points support the shape boundary posited in recent social network and
geometric morphometric analyses, and that those same metrics can be used to predict regional
membership. (Selden and Dockall 2022:n.d.)”

Smitty Schmeidlin (1997) reports a single Perdiz point at 41VT38, the presumed third location of
Mission Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga (41VT11).

Mike Davis and Jack Skiles (1999) describe a posible Perdiz point at site 41VV890. It
was found beneath the northeast corner of a historic rock structure that was built circa
1879. Collett (1993) believes it was likely there prior to the construction of the building.

The specimens depicted above are part of the John Fish collection. Figure 74 depicts a cluster
of Perdiz illustrating variety of shape and materials from the Mark Hatley collection.

156
 Pinwah

Original Recorder: Unknown. The points illustrated here are part of a private collection (Figure
75).

Other Names: None

Similar Types: Perdiz

Age: Late Prehistoric

Description: This description is based on a sample of several hundred examples by Thomas

Oakes (personal communication, June 25, 2022). Many are serrated, and most are very well
made. Oakes describes the shape as “elongated bell.” The stem is always contracting and
small compared to the overall point length. The ears are usually horizontal, but some have a
slight downward angle. The average size is about 1 inch to 1 ¼ inches. Exceptions are ¾ inch,
and one specimen is more than 2 inches in length.

Cultural Affiliation: Late Prehistoric

Distribution: They are most commonly found in Beauregard, Calcasieu, and Vernon parishes,
Louisiana. Specimens have been reported from extreme east and southeast Texas.

Known sites: None reported

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Thomas Oakes of Bossier City, Louisiana has a
large private collection.

Comments: None

157
 Ray

Original Recorder: First identified as a provisional type during the 1991-1992 TAS field school
in Lamar and Red River counties (Perttula et al. 2001). The type site is 41LR1034 (Figure 76).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: Late Prehistoric

Description: “The points are triangular with convex lateral edges and have parallel to slightly
expanding stems. Their most diagnostic trait is that they are crudely made by retouching the
lateral margin of small flakes. Ray points tend to be small, with most less than 2 cm in length
Perttula et al. (2001:203). They are made from a variety of local and non-local cherts.”

Cultural Affiliation: Caddoan.

Distribution: Known examples are from sites in Lamar and Red River counties.

Known sites: Ray (41LR135) and Stallings Ranch (41LR297)

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Perttula et al. (2001); Unpublished Appendix by
Elton R. Prewitt for the 1991-1992 TAS field school report.

Comments: No image suitable for publication was available during this study, and no
dimensions were found.

158
 Revilla

Original Recorder: The first detailed description of the Revilla point (Figure 77) was published
in La Tierra by Don Kumpe, Richard L. McReynolds, and C. K. Chandler (2000). They state that
Revilla was the original name, but they describe it as Form 4. Turner et al. (2011) prefer the
former term. This point was named for the Spanish Colonial town of Revilla (aka Guerrero Viejo)
now submerged under the waters of Falcon Reservoir.

Other Names: Form 4.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: This type dates to the Late Prehistoric period, but since the distributional center for this
type is in the vicinity of a former Spanish mission it may have also been used during historic
times. Since no specimens have been found in a datable context, its exact age is not known.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:207) describe this point in the following. “These are very thin,
finely made arrow points of excellent quality chert. They are generally triangular in outline with
distinctly deep (at least 4 mm) concave bases. Bases have a rounded apex and convex lateral
edges. Prominent serrations begin at the basal corners, usually three to seven per side.”
Dimensions are not given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: According to Turner et al. (2011:207), this type is found along the old channel of
the old Rio Grande between Chapote Creek and Arroyo Clareno in Zapata County, Texas and
Tamaulipas, Mexico. The distribution of this point is based on a small sample.

All Texas specimens were found within the normal conservation pool of Falcon Reservoir, and
not one has been documented from an inland site. The limited distribution and small number of
specimens suggests to the authors that this type may have had a short life span.

Known sites: 41ZP8, 41ZP83, and 41ZP154.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Kumpe et al. (2000) and Turner et al. (2011).

159
Comments: This type was first found at 41ZP154 in 1971. By 1983, seven more specimens
had been found at sites 41ZP83 and 41ZP154. Don Kumpe took several examples to a
Southern Coastal Corridor Palaver in Corpus Christi, and the consensus of other archaeologists
was that this is a type that had not been found elsewhere in the state. Later, the water levels of
the lake dropped drastically, and fifteen new specimens were added to the list of known types
(Kumpe et al. 2000).

Revilla points were found in association with Carcara, Form 1, Fresno, Perdiz, Scallorn, Starr,
and Toyah at sites 41ZP83 and 41ZP154 (Kump et al. 2000). The following measurements
were taken from Kump et al. (2000:37).

Table 2. Metric Data for Revilla Points

________________________________________________________________

Length Width Thickness Concavity

________________________________________________________________

Minimum 22.2 13.7 2.5 1.0

Maximum 56.0 21.3 5.0 7.2
Mean 35.55 16.87 3.42 2.61
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

All measurements in millimeters.

Authentic Revilla points are housed at TARL.

160
 Rockwall

Original Recorder: This point was named and described by J. B. Sollberger (1970) for
examples found in Rockwall County, Texas (Figure 78).

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Crook (personal communication, 2017) does not believe that “there is much of a
difference between the Rockwall type and the variation seen within the Scallorn type.”

Age: W. W. Crook, III (personal communication, 2017) believes the best current date for this
type is circa A.D. 900 to A.D. 1250. Davis (1995), relying on dates presented by others, dates
the Rockwall point at circa A.D. 700 to A.D. 1400.

Description: Davis (1995:246) describes this point in the following. “A small point with a
triangular outline. The shoulders are strongly barbed but do not extend to the base of the point.
The stem expands toward the base and the base may be straight or slightly convex.” No
dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Rockwall points are found in north central and eastern Texas with less frequency
in adjacent areas (Davis 1995).

Known Sites: Lower Rockwall site (41RW1) is assumed to be the type site.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Perino (1971,
1985), and Sollberger (1970).

Comments: Davis (1995) states that Rockwall and Scallorn points are similar in general outline.
Both types have barbs and stems that expand toward the base. The main difference is that
Scallorn has a more pronounced expanded base that is often as wide as the shoulders.
This type is not mentioned in any of the type books by Suhm and Krieger (1954), Suhm and
Jelks (1962), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), or Turner et al. (2011).

161
The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 45 mm
Stem length: 4 mm to 8 mm (1/7 to 1/3 of total length)
Blade width: 13 mm to 22 mm
Neck width: 4 mm to 7 mm
Stem width: 7 mm to 11 mm

The example illustrated above is part of the John Fish collection. Authentic Rockwall points are
housed at TARL.

162
 Sabinal

Original Recorder: this type was named and described by Thomas R. Hester (1971) for
examples found at the La Jita site in northwestern Uvalde County. He named it for the Sabinal
River where the type site is located.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Davis (1995:248) states that Sabinal (Figure 79) and Catahoula points “are
quite similar in general outline. Both types have concave to recurved lateral edges with long
barbs that are often bulbous at the ends. The barbs are usually wider and more bulbous on the
Catahoula type and the blade of the Sabinal appears narrower.” Sabinal points are found in
southern or southwestern Texas, while the Catahoula point occurs in eastern Texas and
Louisiana.

Age: According to Turner et al. (2011:208), this is a Late Prehistoric point that dates to circa
A.D. 1120 to A.D. 1250.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:208) describe this point in the following. “A long, narrow
triangular point that has deeply concave to recovered lateral edges and heavy barbs that flare
outward and curve upward (Figure 80). The stem is produced by deep, narrow basal notches
and expands moderately.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: Turner et al. (2011) state that this point was initially found in a small area in the
southwestern part of the Edwards Plateau. Similar specimens have been reported from the
Lower Pecos and southern Texas.

Known Sites: La Jita (41UV21), Anthon (41UV60), Ernest Rainey (41BN33), Montell
Rockshelter (41UV3), 41UV20, 41ZV226, 41BX1, Rough Enough Rockshelter (41VV1987), J.
W. Sparks in Real County, 41DM59, 41HR269, and 41VV1991.

163
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Beasley (1978), Coleman et al. (2000), Davis
(1995), Hall et al. (1982), Henderson (2001), Hester (1971), Hester and Whatley (1992),
Lukowski (1987), Mauldin et al. (2004), Mitchell (1982), Perino (1991), Turner and Hester (1985,
1993, 1999), Turner et al. (2011), Stillwell (2011), Calame (2017-2018), Roberts and Alvarado
(2011), Fields (1988a), and Weir and Doran (1980).

Comments: The new type was proposed based on seven specimens found in one of the four
burned rock middens that make up the La Jita site. It was found to be present throughout the
late occupation of the site. Private collections with Sabinal points were observed near Utopia in
northwestern Uvalde County. Sabinal points from the J. W. Sparks site in Real County and one
specimen from the Montell Rockshelter in Uvalde County are housed at TARL.

“A number of Texas archaeological reports have wrongly used the ‘Sabinal’ label in areas great
distances from its area. (Turner et al. 2011:208)”. Henderson (2001) writes that Sabinal is a
“short lived type” that was in use between Edwards and Scallorn. This statement is based on
work at the Ernest Rainey site (41BN33) in Bandera County.

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 20 mm to 45 mm
Stem length: 5 mm to 7 mm
Width: 15 mm to 24 mm
Stem width: 4 mm to 8 mm

Figure 72 is a replica of a Sabinal point intended to illustrate what Turner et al. (2011:208)
describe as “long and narrow.”

164
 Scallorn

Original Recorder: The Scallorn point was first recognized by J. Charles Kelley (1947b) as
Scallorn Stemmed. Suhm and Krieger (1954) shortened it to Scallorn. It was named for the town
of Scallorn in Mills County (Figure 81).

Other Names: Ford and Willey (1940) referred to this type as “fir-tree” before Kelley (1947b)
named it Scallorn Stemmed.

Similar Types: Eddy (Corbin 1963); Edwards (Davis 1995).

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate its age at somewhat older than Perdiz, circa A.D. 700
to A.D. 1500. Prewitt (1981) refers to it as Neo-Archaic. According to Turner et al. (2011), this is
a Late Prehistoric type that has been dated at 830±50 B.P. at 41FB255 and 800 B.P. to 1250
B.P. at the Buckhollow site. Radiocarbon dates from the stratified Ernest Rainey (sinkhole) site
overlap with Scallorn but occur later in time. Crook and Hughston (2015b:34-35) were able to
get radiometric data from a femur at the Lower Rockwall site that contained Scallorn points. The
results were reported as 1240 ± 30 B.P. The 1 Sigma Calibration is A.D. 715 to A.D. 775, and
the 2 Sigma Calibration is A.D. 680 to A.D. 880. In a later article, Crook (2017:53) dates this
type to circa A.D. 700 or A.D. 800 to A.D. 1250.

Description: Suhm and Jelks (1954:506) describe this point in the following. “Broad to slender
triangular blades with edges straight to convex. Shoulders may be squared but usually well
barbed. Stem formed by notching into corners at various angles, making it expand from a broad
wedge shape to rounded extremities as wide as the shoulders Base straight, concave, and
convex. Blade edges are often finely serrated.” Louisiana specimens are made from many
materials (Webb 2000). The following measurements were taken from Suhm and Krieger
(1954:506).

Length: 2.5 cm to 4.5 cm

Width: 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm
Stems: One-half to one-seventh of total length

165
Cultural Affiliation: Miller and Jelks (1952) refer to it as one of the main types of the Austin
Focus. According to Suhm and Krieger (1954), this is a common type of the Central Texas
Aspect, and it also occurs in sites attributed to the Henrietta Focus and maybe the Rockport
Focus. Prewitt (1981) and Turner et al. (2011) place it in the Austin Phase. Crook (2017:53)
dates this type as part of the Wylie Phase, circa A.D. 700 or A.D. 800 to A.D. 1250. In
Louisiana, “it occurs with Coles Creek and possibly Troyville cultures into early Caddoan Alto
period in this area” (Webb 2000:16).

Distribution: Suhm and Krieger (1954:506) plot its distribution as “More or less a broad central
belt through Texas from Red River Valley to Gulf Coast but absent in East Texas and eastern
and southern extremities of coast.” Conversely, Turner et al. (2011) say it is found over much of
Texas. Webb (2000:16) says it is frequently found throughout Louisiana. McGahey (2000:202)
extends its range into Mississippi. Jelks (1993) writes it has been reported from northern Mexico
into the central plains and eastward as far as Illinois and the Ohio River valley.

According to Robert J. Mallouf (personal communication, 2018), this type is sometimes found in
the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region. Aten (1983) discusses it as a type found in the
Upper Texas Coast.

Known Sites: Baker Cave (41VV213), Smith Rockshelter (41TV42), Evoe Terrace (41BL104),
Love-Fox (41WM230), Frisch Auf (41FY42), Blue Bayou (41VT94), Buckhollow (41KM16), Dan
Holdeman (41RR11), Perry (41FT193), Ernest Rainey (41BN33), High Bluff (no trinomial), Red
Ochre Burials (41PR12), Lower Rockwall (41RW1), Jetta Court (41TV151), Tankersley Creek
(41TT108), Pecan Springs (41EL11), 41BL22, 41BL23, 41BL58,4 1GM40, 41DL148, 41DL149,
41DL184, 41SP11, 41VV1991, 41VT38, and sites at Belton Reservoir (Shafer et al. 1964).
Webb (1959:162) illustrates two Scallorn points found at the Belcher Mound (16 CD 13) in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Bell and Hall (1953), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Kelley (1947b), Miller and Jelks (1952), Suhm and Jelks (1962), (Jelks
1993), Saunders and Hester (1993), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Shafer et al. (1964), Aten
(1983), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Ricklis and Collins (1994), Turner et al. (2011),
Webb (2000), Hester (1980, 2004), Collins (2004), Boyd (2004), Fields (1988a, 2004), Perttula
(2020), Ricklis (2004), Wesolowsky et al. (1976), Young (1981b), Word and Douglas (1970),
Schmeidlin (1997), Sorrow (1966), and Tunnell and Tunnell (2015). Flinn and Flinn (1968)
illustrate Scallorn var. coryell and Scallorn var. sattler from the High Bluff site in Stephens
County near the county line with Young County.

Comments: At 41SP11, James E. Corbin (1963) describes three fragmentary specimens that
may be Scallorn, var. eddy. According to Turner et al. (2011), Scallorn points are often found
with Chadbourne points. The following is a quote from Turner et al. (2011:209) “During the
Austin Phase, of which Scallorn points are chronological hallmarks, they are often found with
burials (grave goods) and in burials (as in cause of death). Indeed, the best evidence for
warfare among ancient groups in central, south, and coastal Texas comes from Scallorn-related
woundings and death.” Prewitt (1981) presents a detailed discussion of the Austin Phase in his
article titled “Cultural Chronology in Central Texas.”

166
Scallorn is the most common type found at sites in the Belton Reservoir area (Bell and Coryell
counties) with eighty-four specimens reported (Shafer et al. 1964). The authors reported a wide
range of Scallorn varieties or subtypes and listed them as Brangus, Coryell, Eddy, and Sattler
based on variations of the stem. These varieties are illustrated in Shafer et al. (1964). They
were recovered from sites 41BL22, 41BL23, and 41BL58.

Wilson W. Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Scallorn points and other Late
Prehistoric types from a sample of 750 examples. He does not believe that “there is much of a
difference between the Rockwall type and the variation seen within the Scallorn type.”

Perttula (2020) illustrates two Scallorn points found in the chest region of Burial 2 at the Red
Ochre Burial site. Both specimens exhibit breaks in the distal area due to impact with the body.

A Scallorn and Scallorn-like point made from Alibates chert were found at 41OC93 by Office of
the State Archeologist Steward Doug Wilkins (TARL site form).

Perino (1985:334) refers to Scallorn as a Late Woodland point, circa A.D. 500 to A.D. 900.
Schiffer and House (1975:32) place it in northeast Arkansas circa A.D. 1200.

Saunders and Hester (1993:22-31) discuss side-notched arrow points from the Falcon Lake
region of Texas and Mexico. Their discussion of Scallorn includes examples of this type that
points out the similarities between Caracara and Scallorn.

Frederick, et al. (1994:38) conducted a chert patination study of 105 Scallorn points from sites
at Fort Hood. Thirty-one of the specimens lacked patina, and the authors report “… the results
of this study suggest that it is unlikely that chert patination will ever develop into a reliable dating
method.

Some Fresno points may represent a stage in the production of Scallorn points (Jelks 1993:12).

Grant D. Hall (1981) conducted one of the major archaeological surveys in the lower Brazos
River Valley of Texas (Austin County). A variety of arrow and dart points were recovered, along
with numerous burials and occupational features. In addition to illustrations of each type, he
provides dimensions, provenience (vertical and horizontal), and color taken from the Munsell
soil color chart. Three specimens identified as Scallorn were found at 41AU37, and eleven were
found at 41AU38.

Sorrow (1966:24-27, Figure 14) reported 26 Scallorn points at the Pecan Springs site (41EL11)
in Ellis County. Four varieties were present.

Smitty Schmeidlin (1997) reports two Scallorn points at 41VT38, the presumed third location of
Mission Espíritu Santo de Zuñiga (41VT11).

Mission Espíritu Santo (41VT111).

The Scallorn points illustrated here are surface finds from site 41BU17 in Burleson County
(Figure 82).

167
 Shell

Original Recorder: Not applicable

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: None reported.

Age: Late Prehistoric

Description: Figure 83

Cultural Affiliation: Brownsville Complex

Distribution: Gulf Coast and Rio Grande Delta

Known sites: None

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: A. E. Anderson (1932:21-22), Hester (1980:121-

122, Figure 5-20).

Comments: Evidence of arrow points made from shell has been documented, mainly from sites
on the Texas coast. Examples of shell projectile tips made from the columella (aka central
column) of the conch shell have been found at sites in the Rio Grande Delta (see Brownsville
Complex). A. E. Anderson ([Link]Plate 7) illustrates conch shell points and other tools. He
writes that “Chipped projectile points of conch shell, similar in form to the triangular points occur
but are quite rare.”

The points illustrated above are Conch columella housed at TARL.

168
 Starr

Original Recorder: This type was named and described by Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger
(1954) during the writing of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. It was named for
the town of Starr in Starr County near the area where the first examples were found. The type
site was not identified.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Suhm and Krieger (1954:506) say that Starr (Figure 84) may be a variation of
the Fresno type. Davis (1995:252) believes McGloin, Maud, and Turney are also similar.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954:506) state that the age of this Late Prehistoric point is about the
same as Fresno (A.D. 800 or A.D. 900 to A.D. 1600 or later).

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:506) describe this type in the following. “Simple
triangular points with both edges and base concave.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Brownsville and Mier foci (Suhm and Krieger 1954). Newton (1968)
illustrates the relative position of this type to known types of the earlier Falcon focus.

Distribution: This type is most common in the coastal portion of the state and in Southwest
Texas (Suhm and Krieger 1954). According to Davis (1995), this is primarily a type found in the
lower Rio Grande Valley and extending up the southern portions of the Texas Gulf Coast with
less frequency in adjacent areas of Texas.

Known Sites: In Texas, this type has been found at 41HG4, 41HG5, 41HG6, 41KL13, and
McGloin Bluff (41SP11). Three possible examples were found at 41JW8. In Mexico, it has been
reported from the Cueva de la Zona de Derrumbes rockshelter in Nuevo Leon.

169
Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Corbin (1963), Davis (1995), Duncan et al.
(2007), Gunter (1985), Hester (1969, 1980), Kelly and Graves (1980), Steele and Mokry (1983),
Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), McClurkan (1966), Newton (1968), Fields
(1995), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Perino (1985), Mallouf et al. (1977), Ricklis
(2004), Turner et al. (2011), Saunders (1985), and Jelks (1993).

Comments: Davis (1995) believes that Starr may be part of a continuum with McGloin. Turner
et al. (2011:210) state “These points are highly restricted in their geographical distribution and
should not be used as a ‘niche’ for similar points found at great distances from this distribution.”

Newton (1968) discusses the Mier focus, of which the Scallorn is associated, along with the
earlier Falcon focus.

The examples illustrated above are housed at TARL.

170
 Steiner

Original Recorder: According to Story (1965), Steiner (Figure 85) was originally named by J.
Charles Kelley (1947a) and called Steiner Serrated. It was briefly described and illustrated by
Perry H. Newell and Alex D. Krieger (1949, 2002). Dee Ann Story (1965) “tentatively revived”
this type with the suggestion that its name be shortened to Steiner. Her description is based on
points found at Cedar Creek Reservoir in Henderson and Kaufman counties.

Other Names: Steiner Serrated.

Similar Types: Story (1965:183) writes “The shoulders (of the Steiner type) are prominent and
occasionally extend laterally in a manner somewhat similar to the Catahoula type.” Davis
(1995:254) says “The Steiner point and the Friley point are probably the most similar in general
outline.” He states that the primary difference is the “Friley type has strong barbs that usually
curve upward toward the distal end which distinguishes it from the Steiner point.” J. B.
Sollberger (1970) defined a type that he called Rockwall that is very similar to Steiner.

Age: Story (1965) did not offer a date for this type. Crook and Hughston (2015b:34-35) were
able to get radiometric data from a femur at the Lower Rockwall site (41RW1) that contained
Steiner points. The results were reported as 1240 ± 30 B.P. The 1 Sigma Calibration is A.D. 715
to A.D. 775, and the 2 Sigma Calibration is A.D. 680 to A.D. 880. Davis (1995) estimates its age
at A.D. 800 to A.D. 1400.

Description: Davis (1995:254) describes Steiner as “A small point with a triangular outline. The
lateral edges may be straight, concave, or convex and exhibit strong serrations at right or odd
angles. Shoulders are strong on these points and flare outward with one shoulder often being
more pronounced than the other. The short stems may expand or contract toward the base. The
base may be straight, concave, or convex.”

Cultural Affiliation: Possible Steiner points have been found at Wylie Focus sites. Kelley
(1947a) places it within the time frame of the Clear Fork Focus.

Distribution: This type is primarily found in eastern Texas with fewer numbers found at sites in
adjacent areas.

171
Known Sites: George C. Davis (41CE19), Upper Farmersville site (41COL34), Lower Rockwall
(41RW1), and 41DL240. Story (1965) reports that possible Steiner points have been found at
the Limerick site (41RA8), at Forney Reservoir, and Wylie Focus sites. Fields (2004) illustrates
specimens from Cooper Lake and Jewett Mine. Crook (2011) reports three Steiner points at
41DL406 that were made of quartzite.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Duffield (1961, 1963), Newell and Krieger (1949,
2002), Story (1965), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Pertttula et al. (1976), Perino
(1985), Fields (2004), Crook and Hughston (2009, 2015a, 2015b), Crook (2011), and Turner et
al. (2011).

Comments: Story (1965:185) states that “Unlike most of the arrow point types, Steiner is based
primarily on blade characteristics rather than on stem features.”

Newell and Krieger (2002:162-163) discuss the Steiner Serrated points found at the George C.
Davis site (41CE19) in the following. “This type is recognized by J. Charles Kelley as most
common in the middle Brazos River valley in the vicinity of Waco, Texas. The blade edges are
featured by numerous tiny protrusions jutting out at regular intervals or irregularly at different
angles. Four specimens were found, one in the plow zone, three in Zones 14 and 15 (Figure 56,
o-q). All are petrified wood and possibly were made locally, but the general absence of this type
in eastern Texas cultures indicates their presence was due to trade or a visit to the Davis site
toward the end of occupation.” Specimen “q” does not resemble Steiner in my opinion.

The example illustrated above was made by Matt Soultz. Authentic examples are housed at
TARL (Figure 86).

The following dimensions were taken from a web page on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 18 mm to 45 mm
Stem length: 4 mm to 6 mm
Blade width: 10 mm to 27 mm
Stem width at shoulders: 5 mm to 8 mm

172
 Talco

Original Recorder: Talco (Figure 87) was first described and named by Dee Ann Suhm and
Alex D. Krieger (1954) during the writing of An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. It
was named for the town of Talco in Titus County.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar types: Fresno, Maud, and Turney.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate its age at A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1500, and they say it may
continue with minor changes into the Turney type into historic times, circa A.D. 1600 to A.D.
1700. Turner et al. (2011) estimate its age at A.D. 1450 to A.D. 1700. Thurmond (1985:189-191)
dates Talco points to sometime in the Late Caddoan period, A.D. 1500 to A.D. 1700.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:508) describe Talco in the following. “Slender triangular
points with edges occasionally almost straight but usually recurved with constriction
approximately in middle. Bases almost always concave. Workmanship extremely fine, blades
thin and flat. Edges commonly minutely serrated, tips often slimmed down to needle-like point.”
They provide the following dimensions.

Length: 2.0 cm to 5.5 cm

Width: 1.0 to 1.8 cm
Basal concavity: 0.1 cm to 0.4 cm

Cultural Affiliation: This is a common type in the Titus Focus, Fulton Aspect (Suhm and
Krieger 1954). Thurmond (1985:189-191) writes that Talco points are one of the dominant types
in the Titus Phase. The others are Bassett, Maud, and Reed.

Distribution: Northeastern Texas, especially in the upper drainage system of the Sabine and
Sulphur rivers and to the Red River.

173
Known Sites: Culpepper (41HP1), Q. Miller (41DT98), Tuck Carpenter (41CP5), Williams site
(41CP10), Gilbert (41RA13), Peerless Bottoms (41HP175), Roitsch, formerly Sam Kaufman
(41RR16), Alex Justiss (41TT13), 41MX4 (Figure 88a), and 41FK1 (Figure 88b).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Allen et al. (1967), Bell (1958), Thurmond (1985),
Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954),
Goldschmidt (1935), Fields (2004), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Jelks (1993), Turner
and Smith (2002), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: According to Davis (1995), Talco points are often found in association with burials
as grave offerings containing Ripley Engraved ceramics.

Goldschmidt (1935:94, Plate 11) illustrates examples of the Talco type before the name was
assigned. He refers to the arrow points in Plate 11 as “flint arrowheads.”

The Talco point at the Roitsch site (41RR16) was found associated with Burial 3 in the terrace
area.

Thurmond (1985:189-191) writes that Talco is often associated with arrow point types Bassett,
Maud, and Reed. The Reed point does not appear in Turner et al. (2011).

The Talco point in Figure 78 is a replica made by Matt Soultz. The others are housed at TARL.

174
 Toyah

Original Recorder: J. Charles Kelley, T. N. Campbell, and Donald J. Lehmer (1940) were the
first to recognize the Toyah point (Figure 89) but they did not describe it in detail. Later, Kelley
(1947b) described it and named it Piedras Triple Notched. Suhm and Krieger (1954:508)
described and illustrated it and changed the name to Toyah. This name was chosen because
Kelley believed that this type is associated with the Toyah Focus. Walter W. Taylor (1966)
described this type as the Sierra Madre point.

Other Names: Piedras Triple Notched, Toyah Triple Notched, and Sierra Madre.

Similar Types: Kelley (1947b) describes similar types and named them Saragosa Notched-
Serrate, Frisco Base-Notched, and Saucia Split Base, but he does not describe them in detail.
Suhm and Krieger (1954) state that Toyah is similar to Harrell but smaller and more modified in
the blade and around the corners by notching, incutting, and serration. Johnson (1994)
compares it to Harrell and Lott.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) and Turner et al. (2011) refer to it as Late Prehistoric and
possibly early historic with no specific dates. Cloud et al. (1994) mentions that Toyah points
were found in a feature at the Polvo site that yielded a date of A.D. 1190 to A.D. 1280. Davis
(1995) estimates its age at A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1650.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:508) describe Toyah points as follows. “Small triangular
blades with two side notches anywhere from near base to about middle. Bases originally
straight to concave but strongly modified in most cases with a large third notch in center of
base. Blade edges often strongly serrated and narrowed above notches.” They provide the
following dimensions. Length: 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm. Width: 1.0 cm to 1.5 cm.

Cultural Affiliation: Kelley (1947b) assigns this type to the Toyah Focus, a division of the
Central Texas Aspect that he relates to the Jumano Indian occupation of west-central and
Trans-Pecos Texas. These points have also been associated with the Bravo Valley Aspect and
Livermore Focus of the Texas Big Bend-northern Chihuahua region (Kelley et al. 1940) and the
Jora Complex of central Coahuila (Taylor 1966).

175
Distribution: According to Turner et al. (2011:213), this point is found in southern and western
Texas, the Lower Pecos, and less frequently in central Texas. According to Robert J. Mallouf
(personal communication, 2018), it is commonly found in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big
Bend Region.

Known Sites: Baker Cave (41VV213), Devil’s Mouth (41VV188), Parida Cave (41VV187),
Roark Cave (41BS3), Buckhollow (41KM16), Polvo (41PS21), Polvo (41PS21), and 41BS188.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1960), Cloud (2001), Cloud et al. (1994),
Crook (2009), Corrick (2000), Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Kelley (1947b), Kelley et al.
(1940), Suhm et al. (1954), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Hester (1980), Johnson (1994), Turner and
Hester (1985, 1993,1999), Hedrick (1989), (1955), Word and Douglas (1970), and Turner et al.
(2011).

Comments: According to Cloud et al. (1994:126), “Stratigraphic information from the Polvo site
suggests that the Toyah type slightly predates Perdiz, that the two types were
contemporaneous over an unknown length of time, and that the Perdiz style persisted
somewhat later than Toyah.”

Artifacts from 41BS188 in Big Bend National Park include fragments, preforms, and complete
Toyah points. Many of the artifacts were broken during manufacture, and this has allowed some
insight into how they were made. A radiocarbon sample was obtained from direction association
of Toyah points in a hearth and provided much-needed information for this type in the Big Bend
(Corrick 2000).

Crook (2009) describes a Toyah-like point with multiple notches found in a cache at the Upper
Farmersville site (41COL34).

I found no evidence of Saragosa Notched-Serrate, Frisco Base-Notched, and Saucia Split Base,
as discussed by Kelly (1947b) being proposed as valid types.

LeRoy Johnson (1994) illustrates a probable Toyah point, but he refers to it as follows.
“Stylistically, this arrowpoint is halfway between the so-called Harrell and Lott.” His report, The
Life and Times of the Toyah Folk Culture: The Buckhollow Encampment, Site 41IKM16, Kimble,
County Texas, is a major source for information during the Toyah focus.

Piedras Triple Notched and Toyah Triple Notched arrow points were found at the Polvo site in
Presidio County (Shackelford 1955).

Boyd (2001:Figure 6) presents a map of the classic Toyah culture area, general Toyah culture
area, and shared area. This map is a modification of one by Johnson (1994:Figure 105).

The examples above are from the John Fish collection. Authentic Toyah points are housed at
TARL.

176
 Turner

Original Recorder: According to Perino (1991) and Hoffman (1971), most of the points
illustrated by Clarence B. Moore (1912) from the Haley site are of the Turner variety (Figure 90).

Other Names: Crickett.

Similar Types: Perino (1991) believes it is a variety of the Hayes type.

Age: circa A.D. 1100 in northeastern Texas.

Description: No description available.

Cultural Affiliation: Caddoan culture.

Distribution: The primary range of this type is southwestern Arkansas, but it has been reported
at sites in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and northeastern Texas.

Known Sites: Haley (trinomial not found)

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Perino (1991).

Comments: None

The following dimensions are based on a small sample size and were taken from a web page
on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 40 mm to 50 mm; Stem length: 8 mm to 10 mm; Stem width: 7 mm to 9 mm; Blade
width: 15 mm to 20 mm; Neck width: 5 mm to 7 mm

177
 Turney

Original Recorder: Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger (1954) were the first to illustrate and
describe the Turney point (Figure 91). The origin of this name is not known.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954:510), the “shorter specimens are very
similar to Talco points but are constructed above the base rather than recurved with the
constriction near the middle and the bases are more V-shaped.” Davis (1995) claims Turney is
similar in general appearance to Maud. The primary difference between the two is that the basal
corners of Maud slope downward, and the basal corners of Turney tend to flare more outward.

Age: Suhm and Krieger (1954) estimate the age of this Late Prehistoric arrow point at A.D.
1600 to A.D. 1800.

Description: Suhm and Krieger (1954:510) describe Turney points as follows. “Slender
triangular blade, edges cut inward just above base, then straight to tip. Base a broad “V” rather
than concave, so that basal tips somewhat like barbs rather than ordinary corners. Very finely
chipped, thin, flat, with edges serrated in most cases.” They provide the following dimensions -
length: 3.0 cm to 6.0 cm, width: 1.1 cm to 1.8 cm.

Cultural Affiliation: According to Suhm and Krieger (1954), this type is a diagnostic type of the
Allen Focus of the Fulton Aspect, Historic Stage.

Distribution: Found in the central part of the Neches River valley of eastern Texas and mainly
in Cherokee County (Suhm and Krieger 1954).

Known Sites: Jim Allen (41CE12), Peerless Bottoms (41HP175), Spradley (41NA206), Gilbert
(41RA13), and DeShazo (41NA27).

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Davis (1995), Duncan et al. (2007), Fields (2004),
Perino (1985), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Turner and Hester (1985,
1993, 1999), and Turner et al. (2011).

178
Comments: Davis (1995) says that Turney, Maud, and Talco are all found in eastern Texas,
and this makes positive identification by type difficult. The Turney points in Figure 80 above are
from a historic Allen Phase component at 41NA206 (Tim Perttula, personal communication
2022).

The Turney points depicted above were provided by Timothy K. Perttula. Authentic specimens
are housed at TARL.

179
 Washita

Original Recorder: Alex D. Krieger (1946), was the first to describe it, but he did not name it.
When Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger (1954) wrote An Introductory Handbook of Texas
Archeology, they included it as a sub-type of the Harrell point. Robert E. Bell (1958) suggested
the name Washita (Figure 92) for one of the sub-types originally included with Harrell. This
name was taken from the Washita River in Oklahoma.

Other Names: Washita, var. norris (Perttula 2020)

Similar Types: Harrell.

Age: Davis (1995) estimates the age of this Late Prehistoric arrow point at A.D. 1100 to A.D.
1600. Crook (2017:51) dates it to circa A.D. 1250 to A.D. 1600.

Description: Davis (1995:262) describes Washita as a small point with triangular blades. “The
stem is formed by side notches. The base is usually straight but may be slightly concave. The
basal corners are usually the widest part of this point, and the large basal area has a unique
square appearance.”

The following dimensions were taken from a web site on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 19 mm to 27 mm (average 24 mm or less)

Stem length to top of notches: 7 mm to 11 mm (typically 1/4 to 1/3 of total length)
Blade width: 12 mm to 20 mm
Notch depth: 2 mm to 3 mm
Neck width: 5 mm to 7 mm
Basal width: 10 mm to 16 mm

Cultural Affiliation: This point is a diagnostic artifact of the Washita Focus in Oklahoma. Crook
(2017:51) associates it with the Farmersville Phase.

180
Distribution: In Texas, it is found in the Panhandle-Plains, North-Central Texas, and the
Northeast Texas subregion. Bell (1958) states that this type is found in Oklahoma, parts of the
Great Plains, the Mississippi River Valley, and the Southwest. According to Robert J. Mallouf
(personal communication, 2018), it is infrequently found in the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big
Bend Region.

Known Sites: Sam Kaufman (41RR1), A. C. Mackin (41LR39), Bell Camp (41PR107),
Greenbelt (41DY17), 41PR126 (Private Collection), 41SE17, 41DL406, 41CR33, and 41YN1.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Bell (1958), Crook (2011, 2017), Davis (1995),
Duncan et al. (2007), Forrester (1987b), Kehoe (1966), Krieger (1946), Perino (1985, 1991),
Perttula (2020), Suhm et al. (1954), Shawn (1975), Parker (1982), Turner and Hester (1985,
1993, 1999), Campbell (n.d.), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Perino (1991) illustrates and discusses a northern variety of the Washita point that
is found from northern Kansas to west-central Canada. This type is described in more detail by
Thomas F. Kehoe (1966). Forrester (1987b) mentions 16 Washita points at 41SE17. Wilson W.
Crook, III (2017) discusses types of damage to Washita points and other Late Prehistoric types
from a sample of 750 examples.

At the Gilkey Hill Site (41KF/41DL406), the Washita type is represented by three specimens –
two of chert and one of quartzite (Crook 2011:Table 1).

A single Washita point made from Alibates chert was found at 41OC93 in Ochiltree County.

Fifty-one Washita points were collected at the Greenbelt site (41DY17). Campbell (n.d.:44)
describes two specimens as a multiple notch variety. Specimen GS-96 is made from Tecovas
jasper and exhibits three pairs of lateral notches (Figure 1a). Specimen GS-108 is made from
Alibates agate and has two notches on one edge and one notch on the opposite edge (Figure
1b). The lengths of these points range from 1.4 cm to 3.0 cm. Widths vary from 0.9 cm to 1.6
cm. Forty-one points are Alibates material, nine are Tecovas jasper, and one is from
unidentified chert.

Cindy Smyers (personal communication, October 28, 2022) mentioned that Washita points were
found in direct association with Harrell points at a bison kill site (41CR33) in Crane County.

The example depicted above was knapped by Matt Soultz for this book. Additional Washita
points are housed at TARL (Figure 93).

181
 Young

Original Recorder: Alex D. Krieger (1946) was the first to recognize and describe the Young
point (Figure 94). When Dee Ann Suhm and Alex D. Krieger (1954) wrote An Introductory
Handbook of Texas Archeology, they described and illustrated it and named it for Young County
where many specimens have been found. Example is from 41PP63.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Cliffton and Padre.

Age: A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1500 Sum and Krieger (1954:510).

Description: “Crudely triangular to leaf-shaped, edges occasionally almost straight but usually
strongly convex and often asymmetrical. Made from thin, curved flakes with little modification on
either side, usually not enough to flatten the artifacts. Bases straight to convex, seldom
concave, often crooked” (Suhm and Krieger 1954:510). They describe the following dimensions:
Length: 2.5 cm to 4.5 cm; Width: 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm.

Cultural Affiliation: A common type in Henrietta Focus sites and rare in the Central Texas
Aspect (Suhm and Krieger 1954).

Distribution: Concentrated in Young County, the upper Brazos River valley, and North-Central
Texas with a few specimens reported in the northern part of Central Texas.

Known Sites: Kyle (41HI1), Smith Rockshelter (41TV42), Greenshaw (41HY29), Wunderlich
(41CM3), Live Oak Point (41AS2), and 41SE17.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Campbell (1956), Bell (1960), Davis (1995),
Krieger (1946), Perino (1985), Suhm and Jelks (1962), Suhm and Krieger (1954), Hester
(1980), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), Watt (1967), and Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Weir (1979:24) writes “A type now thought to be a preform rather than finished
form.”

182
 Zapata

Original Recorder: The Zapata point (Figure 95) was first described as Form 1 based on
examples found by Don Kumpe at Falcon Reservoir in Zapata County. The first published
description of this type appears in an article by Don Kumpe, Richard L. McReynolds, and C. K.
Chandler (2000). Turner et al. (2011) state that the name had been changed to Zapata to reflect
the county where the first specimens were found.

Other Names: Form 1.

Similar Types: Maud.

Age: Turner et al. (2011) refer to this type as Late Prehistoric, but they do not offer any specific
dates.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:217) describe Zapata as “triangular to unstemmed arrow

points. Specimens have slightly to markedly convex lateral edges near the base, which usually
has the widest measurement. The stem and basal areas are slightly to moderately concave and
have a ‘bowlegged’ appearance. The points are usually made on flakes and may retain much of
the original flake surface. Some specimens appear to have been sharpened while hafted, thus
altering the original flake form above the hafted area.” No dimensions are given.

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: According to Kumpe et al. (2000:43), this type “occurs in substantial numbers in
sites in the northern portion of Falcon Reservoir.” They also say that “They [Form 1 points]
appear to be absent from the southern portion of the lake…” “In Zapata County, they are seldom
found farther than a few hundred yards from the normal conservation pool of the lake.”

Known Sites: 41ZP83 and 41ZP154.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Kumpe et al. (2000), and Turner et al. (2011).

183
Comments: According to Turner et al. (2011:217), “these points are usually made on flakes and
sometimes retain much of the original flake surface. Some appear to have been hafted, and this
alters the original flake form above the hafted area.” Kumpe et al. (2000) state that the quantity
of broken specimens may be an indication that they are preforms that broke during
manufacture. Only seven of the twenty-six specimens in the senior author’s collection are
complete. The authors suggest that breakage may be a result of the thinness and length of
some Form 1 points. The frequency of this type in local collections is probably underestimated
because collectors usually only keep complete specimens, and some collectors refer to this type
as Maud.

The specimen illustrated is from northern Mexico and is permanently housed at TARL.

184
 Zavala

Original Recorder: Turner and Hester (1985:197) state that Zavala points (Figure 96) were
found at the Honeymoon site in Zavala County. Only four arrow points were found at this site
(Hill and Hester 1971), and each one is described as Scallorn or a variation of Scallorn. It is,
therefore, assumed that one or more of these points were later named Zavala. In the typology
book by Turner et al. (2011), the Honeymoon site is no longer mentioned as a site where Zavala
points have been found.

Other Names: None reported.

Similar Types: Zavala and the Figueroa point are quite similar. Davis states that the shoulders
om Figueroa are usually stronger than Zavala, and the basal width is wider than those on
Zavala. Figueroa is classified as a dart point, and Zavala is an arrow point.

Age: According to Turner et al. (2011:218), this is a transitional Archaic arrow point that was
used circa 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 or later.

Description: Turner et al. (2011:218) describe this point as “small, stubby, and thick.” No
dimensions are given.

The following dimensions were taken from a web site on the Internet:
[Link]

Total length: 15 mm to 27 mm
Stem length: 4 mm to 9 mm (typically 1/3 to 1/2 of total length)
Blade width: 11 mm to 18 mm
Thickness: 4 mm to 7 mm

Cultural Affiliation: Unknown.

Distribution: This type is found primarily in southern Texas, especially in the Nueces River-Rio
Grande River corridor. Specimens may occur in the Lower Pecos and central Texas.

185
Known Sites: Devil’s Mouth (41VV185), Wunderlich (41CM3), Honeymoon (41ZV34), Coontail
Spin (41VV82), site 41BS66, and site 41BS402.

Sources for Illustrations and Descriptions: Lukowski (1987), Davis (1995), Hill and Hester
(1971), Hester (1974, 1980), Hafernik (1984), Turner and Hester (1985, 1993, 1999), and
Turner et al. (2011).

Comments: Davis (1995) states that Zavala points were probably used with the bow and arrow
weaponry system, and it is equally possible that the earlier ones were darts used with the atlatl.

It is assumed that this type is named for Zavala County where the first examples were found.

The specimen illustrated above was knapped by Matt Soultz for this book. Examples of Zavala
points are housed at TARL.

186
 References Cited

Agogino, George A., and Phillip Shelly

1988 Could Gar Scales Have Been Used as Projectile Points in the Southern United States
and Northern Mexico? The Artifact 26(1):29-31.

Allen, G. L., Jr., Pauline Allen, Joe F. Cochran, Lathel F. Duffield, R. E. Forrester, Jr., Elbert D.
Helm, Isabelle R. Lobdell, David Lubell, Roy E. Padgett, and Robert L. Tapscott
1967 Stone Tools. In The Gilbert Site, A Norteño Focus Site in Northeastern Texas. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological Society 37:191-219.

Anderson, A. E.
1932 Artifacts of the Rio Grande Delta Region. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society, 2:21-22.

Anthony, Dana
1991 Lithic Analysis. In Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Creek, Phase II: Testing,
Palo Duro Reservoir, Hansford County, Texas. edited by John Peterson, pp. 255-327.
Archaeological Research, Inc., Austin.

Applegarth, Susan Majorie

1976 Prehistoric Utilization of the Environment of the Eastern Slopes of the Guadalupe
Mountains, Southeastern New Mexico. Unpublished Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Arakawa, Fumiyasu
2013 Gendered Analysis of Lithics from the Central Mesa Verde Region. Kiva
78(3):279-312.

Aten, Lawrence E.
1979 Indians of the Upper Texas Coast: Ethnohistorical and Archeological Frameworks.
Unpublished dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at
Austin.

1983 Indians of the Upper Texas Coast. Academic Press, New York.

Avery, George
1995 More Friend than Foe: Eighteenth Century Spanish, French, and Caddoan Interaction at
Los Adeas, A Capital of Texas Located in Northwestern Louisiana. Louisiana
Archaeology 22:163-193.

Bailey, Gail L.
1987 Archeological Bibliography for the Southern Coastal Corridor Region of Texas. Office of
the State Archeologist, Special Report 29. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
(With contributions by Helen Simons and Patricia A. Mercado-Allinger)

187
Baker, William E., and T. N. Campbell
1959 Metal Projectile Points from the Oklahoma Panhandle and Vicinity. Bulletin of the
Oklahoma Anthropological Society VII:51-54.

Baker, William E., and Clarence H. Webb

1976 Catahoula Type Projectile Points. Louisiana Archaeology 3:225-251.

Banks, Larry
1990 From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Resources in the Trans-
Mississippi South, the Southern Plains and Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma
Anthropological Society, Memoir 4.

Banks, Larry, and Joe Winters

1975 The Bentsen-Clark Site, Red River County, Texas: A Preliminary Report. Special
Publication, No. 2. Texas Archeological Society, Austin.

Baskin, Barbara J.
1981 Lithic and Mineral Artifacts. In Archeological Investigations at the George C. Davis Site,
Cherokee County, Texas: Summers of 1979 and 1980. Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory, Occasional Papers, No. 1, Austin.

Basso, Keith H., editor

1971 Western Apache Raiding and Warfare: From the Notes of Greenville Goodwin.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Baugh, T. G. and F. W. Nelson, Jr.

1987 New Mexico Obsidian Sources and Exchange on the Southern Plains. Journal of Field
Archaeology 14(3):313-329.

Bauman, Jerry L.
1988 A Brass Arrow Point from Nueces County, Texas. La Tierra 15(4):34-39.

1989 A Brass Arrow Point from San Patricio County, Texas. La Tierra
16(4):26-28.

1991 Two Metal Arrow Points from Nueces County, Texas. La Tierra
18(3):27-29.

Bean, L. J.
1972 Mukat’s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California
Press, Berkeley.

Beasley, Tom S.
1978 A Site with Edwards Points in Bandera County, Texas. La Tierra
5(4):23-31.

Bell, Robert E.
1952 Indian Arrowheads. Archaeological Newsletter 3(1):1-12.

1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin
No. 1. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.

188
1960 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points Special Bulletin
No. 2. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.

Bell, Robert E., and Roland Scott Hall

1953 Selected Projectile Points of the United States. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological
Society 1:1-16.

Bell, Robert E., and George Lynn Cross

1980 Oklahoma Indian Artifacts. Contributions from the Stovall Museum, No. 4. University of
Oklahoma, Norman.

Bennett, Bob
1956 Kerr County, Texas: 1856-1956. The Naylor Company, San Antonio.

Bennett, Wendall C., and Robert M. Zingg

1976 An Indian Tribe of Northern Mexico: The Tarahumara. The Rio Grande Press, Inc.,
Glorietta, New Mexico. [reprint of the original published in 1935 by the University of
Chicago Press]

Berlandier, Jean Louis

1969 The Indians of Texas in 1830. Edited by John C. Ewers. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.

Betancort, Julio, Darrell Creel, Paul R. Katz, Paul D. Lukowski, Logan McNatt, and
Ronald W. Ralph
1981 Five Archeological Investigations in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas. Texas Antiquities
Committee Permit Series No. 6. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin.

Biesaart, Lynne A., Wayne R. Roberson, and Lisa Clinton Spotts

1985 Prehistorical Archeological Sites in Texas: A Statistical Overview. Office of the State
Archeologist, Special Report 28. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Black, Stephen L.
1986 The Clemente and Herminia Hinojosa Site, 41JW8: A Toyah Horizon Campsite in
Southern Texas. Center for Archaeological Research Special Report No. 18. The
University of Texas at San Antonio.

Blitz, J. H.
1988 Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Prehistoric North America. North American
Archaeologist 9:123-145.

Boisvert, Richard
1985 A technological Analysis of Lithic Assemblages from Guadalupe Mountains National
Park, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 54:1-104.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene,

1970 Athanase de Mezieres and the Louisiana-Texas Frontier, 1768-1780 (Volume I), Kraus
Reprint. Original published by the Arthur H. Clarke Company, Cleveland 1914.

189
Boyd, Douglas K.
1995 The Palo Duro Complex: Redefining the Early Ceramic Period in the Caprock
Canyonlands. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 66:461-518.

2001 Querechos and Texas: Protohistoric Hunters and Gatherers in the Texas Panhandle-
Plains, A.D. 1540-1700. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 72:5-22.

2004 The Palo Duro Complex. In The Prehistory of Texas, Timothy K, Perttula, editor, pp.
296-330. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Boyd, Douglas K, Martha Doty Freeman, Michael D. Blum, Elton R. Prewitt, and J. Michael
Quigg
1989 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations at the Justiceburg Reservoir on the Double
Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, Garza and Kent Counties, Texas. Reports of
Investigations 66, Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin.

Boyd, James Bryan

1997 A Late Prehistoric Burial from 41ZP85, Old Zapata, Zapata County, Texas. La Tierra
24(3):8-14.

n.d. Five Prehistoric Cemetery Sites at Falcon Reservoir. Manuscript on file at the Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

Boyd, James Bryan, D. E. Wilson, and Thomas R. Hester

1997 Southern Island, A Prehistoric Cemetery Site in the Falcon Reservoir Area. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological Society 68:387-425.

Boyd, James Bryan, and D. E. Wilson

1999 A Cremation Burial from the Arroyo Salinillas, Falcon Reservoir. La Tierra
26(5):4-7.

Boyd, James Bryan, and Timothy K. Perttula

2000 On the Association of Caracara Arrow Points with Late Prehistoric Burials in the Falcon
Reservoir Area. La Tierra 27(4):5-14.

Brockmoller, Sunnye
1987 The Identification and Classification of Projectile Points from the Plateau Complex, Van
Horn, Texas. The Artifact 25(1):1-48.

Brown, C.
1985 The Tale of Two Sites: A (41LU34) and B (41LU29). Transactions of the 20th Regional
Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas,
pp. 143-155.

Brown, James A.
1976 Spiro Studies: The Artifacts. The University of Oklahoma Research Institute, Volume 4.
University of Oklahoma, Norman.

1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley Caddoan Culture in
Eastern Oklahoma. Memoirs No. 29, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.

190
Brown, Kenneth M.
1976 Fused Volcanic Glass from the Manning Formation. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 47:189-207.

Brown, Kenneth M., and A. J. Taylor

1989 A Comment on Metal Arrow Points. La Tierra 16(4):10-22.

Browne, Jim
1938 Antiquity of the Bow. American Antiquity 3(4):358-359.

1940 Projectile Points. American Antiquity 5(3):209-213.

Bruseth, James E., and Timothy K. Perttula (editors)

1995 Advances in Texas Archeology: Contributions from Cultural Research Management,
Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Bruseth, Jim, Jeff Durst, Richard Proctor, Larry Banks, and Bill Pierson
2009 Investigations at the Gene and Ruth Ann Stallings Ranch Site (41LR297). Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 80:194-205.

Buck, B. A.
1982 Ancient Technology in Contemporary Surgery. The Western
Journal of Medicine 136(3):265-269.

Button, Van Tries

1989 The Byrd Mountain Lithic Cache (34GR149), a Find of Edwards Chert from Greer
County, Southwestern Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
60:209-216.

Byrd, Clifford L.
1971 Origin and History of the Uvalde Gravels of Central Texas. Bulletin Number 20, Baylor
Geological Studies, Waco.

Calame, David L., Sr.

2017-2018 Sabinal Points from Northern Uvalde County, Texas. La Tierra 42:121-130.

Campbell, Thomas Jefferson

n.d. The Greenbelt Site: An Example of Variation among Prehistoric Village Sites in the
Texas Panhandle [Publisher and date of publication unknown]

Campbell, T. N.
1952 The Kent-Crane Site: A Shell Midden on the Texas Coast. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 23:39-77.

1956 Archaeological Material from Five Islands in the Laguna Madre, Texas Coast. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological Society 27:7-46.

1958 Archeological Remains from the Live Oak Point Site, Aransas County, Texas. Texas
Journal of Science 10(4):423-442.

191
1960 Archeology of the Central and Southern Sections of the Texas Coast. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 29:145-175. (For 1958)

1979 Ethnohistoric Notes on Indian Groups Associated with Three Spanish Missions at
Guerrero, Coahuila. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San
Antonio, Archaeology and History of the San Juan Bautista Mission Area, Coahuila and
Texas, Report Number 3.

1988 The Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Selected Writings of
Thomas Nolan Campbell. The University of Texas at Austin Press.

Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse

1964 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I, Point Types. Archaeological Research
Institute of Alabama. [reprinted in 1975] Available as eBook #3974.

Carmichael, David L.
1986 Archaeological Survey of the Southern Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. Historic and
Natural Resources Report No. 3. Cultural Resources Branch, Environmental
Management Division, Directorate of Environment, United States Army Air Defense
Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Carpenter, Stephen M., Kevin A. Miller, Mary Jo Galindo, Brett A. Houk, Charles D. Frederick,
Mercedes C. Cody, John Lowe, Ken Lawrence, Kevin Hanselka, and Abby Peyton
2013 The Siren Site and the Long Transition from Archaic to Late Prehistoric Lifeways on the
Eastern Edwards Plateau of Central Texas. Texas Antiquities Permits 3834 and 3938.
SWCA Cultural Resources Report 12-93. Texas Department of Transportation
Archeological Studies Program Report 142. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.

Cattelain, Pierre
1997 Hunting During the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, Spearthrower, or Both? In Projectile
Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 213-240. Plenum Press, New York.

Chandler, Charles K.
1984a Lithic Resources of the Texas Coastal Bend. La Tierra 11(1):26-27.

1984b Two Metal Projectile Points from Central Texas. La Tierra 11(3):13-16.

1986 Notes on a Metal Projectile Point from Bexar County, Southcentral Texas. La Tierra
13(3):28-31.

1989 A Metal Arrow Point from Terrell County, Texas. La Tierra 16(4):23-24.

1993 Metal Projectile Points from Medina County, Texas. La Tierra 20(4):29-32.

Chandler, Charles K., and Leo Lopez

1992 A Quarry in Western Duval County. La Tierra 19(2):12-13.

Chandler, Charles K., and Don Kumpe

1994 Metal Arrow Points from South Texas and Tamaulipas, Mexico. La Tierra
24(4):38-41.

192
Christenson, Andrew L.
1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains
Anthropologist 31:109-128.

Cloud, William A.
2001 Toyah Arrow Points in the Big Bend. La Vista de la Frontera 14(1):8.

2002 The Rough Run Burial: A Semi-Subterranean Cairn Burial from Brewster County, Texas.
The Journal of Big Bend Studies 14:33-84.

2004 The Arroyo de la Presa Site: A Stratified Late Prehistoric Campsite Along the Rio
Grande, Presidio County, Trans-Pecos, Texas. Reports in Contract Archeology 9,
Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University.

Cloud, William A., Robert J. Mallouf, Patricia A. Mercado-Allinger, Cathryn A. Hoyt, Nancy A.
Kenmotsu, Joseph M. Sanchez, and Enrique R. Madrid
1994 Archeological Testing at the Polvo Site, Presidio County, Texas. Office of the State
Archeologist, Report 39. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service
and Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Cloud, William A. and, Robert J. Mallouf

1996 Aboriginal Material Culture. In Archeological Reconnaissance on Big Bend Ranch State
Park: Presidio and Brewster Counties, Texas, 1988-1994 by J. David Ing, Sheron Smith-
Savage, William A. Cloud, and Robert J. Mallouf, pp. 170-194. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Texas Historical Commission and Sul Ross State University and Center for
Big Bend Studies, Alpine.

Cloud, William A., and Jennifer C. Piehl

2008 The Millington Site: Archaeological and Human Osteological Investigations, Presidio
County, Texas. Papers of the Trans-Pecos Archaeological Program 4, Center for Big
Bend Studies. Sul Ross State University, Alpine.

Coleman, Shawn, Glen L. Evans, and Thomas R. Hester

2000 An Overview of the Archeology at Montell Rockshelter, Uvalde County, Texas. TARL
Research Notes 7:121-131.

Colette, James
1993 Archeological site data form for site 41VV890. Curated in the Val Verde County files at
the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.

Collins, Michael B.
2002 Lithic Sources on the Central Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas. In The Smith Creek Bridge
Site (41DW270): A Terrace Site in DeWitt County, Texas. Studies in Archeology 35,
Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.

2004 “Archeology in Central Texas.” In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula,
pp. 101-126. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Collins, Michael B., and Jason M. Fenwick

1974 Heat Treating of Chert: Methods of Interpretation and their Application. Plains
Anthropologist 19(64):131-145.

193
Collins, Michael B., and Karen S. Collins
1990 A Metal Arrowpoint Found Embedded in the Moore-Hancock Log House (41TV105),
Travis County, Texas. La Tierra 17(3):13-19.

Cook, Harold J.
1927 New Geological and Paleontological Evidence Bearing on the Antiquity of Mankind in
America. American Antiquity 27(3):240-247.

Corbin, James E.
1963 Archaeological Materials from the Northern Shore of Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological Society 34:5-30.

1974 A Model for Cultural Succession for the Coastal Bend Area of Texas. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 45:29-54.

Corbin, James E., Heather A. Brown, Mary G. Canavan, and Sharon Toups
1990 Mission Dolores de los Ais (41SA25): San Augustine County, Texas. Papers in
Anthropology 5. Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches.

Corliss, David W.
1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional
Papers of the Idaho State University Museum 29.

Corrick. Donald W.
2000 The Manufacture and Age of Toyah Arrow Points from Big Bend National Park, Texas.
Journal of Big Bend Studies 12:1-12.

Costa, August G., and Amy Fox

2016 An Experimental Evaluation of Gar Scale Arrow Points. The Journal 136:23-31. Houston
Archeological Society.

Creel, Darrell G.
1990 Excavations at 41TG91, Tom Green County, Texas 1978. Publications in Archeology,
Report No. 38. Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin.

Crook, Wilson W., III

1985 The Branch #2 Site: A Northeast Texas Puebloan Intrusive Contact. Texas Archeology
29(3):9-11.

2007 The Branch Site (41COL9): A Large Diagnostic Late Prehistoric Occupation in Collin
County, Texas. The Record 55(2):30-44.

2009 An Unusual Late Prehistoric Projectile Point Concentration from the Upper Farmersville
Site (41COL34), Collin County, Texas. The Journal 132:21-36. Houston Archeological
Society.

2011 The Gilkey Hill Site (41FK42/41DL406): A Large Late Prehistoric Occupation in Dallas
County, Texas. Archeological Journal of the Texas Prairie-Savannah Volume I,
Number 1, pp. 9-17.

194
2013 Puebloan Intrusive Artifacts in Archeological Sites Along the East Fork. Archeological
Journal of the Texas Prairie Savannah 3(1):36-43.

2016 X-Ray Fluorescence Re-Analysis of Five Obsidian Arrow Points from the Branch Site
(41COL9), Collin County, Texas. Archeological Journal of the Texas Prairie-Savannah
Volume I, Number 1, pp. 27-33.

2017 Interpreting Arrow Point Damage from Late Prehistoric Sites Along the East Fork of the
Trinity River and its Tributaries. The Journal 137:51-66. Houston Archeological Society.

Crook, Wilson W., III and Mark D. Hughston

2009a A Unique Cache of Edwards Chert from Rockwall County, Texas. Archeological Journal
of the Texas Prairie-Savannah Volume I, Number 1, pp. 57-61.

2009b The Upper Farmersville Site (41COL34): A Large Late Prehistoric Occupation in Collin
County, Texas. The Record 56(1):25-46. Dallas Archeological Society.

2015a The East Fork Late Prehistoric: A Redefinition of Cultural Concepts Along the East Fork
of the Trinity River, North Central Texas. CreateSpace, a DBA of On-Demand
Publishing, LLC (an Amazon Company), Charleston, South Carolina.

2015b Three New Radiocarbon Dates from the East Fork. The Journal 135:31-40. Houston
Archeological Society.

2015c The Late Prehistoric of the East Fork of the Trinity River, North-Central Texas. Published
by GreatSpace, a DBA of On-Demand Publishing, LLC.

Cox, Kim A., and Herman A. Smith

1989 Perdiz Point Damage Analysis. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 30:283-302.

Dasch, Pat, and Robert J. Mallouf (editors)

2013 Archaeological Explorations of the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend: Collected
Papers. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross University, Alpine.

Davis, Dan R., Jr.

1995 Prehistoric Artifacts of the Texas Indians: An Identification and Reference Guide. Pecos
Publishing Company, Fort Sumner, New Mexico.

Davis, Mike, and Jack Skiles (With contributions by Dan Potter and James Collett).
1999 Archeological Data on Cultural Features at Sites 41VV740 and 41VV890 near Langtry,
Texas. In The Steward, a publication of the Texas Archeological Stewardship Network,
Daniel R. Potter, and Helen Simons, editors, pp. 49-69/

Densmore, Julie A.
2007 A Detailed Analysis of the Variation in Morphology of the Gary Dart Point. Lithic
Technology 32(1):7-16.

195
Dickens, William A.
1993a Tool Types, Reduction Strategies, and Local Gravel: Analysis of Lithic Artifacts. The
Brazos Valley Slopes Archaeological Project: Cultural Resource Assessments for the
Texas A&M University Animal Science Teaching and Research Complex, Brazos
County, Texas. Alston V. Thoms, editor, pp. 113-144. Reports of Investigations No. 14,
Archaeological Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station.

1993b Lithic Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations in Bull Branch: Results of the 1990
Archaeological Field School, David L. Carlson, editor, pp. 79-116. United States Army,
Fort Hood Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report Number 19.

1993c Lithic Artifact Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations in Spicewood Creek: Results of

the 1991 Summer Archaeological Field School, David L. Carlson, editor, pp. 75-112.
United States Army, Fort Hood Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research
Report Number 12.

1995 Identification and prehistoric exploitation of chert from Fort Hood, Bell and Coryell
counties, Texas. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M
University, College Station.

1997 Lithic Artifact Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations along Owl Creek: Results of the
1992 Summer Archaeological Field School, David L. Carlson, editor, pp. 45-61. United
States Army, Fort Hood Archaeological Resource Management Series, Research Report
Number 29.

Dickens, William A., and John Dockall

1993 Lithic Analysis. In Archaeological Site Testing and Evaluation on the Henson Mountain
Helicopter Range AWSS Project Area, Fort Hood, Texas. David L. Carlson, editor, pp.
61-82. United States Army Fort Hood Archaeological Resource Management Series,
Research Report Number 26.

Dockall, John E.
1997 Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological
Evidence on JSTOR. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3):321-331.

Duffield, Lathel L.
1961 The Limerick Site at Iron Bridge Reservoir, Rains County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 30:51-116.

1963 The Wolfshead Site: An Archaic Neo-American Site in San Augustine County, Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 34:83-14.

Duncan, Marjorie, Larry Neal, Don Shockey, Don Wykoff, Michael Sullivan, and L. M. Sullivan
2007 Southern Plains Lithics: The Small Points. Special Bulletin 26. Oklahoma
Anthropological Society, Norman.

Ellis, C.
1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In
Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 37-74. Plenum Press, New York.

196
Evans, Oren
1957 Probable Use of Stone Projectile Points. American Antiquity 23(1):83-84.

1961 The Development of the Atlatl and the Bow. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
30:159-162. (For 1959)

Fenenga, Franklin
1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to their Functions. Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology 9:309-323.

Fields, Ross C.
1988a Cultural Resources Investigations along Whiteoak Bayou, Harris County, Texas. Reports
of Investigations 62, Prewitt & Associates, Inc.

1988b Synthesis of the Prehistoric and Historic Archeology of Cooper Lake, Delta and Hopkins
Counties, Texas. Reports of Investigations 62. Prewitt & Associates, Inc., Austin.

1995 The Archeology of the Post Oak Savannah of East Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 66:301-330.

2004 The Archeology of the Post Oak Savannah of East Central Texas. In The Prehistory of
Texas, Timothy K. Perttula, editor, pp. 347-369. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.

Figgins, Jesse Dade

1927 The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27(3):229-239.

Flinn, Richard, and Judy Flinn

1968 The High Bluff Site on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 38:93-125.

Ford, James A.
1951 Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 44(3).

1952 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design Developments in the Southeastern States.

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 44(3):Part 3.

Ford, James A., and Gordon R. Willey

1940 Crooks Site, A Marksville Period Burial Mound in LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. Department
of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Anthropological Study No. 3, New
Orleans.

Forrester, Robert E.
1951 A Series of Eighteen Indian Skeletons Excavated in Shackelford County, Texas. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 22:132-143.

1987a The Moran Point from North-Central Texas. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological
Society 36:131-136.

197
1987b Pestles for Boat-Shaped Mortars in Texas. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.

Foster, Michael S.
1993 Archaeological Investigations at Pueblo Sin Casas (FB6273), a Multicomponent Site in
the Hueco Basin, Fort Bliss, Texas. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 7,
Cultural Resources Branch, Environmental Management Division, Directorate of
Environment, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas. With
contributions by Ronna Jane Bradley & Lorna Lee Scarbrough.

Fowler, Don D., Jr., and John F. Matley

1979 Material Culture of the Numa: The John Wesley Powell Collection, 1867-
1880. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Number 26. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Fox, Anne A., and Steve A. Tomka

2006 Excavations at Presidio Nuestra Señora de Loreto de la Bahía del Espíritu Santo.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 77:33-160.

Fox, Daniel E.
1979 The Lithic Artifacts of Indians at the Spanish Colonial Missions, San Antonio, Texas.
Center for Archaeological Research, Special Report
No. 8, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

1982 Historic Investigations. In Investigations at Site 41 LK 31/32 and 41 LK 202 in the Choke
Canyon Reservoir, South Texas (Part II). Center for Archaeological Research, Choke
Canyon Series, Volume 8. The University of Texas at San Antonio.

1983 Traces of Texas History: Archeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years. Corona
Publishing Company, San Antonio.

Frederick, Charles D., Michael D. Glasscock, Hector Neff, and Christopher M. Stevenson
1994 Evaluation of Chert Patination as a Dating Technique: A Case Study from Fort Hood,
Texas. United States Army, Fort Hood Archeological Research Management Series,
Research Report Number 32.

Frederick, Charles D., and Christopher Ringstaff

1994 Lithic Resources at Fort Hood: Further Investigations. In Archeological Investigations on
571 Prehistoric Sites at Fort Hood, Bell and Coryell Counties, Texas, W. Nicholas
Trierweiler, editor, pp. 125-181. Fort Hood Archeological Research Management Series,
Research Report Number 31.

Gadus, E. Frances, Ross C. Fields, and Karl W. Kibler

2006 Data Recovery Excavations at the J. B. White site (41MM341), Milam County, Texas.
Report of Investigations 145, Prewitt & Associates, Inc. and Archeological Studies
Program Report 87, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation.

Galindo, Mary Jo
1998 Analysis of the Riley Projectile Point Collection from Mier, Tamaulipas. Unpublished
manuscript on file at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.

198
Galloway, William E., and William R. Kaiser
1980 Catahoula Formation of the Texas Coastal Plain: Origin, Geochemical Evolution, and
Characteristics of Uranium Deposit. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of
Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No. 100.

Geno, K. R.
1984 Origin and Distribution of Chert in the Edwards Limestone (Lower Cretaceous), Central
Texas. Unpublished B. S. thesis, Baylor University, Waco.

Gibson, Jon L, and Hiram F. Gregory

1992 Dr. Webb. Bulletin of the Louisiana Archeological Society 19:entire volume.

Glasgow, Marvin
2011 Metal Points from Site 41PR92, Parker County, Texas. Archeological Journal of the
Texas Prairie-Savannah Volume I, Number 1, pp. 47-48.

Glasrud, Bruce A., and Robert J. Mallouf (editors)

2013 Big Bend’s Ancient and Modern Past. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Goebel, Patsy, Robert Goebel, and Jimmy L. Mitchell

1987 Notes on a Metal Arrow Point from McCulloch County, Texas. La Tierra
14(1):32-35.

Goldschmidt, Walter R.
1935 A Report on the Archeology of Titus County. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society 7:89-99.

Gonzales, J. Hinthorne, R. Skowronek, T. Eubanks, and D. Kumpe

2014 Characteristics and Genesis of El Sauz Chert, An Important Prehistoric Lithic Resource
in South Texas. Lithic Technology 39(3):151-161.

Green, F. Earl
1962 The Lubbock Reservoir Site. The Museum Journal 6:83-123.

Green, F. Earl, and Jane Holden Kelley

1960 Comments on Alibates Flint. American Antiquity 25:413-414.

Greengo, R. E.
1964 Issaquena: An Archaeological Phase in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi Valley.
Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 18.

Greer, John W.
1967 A Description of the Stratigraphy, Features and Artifacts from an Archeological
Excavation at the Alamo. Archeological Program, Report Number 3. State Building
Commission, Austin.

1968a Excavations at a Midden Circle Site in El Paso, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 39:111-132.

1968b Notes on Excavated Ring Midden Sites, 1963-1968. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 38:39-44.

199
Gregory, Hiram F.
1982 Excavations: 1981-82, Presidio de Nuestra Señora del Pilar de Zaragoza de los Adaes.
Report in fulfillment of a contract for the Office of the State Parks, State Department of
Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Grinnell, George B.
1962 The Cheyenne Indians: Their History and Ways of Life. Volume I. Cooper Square
Publishers, New York.

Gunter, Rita R.
1985 The Ben Bickham Collection from North Padre Island, Texas. La Tierra 12(1):6-17.

Haas, Randall, James Watson, Tammy Buonasera, John Southon, Jennifer C. Chen, Sarah
Noe, Kevin Smith, Carlos Viviano Llave, Jelmer Eerkens, and Glendon Parker.
2020 Female Hunters of the Early Americas. Science Advances, pp. 1-10.

Hafernik, David
1984 Descriptive Analysis of Surface Collected of Lithic Artifacts from Jim Wells County,
Texas and Vicinity. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Center for Archaeological
Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Hall, Grant D.
1981 Allen’s Creek: A Study in the Cultural Prehistory of the Lower Brazos River Valley, Texas.
Texas Archeological Survey, Research Report Number 61. The University of Texas at
Austin.

Hall, Grant D., Stephen L. Black, and C. Graves

1982 Archaeological Investigations at Choke Canyon Reservoir, South Texas: The Phase I
Findings. The Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San
Antonio, Choke Canyon Series, No. 5.

Harris, Adam Duncan

2013 George Catlin’s American Buffalo. Giles, Ltd., Lewes, United Kingdom.
e
Harris, R. King, and Curtis D. Tunnell
1966 Miscellaneous European Goods. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
36:105-111.

Harris, R. King, Inus Marie Harris, and J. Ned Woodall

1967 Tools. In “The Gilbert Site: A Norteño Focus Site in Northeastern Texas,” edited by
Edward B. Jelks, pp. 18-32. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 37 (entire volume)

Harris, R. King, I. M. Harris, J. C. Blaine, and J. Blaine

1965 A Preliminary Archeological and Documentary Study of the Womack Site, Lamar
County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 36:287-365.

200
Hedrick, John A.
1975 Archaeological Survey of the Plateau Complex, Culberson County, Texas. The Artifact
13(4):45-82.

1986 Five Arrowpoint Types from the Plateau Complex, Van Horn, Texas. Transactions of the
Twenty-Second Regional Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and
Western Texas, pp. 15-27. El Paso Archaeological Society, El Paso.

1989 A Preliminary Report on Archeological Resources in Southern Culberson County in the

Vicinity of Van Horn, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 59:129-156.
(For 1988)

1993 A Felsite Quarry in the Van Horn Mountains, Culberson County, Texas.
The Cache 1:3-8.

Henderson, Jerry
2001 Excavations at the Rainey Site (41BN33), A Late Prehistoric Sinkhole in Bandera
County, Texas. Texas Department of Transportation, Archeological Studies Program,
Report 5.

Heinrich, Paul V.
1984 Lithic Resources in Western Louisiana. In Louisiana Archaeology 11:165-190.

Hester, Thomas R.
1968 Notes on Some Historic Indian Artifacts found near Ozona, Texas. Newsletter of the
Midland Archeological Society June issue, pp. 3-5.

1969 Archeological Investigations in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties, Texas, August 1967.
Archeological Program Report 15. State Building Commission, Austin.

1970a Metal Projectile Points from Southern Texas. The Record 27(1):9-11.

1970b Notes on the Edwards Arrow Point Type. The Record: Journal of the Dallas
Archeological Society 26(2):17-18.

1971 Archeological Investigations at the La Jita Site, Uvalde County, Texas. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 42:51-148.

1972 Ethnographic Evidence for the Thermal Alteration of Stone Tools. Tebiwa
15(2):63-65.

1974 Some Observations on Archaeology at Chaparrosa Ranch, 1974. La Tierra 1(3):19-22.

1977 The Lithic Technology of Mission Indians in Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Lithic
Technology 6(1-2):9-13.

1978 Notes on the Edwards Arrow Point Type. La Tierra 5(4):21-22.

1980 Digging into South Texas Prehistory, A Guide for Amateur Archaeologists. Corona
Publishing Company, San Antonio.

201
1986 The Texas-Idaho Connection. La Tierra 13(2):2-5.

1989 Perspectives on the Material Culture of the Mission Indians on the Texas-Northeastern
Borderlands. In Columbian Consequences, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 213-230
(Volume I). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

1995 The Prehistory of South Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
66:427-460.

2004 The Prehistory of South Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K.
Perttula, pp. 127-154. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Hester, Thomas R., and Jack D. Eaton

1983 Middle-Lower Rio Grande Archaeology. In Borderlands Sourcebook: A Guide to the
Literature on Northern Mexico and the American Southwest, edited by E. Stoddard, R.
Nostrand, and J. West, pp. 70-74, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hester, Thomas R., and Charles M. Whatley

1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts from Site 41DM59. La Tierra 19(3):3-8.

1997 Archaeological Materials from the Middle Rio Grande, Southern Texas and Coahuila. La
Tierra 24(2):3-12.

Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King

2012 Distinguishing Between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for
Technological Change in the American West. American Antiquity 77(4):789-799.

Hill, T. C., and Thomas R. Hester

1971 Isolated Late Prehistoric and Archaic Components at the Honeymoon Site (41 ZV 34),
Southern Texas. Plains Anthropologist 15(54):52-59.

Holden, W. C.
1938 Blue Mountain Rock Shelter. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 10:208-221.

Hoffman, Michael
1971 A Partial Archaeological Sequence for the Little River Region, Arkansas. Unpublished
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hudgins, Joe D.
1982 Historic Indian Sites in Wharton County, Texas. Houston Archeological Society Journal
74:2-7.

1984 A Historic Indian Site in Wharton County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 55:29-51.

Hughes, Jack T.
1942 An Archaeological Report on the Harrell Site of North Central Texas. Unpublished
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin.

202
Hughes, Jack T., and Patrick S. Willey
1978 Archeology at Mackenzie Reservoir. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State
Archeologist, Archeological Survey Report 24, Austin.

Hughes, R. E., and Thomas R. Hester

2009 Geochemical Evidence for a Mexican Source of Origin for an Obsidian Artifact from
South Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 80:77-84.

Ing, J. David, Sheron Smith-Savage, William A. Cloud, and Robert J. Mallouf

1996 Archeological Reconnaissance of Big Bend Ranch State Park, Presidio and Brewster
Counties, Texas, 1988-1994. Center for Big Bend Studies, Occasional Papers 1.
Sul Ross State University and Texas and Parks Wildlife Department, Austin.

Inman, Betty
1999 The Lithic Artifacts of the Native Americans at the Spanish Colonial Missions at
Guerrero, Coahuila, Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 70:363-384.

Jarvis, R. Whitby, and Daymond D. Crawford

1974 Archaeological Excavations on Interstate Highway 10, Sutton County, Texas. Highway
Design Division, Publications in Archaeology, Report No. 4. Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation, Austin.

Jelks, Edward B.
1953 Excavations at the Blum Rockshelter. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
24:189-207.

1962 The Kyle Site: A Stratified Central Aspect Site in Hill County, Texas. Department of
Anthropology, Archeology Series No. 5. The University of Texas at Austin.

1967 The Gilbert Site: A Norteño Focus Site in Northwestern Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 37(entire volume).

1993 Observations on the Distributions of Certain Arrow Point Types in Texas and Adjacent
Regions. Lithic Technology 18(1-2):9-15.

Jelks, Edward B., and Juliet C. Jelks (editors)

1988 Historical Dictionary of North American Archaeology. Greenwood Press, New York.

Johnson, Eileen, Vance T. Holliday, Michael J. Kaczor, and Robert Stuckenrath

1977 The Garza Occupation at the Lubbock Lake Site. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 48:83-110.

Johnson, LeRoy, Jr.

1967 Toward a Statistical Overview of the Archaic Cultures of Central and Southwestern
Texas. Bulletin 12 of the Texas Memorial Museum, Austin.

203
Johnson, Malcom L.
1987 Two Metal Points from Osage, Colorado County, Texas. La Tierra
14(1):36-39.

1994 The Life and Times of the Toyah Folk Culture: The Buckhollow Encampment, Site
41IKM16, Kimble, County, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist, Report 38. Texas
Department of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission. Austin.

2000 Colors and Sources of the Chert. In Life and Death as Seen at the Bessie Kruz Site
(41WM13) on the Blackland Prairie of Williamson County, Texas, by LeRoy Johnson, pp.
113-119. Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division,
Archeology Studies Program, Austin.

Johnson, LeRoy, Jr., Dee Ann Suhm, and Curtis D. Tunnell

1962 Salvage Archeology of Canyon Reservoir: The Wuderlich, Footbridge, and Oblate Sites.
Texas Memorial Museum, Bulletin Number 5.

Jones, William K.
1969 Notes on the History and Material Culture of the Tonkawa Indians. Smithsonian
Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 2, Number 5, Smithsonian Press. Washington.

Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.

Katz, Paul R.
1978 An Inventory and Assessment of Archaeological Sites in the High Country of Guadalupe
Mountains National Park, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, Survey Report 36.
The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Katz, Paul R., and Paul D. Lukowski

1981 Results of Archaeological Survey in the Salt Flat Locality of Northern Hudspeth County,
Texas. In Five Archeological Investigations in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas pp. 1-
26. Texas Antiquities Committee, Permit Series 6. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin.

Katz, Susanna R., and Paul R. Katz

1974 An Inventory and Interpretation of Prehistoric Resources in Guadalupe Mountains
National Park, Texas. Department of Anthropology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Kehoe, Thomas F.
1966 The Small Side-Notched Point System of the Northern Plains. American Antiquity
31(6):827-841.

Keller, John E., and Frank A. Weir

1979 Excavations at the Strawberry Hill Site, San Jacinto County, Texas. Texas Publications
in Archaeology, Report 13. Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin.

204
Kelley, J. Charles
1947a The Cultural Affiliations and Chronological Positions of the Clear Fork Focus. American
Antiquity 13(2):97-109.

1947b The Lehman Rock: A Stratified Site of the Toyah, Uvalde, and Round Rock Foci. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 18:115-128.

1957 The Livermore Focus: A Clarification. El Palacio 64(1-2) 44-52.

Kelley, J. Charles, T. N. Campbell, and Donald J. Lehmer

1940 The Association of Archaeological Materials with Geological Deposits in the Big Bend
Region of Texas. West Texas Historical and Scientific Society 21(3).

Kelly, Thomas C.
1963 Archeological Investigations at Roark Cave, Brewster County, Texas. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 33:191-228.

Kelly, Thomas C., and C. Graves

1980 The El Sauz Project: Archaeological Testing of Selected Sites in the Arroyo Los Olmos
Watershed, Starr County, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, Archaeological
Survey Report 88. The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Kennard, Don (Editor)

1975 Canadian Breaks: A Natural Area Survey, Part VII of VIII. Division of Natural Resources
and Environment, The University of Texas at Austin.

Kennedy, Skip, and Jimmy L. Mitchell

1988 Metal Arrow Points from the Vicinity of Fort Lipantitlan (41NU14), Nueces County,
Texas. La Tierra 15(1):26-34.

Kenmotsu, Nancy A., and Timothy K. Perttula.

1993 Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning Document. Department
of Antiquities Protection, Cultural Resource Management Report 3. Department of
Antiquities Protection, Austin.

Kilman, Ed
1959 Cannibal Coast. The Naylor Company, San Antonio.

Kindall, Sheldon M., and Leland W. Patterson

1986 The Andy Kyle Archeological Collection, Southeast Texas. Journal, Houston
Archeological Society 86(14-21).

King, Kevin, and Mike Turner

1993 The West Island Site (41MX65). Notes on Northeast Texas Archaeology 1:25-33.

Krieger, Alex D.
1944 The Typological Concept. In American Antiquity 9(3):271-288.

1946 Culture Complexes and Chronology in Northern Texas with Extension of Puebloan
Datings to the Mississippi Valley. Publication 4640. The University of Texas at Austin.

205
Krone, Milton F.
1976 The Ahumada Point: A Projectile Point from Northern Chihuahua, Mexico. The Artifact
14(2):41-43.

Kumpe, Don and Richard J. McReynolds

2017 Unidentified Projectile Point and Tool forms from Falcon Reservoir, Zapata County
Texas. La Tierra 42(1):43-52.

Kumpe, Don, Richard J. McReynolds, and C. K. Chandler

2000 A Highly Serrated Arrow Point from Starr and Zapata Counties, Texas. La Tierra
27(1):33-45.

Lehmer, Donald
1948 The Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. Social Science Bulletin 17. University of Arizona,
Tucson.

Lemley, Harry J.
1936 Discoveries Indicating a Pre-Caddo Culture on Red River in Arkansas. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 8:25-55.

Leo, R. F.
1975 Silification of Wood. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Leslie, Robert H.
1978 Projectile Point Types and Sequence of the Eastern Jornada-Mogollon, Extreme
Southeastern New Mexico. In Transactions of the 13th Regional Archeolgical Symposium
for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas, pp. 81-157. Dawson County
Archeological Society, Lamesa, Texas.

Lintz, Christopher
1981 Prehistoric Perishable Hunting Implements from the Oklahoma Panhandle. Oklahoma
Anthropological Society Newsletter 29(8):6-10.

1998 The Occurrence and Prehistoric Aboriginal Utilization of Opalite in the Palo Duro Creek
Vicinity of the Texas Panhandle. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society
46:107-126.

2009 Avian Procurement and Use by Middle Ceramic Period People on the Southern High
Plains: A Design for Investigations. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 80:85-
131.

Lintz, Christopher, and Leon George Zabawa

1984 Analysis of Cordage, Mats, Sandals, and Baskets from 34Ci50, Kenton, Oklahoma.
Unpublished manuscript, on file with the primary author.

Lohse, Jon C.
1999 Lithics from the San Antonio de Valero Mission: Analysis from 1979. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 70:265-280.

206
Luedtke, Barbara, E.
1978 Chert Sources and Trace Element Analysis. American Antiquity 43:4137-423.

1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute
of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angles.

Lukowski, Paul D.
1987 Archaeological Investigations at 41BX1, Bexar County, Texas. Center for Archaeological
Research, Archaeological Survey Report 126, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

McBride, F. E., and A. Thompson

1970 The Caballos Novaculite, Marathon Region, Texas. Geological Society of America,
Special Paper 122. Boulder.

McClurkan, Burney B.
1966 The Archaeology of Cueva de la Zona de Derrumbes, a Rockshelter in Nueva Leon,
Mexico. Unpublished Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at
Austin.

1968 Livingston Reservoir 1965-1966: Late Archaic and Neo-American Occupations. Papers
of the Texas Archeological Salvage Project, No. 12. The University of Texas at Austin.

McCormick, Olin F., III

1973 The Archeological Resources in the Lake Monticello Area of Titus County, Texas.
Southern Methodist University, Contributions in

McCrocklin, Claude
1993 Chipped Glass, Ceramics, and Axe Handles. Notes on Northeast Texas Archaeology
2(8-13). Southern Methodist University, Contributions in Anthropology, No. 8. Southern
Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. Dallas.

McGahey, Samuel O.
2000 Mississippi. Projectile Point Guide. Mississippi Department of Archives and History,
Archaeological Report No. 31. Jackson.

McGregor, Daniel E.
1995 “Lithic Resource Availability in the Upper Trinity Region: The Evidence from Joe Pool
Lake.” In Advances in Texas Archeology: Contributions from Cultural Research
Management, edited by James E. Bruseth and Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 187-202, Texas
Historical Commission, Austin.

MacNeish, Richard S.
1958 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 4(6):1-210.

McReynolds, Richard L.
1982 An Iron Projectile Point from Gillespie County, Texas. La Tierra
9(2):30-32.

207
McReynolds, Richard L., and Don Kumpe
2008 Metal Points from a Cast Metal Pot: A Cache from the Rio Alamo in Northern
Tamaulipas, Mexico. La Tierra 35(1&2):53-60.

Mallouf, Robert J.
1976 Archeological Investigations at Proposed Big Pine Lake, 1974-75, Lamar and Red River
Counties, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist, Survey Report Number 18. Texas
Historical Commission, Austin.

1985a The John Z. and Exa Means Cache: New Discovery Yields Insights into Big Bend’s
Prehistoric Indians. La Vista de la Frontera 20:1-3.

1985b A Synthesis of Eastern Trans-Pecos Prehistory. Master’s thesis, The University of Texas
at Austin.

1987 Las Haciendas: A Cairn-Burial Assemblage from Northeastern Chihuahua, Mexico.

Office of the State Archeologist, Report 35. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

2009 Alazán: An Arrow Point Type from the Eastern Trans-Pecos and Big Bend Region of
Texas. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross University, Alpine.

2012 Some New and Revised Projectile Point Classifications for the Eastern Trans-Pecos and
Big Bend Region of Texas. La Tierra 39:5-22.

2013 Some New and Revised Projectile Point Classifications for the Eastern Trans-Pecos and
Big Bend Region of Texas. In Archaeological Explorations of the Eastern Trans-Pecos
and Big Bend: Collected Papers, Volume 1. Edited by Pat Dasch and Robert J. Mallouf.
Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University. Alpine, Texas.

Mallouf, Robert J., Barbara J. Baskin, and K. L. Killen

1977 A Predictive Assessment of Cultural Resources in Hidalgo and Willacy Counties, Texas.
Office of the State Archeologist, Survey Report 25. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Mallouf, Robert J., and Anthony Zavaleta

1979 The Unland Site: A Prehistoric Group Burial from Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife
Refuge, Cameron County, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist, Special Report
Number 35. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Mallouf, Robert J., and Virginia A. Wulfkuhle

1989 An Archeological Reconnaissance in the Rosillos Mountains, Brewster County, Texas.
Journal of Big Bend Studies 1:1-34.

Marmaduke, William S.
1978 Prehistoric Culture in Trans-Pecos Texas: An Ecological Explanation. Unpublished
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology. The University of Texas at Austin.

Martin, George Castor

1930 Two Sites on the Callo Del Oso, Nueces County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological and Paleontological Society 2:7-17.

208
Martin, William A.
1990 Archeological Bibliography for the Northeastern Region of Texas. Department of
Archeological Planning and Review, Cultural Resource Management Report 1 and
Office of the State Archeologist, Special Report 32. Texas Historical Commission,
Austin. (With the assistance of Dee Ann Story, Timothy K. Perttula, Janice A. Guy, and
Deborah Smith)

Mauldin, Raymond P.
1993 The DIVAD Archaeological Project. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 8,
Cultural Resources Branch, Environmental Management Division, Directorate of
Environment, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Mauldin, Raymond P., Steve A. Tomka, and Harry J. Shafer

2004 Millican Bench (41TV163): A Multicomponent Site in Travis County, Texas. Center for
Archaeological Research, Archaeological Survey Report 351. The University of Texas at
San Antonio.

Mentzer, F, J., and Bob H. Slaughter

1971 Upland Gravels in Dallas County and Their Bearing on the Former Extent of the High
Plains Physiographic Province. Texas Journal of Science 22(2-3):217-222.

Mercado-Allinger, Patricia A.
2004 The Hackberry Cache (41RB95): An Alibates Cache from the Northeastern Texas
Panhandle. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 75:105-118.

Mercado-Allinger, Patricia A., Nancy A. Kenmotsu, and Timothy K. Perttula

1996 Archeology in the Central and Southern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning Document.
Office of the State Archeologist, Special Report 35 and the Department of Antiquities
Protection, Cultural Resource Management Report 7. Department of Antiquities
Protection, Austin.

Metcalf, George
1963 Star Village: A Fortified Historic Arikara Site in Mercer County, North Dakota. River
Basin Surveys Papers, No. 27. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology,
Bulletin 185:57-122.

MeWhinney, Herbert
1972 A Manual for Neanderthals. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

Miller, E. O., and Edward B. Jelks

1952 Archaeological Investigations at the Belton Reservoir, Coryell County, Texas. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 23:168-217.

Mitchell, Jimmy L.
1974 Notes on Metal Projectile Points from Southern Texas. Journal of South Texas 1:47-51.

1980 Brief Notes on the Archaeology of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra
7(4):18-26.

1982 The Sabinal Point. La Tierra 9(4):1-6.

209
Mitchell, Jimmy L., and Lynn Highley
1982 Notes on a Metal Projectile Point from Southern Texas: The Brom Cooper Collection. La
Tierra 9(1):21-23.

Mitchell, Jimmy L., and Shirley Van der Veer

1983 Late Prehistoric Projectile Points from the Vicinity of the Dan Baker Site, 41 CM 104,
Comal County, Texas. La Tierra 10(3):11-16.

Mitchell, Jim, and William E. Moore

1984 An Annotated Index of La Tierra (1974-1983). Southern Texas Archaeological
Association, Special Publication Number 3.

Mokry, E. R., Jr.

1977 Preliminary Report on Investigations of a Multicomponent Archaeological Site, 41 NU 33.
La Tierra 4(1):2-16.

Moore, Clarence B.
1912 Some Aboriginal Sites on Red River. Journal of the Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 14,
Part 4, pp. 526-636.

Moore, William E. (Bill)

1976 An Archeological Survey of Walker County, Texas. Unpublished manuscript on file with
the author and at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.

1985 Analysis of Artifacts from a Rangia Cunneta Shell Midden (41HR133) on Peggy Lake,
Harris County, Texas. The Journal 81:27-34. Houston Archeological Society.

1986 Louisiana Archaeology: An Index to the First Ten Years. Louisiana Archaeology
10:337-366. (Published for 1983)

1988a Analysis of Surface-Collected Materials from 41GL19, a Late Prehistoric Site in Gillespie
County, Texas. La Tierra 15(2):21-26.

1988b A Bibliography of Archaeological Reports Prepared by the Contract Laboratory, Texas

A&M University. Bibliographies in Archaeology, Number 1. Brazos Valley Research
Associates. Bryan.

1989 Archeological Bibliography for the Southeastern Region of Texas. Office of the State
Archeologist, Special Report 31, Texas Historical Commission, Austin. With
contributions by Paul V. Heinrich, Lynne Biesaart Mallouf, Leland W. Patterson, Helen
Simons, and Lisa Clinton Spotts.

1990 Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1988. Department of Antiquities Protection,

Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1. Texas Historical Commission. (With the
assistance of Janice Murray and William A. Martin)

1991a Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1987. Department of Archeological Planning

and Review, Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 2. Texas Historical Commission.
(With the assistance of Janice Murray and William A. Martin)

210
1991b An Archaeological Survey of the Glen Rose Country Club Project, Somervell County,
Texas. BVRA Contract Report Number 11. Brazos Valley Research Associates, College
Station.

1992a Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1990. Department of Archeological Planning

and Review, Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 3. Texas Historical Commission.
(With the assistance of William A. Martin and Stephanie Stoermer Strickland)

1992b Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1991. Department of Antiquities Protection,

Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 4. Texas Historical Commission. (With the
assistance of William A. Martin)

1993a Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1989. Department of Antiquities Protection,

Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 5. Texas Historical Commission. (With the
assistance of William A. Martin)

1993b The Technical Bulletin Series published by the Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory 1971-1987: A Bibliography. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,
Technical Series 34. The University of Texas at Austin.

1994 Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 1992. Department of Antiquities Protection,

Abstracts in Texas Contract Archeology 6. Texas Historical Commission. (With the
assistance of William A. Martin)

Moore, William E., and Roger G. Moore

1982 An Annotated Bibliography of Texas Related Articles in the Plains Anthropologist
(1947-1981). La Tierra 9(1):24-38.

Moore, William E., and Roger G. Moore

1986 Historical Archaeology in Texas: A Bibliography. Center for Archaeological Research,
The University of Texas at San Antonio, Guidebooks in Archaeology, Number 2.

Moore, William E., and Michael R. Bradle

1986 An Annotated Index to the First Ten Volumes of the Bulletin of the Central Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 55:189-212.

Moore, William E., Michael R. Bradle, Michael A. Nash, and Lee C. Nordt
1997 Phase II and III Evaluations of Site 41NV670 to be Impacted by the Construction of the
Gabion Chute M4 Flood Control Structure on Mill Creek in Navarro County, Texas.
Contract Report Number 48.

Mounger, Maria A.
1959 Mission Espiritu of Coastal Texas: An Example of Historic Site Archeology. Unpublished
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin.

Nelson, Larry Lee

1968 The Effect of Annealing on the Properties of Edwards Plateau Flint. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, University of Denver.

211
Nesney, M. S., and K. P. Pyle
1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central
Arkansas. American Antiquity 64(2): 243-263.

Newell, H. Perry, and Alex D. Krieger

1949 The George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology 5:1-255. [Reprint 2002]

Newton, Milton B., Jr.

1968 The Distribution and Character of Sites, Arroyo Los Olmos, Starr County, Texas. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological Society 38:18-24 (for 1967).

Olds, Doris L.
1965 Report on Materials from Brawley’s Cave, Bosque County, Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 36:111-152.

Olsen, S. J.
1968 Fish, Amphibians, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites. Part I, Southeastern
and Southwestern United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology 56(2).

Opler, Morris Edward

1936 An Apache Life Way: The Economic, Social, & Religious Institutions of the
Chiricahua Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Parker, Wayne
1978 Historic Artifacts from the Plains of Texas. In Central States Journal 25(1):30-31.

1982 The Wooden Bow Burial Site, Floyd County, Texas. La Tierra 9(4):17-25.

1983 Three Metal Projectile Points from a Historic Indian Workshop Site. La Tierra
10(1):39-42.

1985 Historic Metal Projectile Points. Unpublished manuscript in possession of A. J. Taylor.

Parsons, Mark L.
1967 Archeological Investigations in Crosby and Dickens Counties, Texas During the Winter
1966-1967. Archeological Program Report 7. State Building Commission, Austin.

Patterson, Leland W.
1976 The Catahoula Point: A Distributional Study. Louisiana Archaeology 3:217-234.

1982 Initial Employment of the Bow and Arrow. La Tierra 9(2):18-26.

1987 The Catahoula Perforator, A Possible New Artifact Type. Houston Archeological Society
Journal 88:19-21.

1989a An Archeological Data Base for the Southeastern Texas Coastal Margin. Houston
Archeological Society Report 7, Houston.

212
1989b Bibliography for the Prehistory of the Upper Texas Coast. Houston Archeological
Society, Special Report 7, Houston.

1989c A Data Base for Inland South Texas Archeology. Houston Archeological Society
Report 6, Houston.

1992 Current Data on the Early Use of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North America. La
Tierra 19(4):15-16.

1994a Gar Scale Arrow Points. Houston Archeological Society Journal 109:13-15.

1994b Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points. Houston Archeological Society Journal

108:19-24.
1995 Prewitt’s Projectile Point Type Distributions, as seen from Southeast Texas. Houston
Archeological Society Journal 112:20-22.

2001 Current Data on Gar Scale Arrow Points in Southeast Texas. Houston Archeological
Society Journal 127:7-8.

Pearce, James Edwin

1944 Destructive Activities of Unscientific Explorers in Archaeological Sites Bulletin of the
Central Texas Archeological Society 2:44-48.

Perino, Gregory H.
1968 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin
Number 3. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.

1971 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin
Number 4. Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.

1985 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians (Volume I).
Privately published by Gregory H. Perino.

1991 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians
(Volume II). Privately published by Gregory H. Perino.

1994 Archaeological Research at the Rowland Clark Site (41RR77), Red River County,
Texas. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 4:1-42. Index of Texas Archaeology:
Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1994, Article 11.
[Link] ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at:
[Link] (with contributions by Leonard Blake
and Carol J. Loveland)

2002 Selected Preforms, Points, and Knives of the North American Indians (Volume III).
Privately published by Gregory H. Perino.

Perttula, Timothy K.
1997 The Archaeology of the Middle Caddoan Period in the Middle Red River Valley of
Northeast Texas. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology 10:47-51.

2004 The Prehistory of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

213
2020 Archeological Investigations in the Upper Trinity River Basin in Parker County. Friends of
Northeast Texas Archaeology, Special Publication 1. North Texas Archeological Society,
Austin.

Perttula, Timothy K., Bob D. Skiles, Michael B. Collins, Margaret C. Trachte,

and Fred Valdez, Jr.
1986 This Everlasting Sand Bed; Cultural Resources Investigations at the Texas Big Sandy
Project, Wood and Upton Counties, Texas. Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Reports of
Investigation, Number 52.

Perttula, Timothy K., and James E. Bruseth

1998 The Native History of the Caddo: Their Place in Southeastern Archeology and Ethnohistory.
Studies in Archeology 30, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of
Texas at Austin.

Perttula, Timothy K., James E. Bruseth, Nancy A. Kenmotsu, Daniel J. Prikryl, William A. Martin,
Larry Banks, Jimmy Smith, Nancy G. Reese, and Sergio A. Iruegas.
2001 Archeological Investigations on the Red River and its Tributaries: Summary of the
Findings of the 1991 and 1992 Texas Archeological Society Field School in Red River
and Lamar Counties, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 72:165-250.

Perttula, Timothy K., and Thomas R. Hester

2016 Obsidian Artifacts from East Texas Sites. Journal of Northeast Texas Archaeology
66:85-90. Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star
State: Vol. 2016, Article 37. [Link]
ISSN: 2475-9333. Available at: [Link]

Perttula, Timothy K., and Paul Marceaux

2018 The Lithic and Ceramic Artifacts from the Spradley Site (41NA206), Nacogdoches
County, Texas. Special Publication No. 50, Friends of Northeast Texas Archaeology,
Austin and Pittsburg.

Perttula, Timothy K., Bo Nelson, and Mark Walters

2009 Caddo Ceramic and Lithic Artifacts from the Washington Square Mound Site (41NA49)
in Nacogdoches County, Texas: 1985 Texas Archeological Society Field School
Investigations. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 80:145-193.

Pevny, Charlotte D.
2014 Twin Bird Islands (16CD118): A Late Paleoindian-Early Archaic Site in Caddo Parish,
Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology 37:108-141.

Phelps, Alan L.
1964 Cultural Analysis of Pre-Historic Indian Sites of Northern Chihuahua, Mexico. Special
Report No. 2. El Paso Archaeological Society, El Paso.

1966 Cruciform: An Unusual Artifact of the El Paso Southwest. Special Report No. 5. El Paso
Archaeological Society, El Paso.

214
Pittman, J. S.
1959 Silica in the Edwards Limestone. In Silica in Sediments, edited by H. A. Ireland, pp. 121-
134. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Tulsa.

Pope, Saxton
1918 Yahi Archery. University of California, Publications in Archaeology and Ethnography
13(3):103-152.

1923 A Study of Bows and Arrows. University of California, Publications in Archaeology and
Ethnography 13(9):195-212.

Potter, Daniel, and Helen Simons (Editors)

1997 The Steward: Collected Papers on Texas Archeology. A publication of the Texas
Archeological Stewardship Network, Volume 4.

1999 The Steward: Collected Papers on Texas Archeology. A publication of the Texas
Archeological Stewardship Network, Volume 5.

Prewitt, Elton R.
1981 Cultural Chronology in Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
52:65-89.

1995 Distributions of Typed Projectile Points in Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
Society 66:83-174.

Prewitt, Elton R., Susan V. Lisk, and Margaret Ann Howard

1987 National Register Assessments of the Swan Lake Site, 41AS16, on Copano Bay,
Aransas County, Texas. Reports of Investigation, Number 56. Prewitt & Associates, Inc.,
Austin.

Prikryl, Daniel J.
1987 A Synthesis of the Prehistory of the Lower Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

1993 Introduction. In Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning

Document, edited by Nancy Adele Kenmotsu and Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 191-204.
Department of Antiquities Protection Cultural Resources Report 3. Texas Historical
Commission, Austin.

Pyszczyk, Heinz W.
1999 Historic Period Metal Points and Arrows, Alberta, Canada: A Theory for Aboriginal Arrow
Design on the Great Plains. Plains Anthropologist 44(168):163-187.

Quigg, J. Michael, Christopher Lintz, Fred M. Oglesby, Amy C. Earls, Charles D. Frederick, W.
Nicholas Trierweiler, Karl Kibler, and Douglas Owsley
1993 Historic and Prehistoric Data Recovery at Palo Duro Reservoir, Hansford County, Texas.
Technical Report 495. Mariah Associates, Inc., Austin.

Quigg, J. Michael, Matthew T. Boulanger, and Michael D. Glasscock

2011 Geochemical Characterization of Tecovas and Alibates Source Samples. Plains
Anthropologist 56(219):121-141.

215
Quimby, George I., Jr.
1957 Bayou Goula Site, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Fieldiana Anthropology 47(2):89-170.

Randall, Mark E.
1970 The Archeology of the Lamb County, Texas Area. Lower Plains Archeological Society
Bulletin No.1, pp. 43-53.

Ray, Cyrus E.
1929 A Differentiation of the Prehistoric Cultures of the Abilene Section. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological and Paleontological Society 1:7-22.

1930 Report on some Recent Archaeological Researches in the Abilene Section. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 2:45-58.

Ricklis, Robert A.
1994 Aboriginal Life and Culture on the Upper Texas Coast: Archaeology at the Mitchell Ridge
Site (41GV66), Galveston Island. Coastal Archaeological Research, Inc., Corpus Christi.

1995 Prehistoric Occupations of the Central and Lower Coast: A Regional Overview. Bulletin
of the Texas Archeological Society 66:265-300.

2000 Archaeological Testing at the Spanish Colonial Mission Sites of Espiritu Santo (41GD1)
and Nuestra Senora del Rosario, Goliad County, Texas. Coastal Archaeological
Research, Corpus Christi.

2010 Data Recovery at the McGloin Bluff Site (41SP11): A Late Prehistoric Rockport Phase
Fishing Camp on Corpus Christi Bay. Current Archeology in Texas
12(2):8-15.

Ricklis, Robert A., and Michael B. Collins

1994 Archaic and Late Prehistoric Human Ecology in the Middle Onion Creek Valley, Hays
County, Texas. Volume I. Studies in Archeology 19, Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory. The University of Texas at Austin.

Roberts Tim, and Luis Alvarado

2011 Terminal Archaic/Late Prehistoric Cooking Technology in the Lower Pecos: Excavation
of the Lost Midden Site (41VV1991), Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Val
Verde County, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Cultural Resource
Program, Austin.

Robinson, W. S.
1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity
16(3):239-301.

Roney, John R.
1995 Prehistory of the Guadalupe Mountains. Unpublished Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico State University, Portales.

Ross, Richard E.
1966 The Upper Rockwall and Glen Hill Sites, Forney Reservoir, Texas. Papers of the Texas
Archeological Salvage Project No. 9.

216
Runkles, Frank A.
1964 The Garza Site: A Neo-American Campsite near Post, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 35:101-125.

1982 Metal Projectile Points. Wayne Parker (1983) cites this source as an unpublished manuscript
but does not say where it can be found.

Runkles, Frank A., and E. D. Dorchester

1986 The Lott site (41 GR 56): A Late Prehistoric Site in Garza County, Texas. Bulletin of the
Texas Archeological Society 57:83-115

Russell, Carl P.
1967 Firearms, Tools, and Traps of the Mountain Men. Alfred Kopf, New York.
Saner, Bryant, Jr., Kay Woodward, and Woody Woodward

2004 Four Metal Projectile Points from the Hill Country of South Central, Texas. Ancient
Echoes 2:17-24.

Saner, Bryant, Jr., Kay Woodward, Woody Woodward, and John Benedict
2019 Archeological Investigations of Site 41KR600 on Quinlan Creek, Kerr County, Texas.
Ancient Echoes 8:53-68.

Saunders, John T., and Elaine L. Saunders

1978 A Ranch Survey in the Upper Isabella Watershed, Webb County, Texas. La Tierra
5(1):2-18.

Saunders, R. K.
1985 Recovery of Drowned Rio Grande River Artifacts. La Tierra 12(2):6-20.

Saunders, R. K., and Thomas R. Hester

1993 A Typological Study of Side-Notched Arrow Points from the Falcon Lake Region of
Texas and Mexico. La Tierra 20(2):22-31.

Sayles, Edwin B.
n.d. Unpublished notes on file at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The
University of Texas at Austin.

Schmiedlin, E. H.
1993 Investigations of a Toyah Horizon Site in Karnes County, Texas. The Cache Volume 1,
p. 37.

Schmiedlin, Smitty
1997 Preliminary Report on Salvage Operations at 41VT38, a Multiple-Component Site in
Victoria County. In The Steward, Daniel R. Potter and Hellen Simons (editors), Volume
4, pp. 51-55.

Schiffer, Michael B., and John H. House

1975 The Cache River Archaeological Project: An Experiment in Contract Archaeology.
Arkansas Archaeological Survey Publications in Archaeology, Research Series 8.

217
Schneider, Fred
1966 The Harrell Point: A Discussion. University of Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology
7:33-45.

Schuetz, Mardith K.
1956 An Analysis of Val Verde County Cave Material. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society 27:129-160.

1961 An Analysis of Val Verde County Cave Material: Part II. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
and Paleontological Society 33:167-206. [for 1960]

1963 An Analysis of Val Verde County Cave Material: Part III. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological
and Paleontological Society 33:131-166. [for 1962]

1969 History and Archeology of San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, Volume II.
Archeological Program, Report 11. State Building Commission, Austin.

Seebach, John D.
2007 Late Prehistory along the Rimrock, Pinto Canyon Ranch. Papers of the Trans-Pecos
Archaeological Program Vol. 3. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University,
Alpine.

Selden, Robert Z., Jr., John E. Dockall, C. Britt Bousman, and Timothy K. Perttula
2021 Shape as a Function of Time + Raw Material + Burial Context? An
Exploratory Analysis of Perdiz Arrow Points from the Ancestral
Caddo Area of the American Southeast. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, pp.
1-13.

Selden, Robert Z., Jr., and John E. Dockall, C.

n.d. Perdiz Arrow Points from Caddo Burial Contexts Aid in Defining Discrete Behavioral
Regions. Southeastern Archaeology, In Review.

Sellards, Elias Howard, Walter S. Adkins, and Frederick B. Plummer

1954 The Geology of Texas, Vol. I: Stratigraphy. Bureau of Economic Geology, Bulletin 3232.
The University of Texas at Austin.

Shackelford, William J.
1955 Excavations at the Polvo Site in Western Texas. American Antiquity 20(3):256-262.

Shafer, Harry J.
n.d. Archeology in the San Jacinto River Basin: A Look Back After 20 Years. In A Collection
of Papers Reviewing the Archeology of Southeast Texas, edited by Patricia Wheat and
Richard L. Gregg, pp. 17-21. Report Number 5, Houston Archeological Society.

1968 Archeological Investigations in the San Jacinto River Basin, Montgomery County, Texas.
Texas Archeological Salvage Project, Paper Number 13.

1969 Archeological Investigations in the Robert Lee Reservoir Basin, West Central Texas.
Papers of the Texas Archeological Salvage Project 17, The University of Texas at Austin

218
1973 Lithic Technology at the George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. PhD dissertation,
The University of Texas at Austin.

1981 Archeological Investigations at the Attaway Site, Henderson County, Texas. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological Society 52:142-178.
2006 People of the Prairie: A Possible Connection to the Davis Site Caddo. Module prepared for
the Archeological Studies Program, Texas Department of Transportation and Prewitt and
Associates, Inc.

Shafer, Harry J., Dee Ann Suhm, and J. Dan Scurlock

1964 An Investigation and Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of Belton Reservoir, Bell
and Coryell Counties, Texas: 1962. Miscellaneous Papers No. 1, Texas Archeological
Salvage Project, Austin.

Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas B. Stearns

1975 Archeological Investigations at the Scott’s Ridge Site (41MQ41), Montgomery County,
Texas. Anthropology Laboratory, Report No. 17, Texas A&M University.

Shafer, Harry J., John E. Dockall, and Robbie L. Brewington

1999 Archaeology of the Ojasen (41EP289) and Gobernadora (41EP321) Sites, El Paso
County, Texas. Center for Ecological Archaeology, Reports of Investigations No. 2.
Texas A&M University, College Station.

Shawn, Ronnie A.
1975 The Blue Hill Site Excavations. Transactions of the Tenth Regional Archeological
Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas. South Plains
Archeological Society, pp. 1-47.

Shott, Michael J.
1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio
Valley. American Antiquity 62:86-101.

1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Prehistoric Dart and Arrow
Points. American Antiquity 58:425-443.

2021 Prehistoric Quarries and Terranes: The Modena and Tempiute Obsidian Sources of the
American Great Basin. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Simons, Helen
1988 Archeological Bibliography for the Northern Panhandle Region of Texas. Office of the
State Archeologist, Special Report 30, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Simons, Helen, and William E. Moore

1997 Archeological Bibliography for the Central Region of Texas. Office of the State
Archeologist, Special Report 36, Texas Historical Commission, Austin. (With
contributions by Norman A. Flaigg and Patricia Mercado-Allinger)
`
Skinner, S. Alan, R. King Harris, and Keith M. Anderson (Editors)
1969 Archaeological Excavations at the Sam Kaufman Site, Red River County, Texas. Southern
Methodist University Contributions in Anthropology No. 5.

219
Smith, Ray
1984 Notes on Three Iron Projectile Points from South Texas. La Tierra 11(3):28-390.

Smith, Clinton, and Jefferson D. Smith

2002 The Boy Captives. San Saba Printing, San Antonio. (Reprint of the first edition published
in 1927).

Smyers, Cindy, R. Smyers, and David Calame, Sr.

2019 The Esquivel Burial Cache (41CR33), Crane County, Texas. La Tierra 43:65-72.

Sollberger, J. B.
1967 A New Type of Arrow Point with Speculations as to its Origin. The Record 23(3):12-22.

1970 The Rockwall Point. Newsletter of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 18(2):3-5.

1978 A New Type of Arrow Point with Speculations as to its Origin. La Tierra 5(4):13-20.

Sorrow, William M.
1966 The Pecan Springs Site, Bardwell Reservoir, Texas. Papers of the Texas Archeological
Salvage Project No. 10.

Spier, Leslie
1978 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. Dover Press, New York.

Steele, D. Gentry, and E. R. Mokry, Jr.

1983 Archeological Investigations of Seven Prehistoric Sites along Oso Creek, Nueces County,
Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 54:287-308.

Steely, James Wright

1984 A Catalog of Texas Properties in the National Register of Historic Places. Published by the
Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Stephenson, Robert L.
1952 The Hogge Bridge Site and the Wylie Focus. American Antiquity 17(4):299-312.

Stillwell, Barbara
2011 Archaeology of Rough Enough Rockshelter, Val Verde, Texas: The 2000-2006
Excavations. La Tierra 38:1-48.

Story, Dee Ann

1965 The Archeology of Cedar Creek Reservoir, Henderson and Kaufman Counties, Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 36:163-257.

1981 Archeological Investigations at the George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas:
Summers of 1979 and 1980. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Occasional
Papers Number 1, The University of Texas at Austin.

Suhm, Dee Ann, and Alex D. Krieger

1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
25. (With a contribution by Edward B. Jelks).

220
Suhm, Dee Ann, and Edward B. Jelks
1962 Handbook of Texas Archeology: Type Descriptions. Published by the Texas Archeological
Society, Special Publication Number One and the Texas Memorial Museum, Bulletin
Number 4.

Taylor, A. J.
1989 A Preliminary Study of Arrow Points. Unpublished manuscript on file at TARL.

Taylor, Walter W.
1966 Archaic Cultures Adjacent to the Northeastern Frontiers of Mesoamerica. In Handbook of
Middle American Indians (Volume 4), edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon R. Willey,
pp. 59-94. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Thomas, David Hurst

1978 Arrowheads at Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity
43(3):461-472.

Thurmond, J. Peter
1985 Late Caddoan Social Group Identifications and Sociopolitical Organization in the Upper
Cypress Basin and Vicinity. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 54:185-200.
(For 1983)

Tomka, Steve A.
2016 Guerrero Arrow Points: Patterns of Distribution and Archeological Implications. Bulletin of
the Texas Archeological Society 87:101-122.

Thompson, Mark
1980 A Survey of Aboriginal Metal Points from the Apacheria. The Artifact 18(1):1-10.

Tully, L. N.
1986 Flint Blades and Projectile Points of the North American Indians. Collector Books, A
Division of Schroeder Publishing Company, Inc. in Paducah, Kentucky.

Tunnell, Curtis D.
1962 Oblate: A Rockshelter Site. In Salvage Archeology of Canyon Reservoir: The Wunderlich,
Footbridge, and Oblate Sites, edited by LeRoy Johnson, Jr., Dee Ann Suhm, and Curtis D.
Tunnell, pp. 77-116. Texas Memorial Museum Bulletin Number 5, The University of Texas
at Austin.

Tunnell, Curtis D., and W. W. Newcomb, Jr.

1969 A Lipan Apache Mission: San Lorenzo de la Santa Cruz, 1762-1771. Bulletin of the Texas
Memorial Museum 14, The University of Texas at Austin.

Tunnell, Curtis D., Thomas R. Hester, and Gail L. Bailey

1998 Chapters in the History of Texas Archeology: Selected Papers by E. Mott Davis. Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

Tunnell, John W., Jr, and Jace W. Tunnell

2015 The Pape-Tunnell Collection. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

221
Turner, Ellen Sue, and Thomas R. Hester
1985 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Texas Monthly Press.

1993 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Texas Monthly Press.

1999 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Texas Monthly Press.
Turner, Ellen Sue, Thomas R. Hester, and Richard L. McReynolds

2011 Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Taylor Trade Publishing.

Turnbull, C. M.
1965 Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds of the African Pygmies. Eyre & Spottiswoode,
London.

Turpin, Solveig A.
1998 Wroe Ranch: Small Shelter Occupancy on the Edge of the Trans-Pecos. Cultural
Resource Report 3. Borderlands Archeological Research Unit, The University of Texas
at Austin.

Udden, Johan A., Charles. Lawrence Baker, and E. Boise

1916 Texas University Bureau of Economics and Technology, Bulletin 44, p. 39.

Waguespack, Nicole M., Todd A. Surovell, Allen Denoyer, Alice Dallow, Adam Savage, Jamie
Hyneman, and Dan Tapster
2009 Making a Point: Wood – Versus Stone-Tipped Projectiles. American Antiquity 83:786-800.

Walters, E., and R. M. Rogers

1975 Notes on Presence of Indians of Historic Period in Pecos County and Iraan, Texas Area.
Transactions of the Tenth Regional Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New
Mexico and Western Texas. South Plains Archeological Society, pp. 89-100.

Watt, Frank H.
1967 Lookout Point, Lake Waco. Central Texas Archeologist 9:27-39.

Webb, Clarence H.
1948 Caddoan Prehistory, the Bossier Focus. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society 19:1-47.

1959 The Belcher Mound: A Stratified a Stratified Caddoan Site in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
Memoirs for the Society of American Archaeology, No. 16.

1963 The Smithport Landing Site: An Alto Focus Component in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 34:143-187.

1975 Letter to the Editor, Mississippi Archaeology 10(6):5-6.

1976 Newsletter of the Louisiana Archaeological Society 3(2):4-5.

1981 Stone Points and Tools of Northwestern Louisiana. Special Publication Number 1,
Louisiana Archaeological Society, Lafayette.

222
Webb, Clarence H. (continued)
2000 Stone Points and Tools of Northwestern Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeological Society,

Webb, Clarence H., and Monroe Dodd, Jr.

1939 Bone “Gorget” from a Caddoan Mound Burial. American Antiquity 4:265-268.

Webb, Clarence H., and Ralph R. McKinney

1975 Mounds Plantation (16CD12), Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Louisiana Archaeology
2:39-127.

Weinstein, R. A.
2002 Archaeological Investigations at the Guadalupe Bay Site (41CL2): Late Archaic Through
Historic Occupation along the Channel to Victoria, Calhoun County, Texas. 2 vols.
Coastal Environments, Inc. Baton Rouge. Submitted to Galveston District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.

Weir, Frank
1956 Surface Artifacts from La Perdida, Starr County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 26:59-78.

Weir, Frank A., and Glen H. Doran

1980 The Anthon Site (41UV60). La Tierra 7(3):17-23.

Wesolowsky, A. B., Thomas R. Hester, and Douglas R. Brown

1976 Archeological Investigations at the Jetta Court Site (41TV151), Travis County, Texas.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 47:25-87.

Wheat, Joe B
1947 Notes on the W. A. Myatt Site. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological
Society 18:87-93.

1953 An Archeological Survey of the Addicks Dam Basin: A Preliminary Report. Bulletin of the
Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Wheaton, Gene
2009 Investigations at 41CU658. In Archaeological Investigations for the AT&T Nexgen/Core
Project: Texas Segment: Part 2: Site Descriptions. Western Cultural Resource
Management, Inc., Farmington, New Mexico.

Wheeler, Richard P.
1954 Selected Projectile Point Types of the United States. Bulletin of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society 2(1-6).

White, A. M., Lewis R. Binford, and M. L. Papworth

1963 Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification. Anthropological Papers No.19.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Willey, Patrick S., and Jack T. Hughes

1978 Archeology at Mackenzie Reservoir. Texas Historical Commission and Office of the State
Archeologist, Archeological Survey Report, No. 24.

223
Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P Brain
1983 Excavations at the Lake George site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74.

Williams, Stephen, and Jeffrey P. Brain

1983 Excavations at the Lake George site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960. Papers of
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74.

Wilson, D. E., and Thomas R. Hester

1996 Salvage of Prehistoric Skeletal Remains from 41ZP7, the Beacon Harbor Lodge Site,
Zapata County, Texas. Technical Bulletin 45, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,
The University of Texas at Austin.

Wiseman, Regge N.
1971 The Neff Site, A Ceramic Period Lithic Manufacture Site on the Rio Felix, Southeastern
New Mexico (LA 5863). The Artifact 9(1):1-30.

Woerner, Michael C., and Lynn Highley

1983 The Bromley F. Cooper Collection of Pre-Archaic and Archaic Dart Points from McMullen
County. La Tierra 10(1):3-28.

Wood, W. Raymond
1963 Two New Projectile Points: Homan and Agee Points. The Arkansas Archaeologist
4(2):1-16.

Word, James H.
1971 The Dunlap Complex in Eastern Central Crockett County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 42:271-318.

Word, James H., and T. N. Campbell

1962 Metal Projectile Points from Floyd County, Texas. Texas Archeology 6(2):8-9.

Word, James H., and Charles L. Douglas

1970 Excavations at Baker Cave, Val Verde County, Texas. Texas Memorial Museum,
Bulletin 16.

Wormington, H. Marie
1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4.

Yang, Wen, Bernd Gludovatz, Elizabeth A. Zimmermann, Hrishikesh A. Bale, Robert O. Ritchie,
and Marc A. Meyers
2013 Structure and Fracture resistance of Alligator Gar (Artactosteus spatula) Armored Fish
Scales. Acta Biomaterialia 5876-5889,

Young, Wayne C.
1981a Investigations at the Squawteat Peak Site, Pecos County, Texas. Texas State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation, Highway Design Division, Publications in
Archaeology Number 20.

224
Young, Wayne C. (continued)
1981a Test Excavations at the Tankersley Creek Site, Titus County, Texas. Texas State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Highway Design Division Publications
in Archaeology, Report Number 22.

1982a Archaeological Excavations at Site 41BT6, Burnet County, Texas. Texas State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation, Highway Design Division Publications in
Archaeology, Report Number 28.

1982b Excavations at the Ram’s Head Site (41PC35), Pecos County, Texas. Texas State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Highway Design Division, Publications
in Archaeology, Report No. 23.

Yu, Pei-Lin
2006 From Atlatl to Bow and Arrow: Implicating Projectile Technology in Changing Systems of
Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. In Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility. Edited by
Frederic Sellet, Russel Greaves, and Pei-Lin Yu. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
pp. 201-220.

225
 APPENDIX I: CONTRIBUTIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Moore, William E., Linda Wootan Ellis, and John E. Dockall

1990 Archaeological Testing at the Derrick Adams Site (41WA100): A
Late Prehistoric Site in Walker County, Texas. Brazos Valley
Research Associates, Contributions in Archaeology, Number 1.

Moore, William E.
1975 An Archaeological Survey of Walker County, Texas. Brazos Valley
Research Associates, Contributions in Archaeology, Number 2.

Moore, William E.
2013 A Report on Four Sites in Madison County, Texas
(41MA27 – 41MA30). Brazos Valley Research Associates,
Contributions in Archaeology, Number 3.

Moore, William E.
2015 An Index to the Houston Archeological Society Newsletters and
Journals: 1959-2015. Brazos Valley Research Associates,
Contributions in Archaeology, Number 4.
 APPENDIX II: PHOTO CREDITS

Figure 1 - Gary points from Walker County (Photo by Nora Ives)

Figure 2 - Wooden point (Drafted by Christopher Lintz)
Figure 3 - Chert nodules at 41RE53 (Photo by the author)
Figure 4 - Georgetown chert (Photo by Brian Wootan)
Figure 5 - Catahoula point from 41WA55 (Photo by Brian Wootan)
Figure 6 - Formation of Manning Fused Glass (Drafted by K. M. Brown)
Figure 7 - Arrow point from 41TN11 (Photo by K. M. Brown)
Figure 8 - Prewitt’s (1995) Figure 24 (Courtesy of Elton R. Prewitt)
Figure 9 - Planning Regions in Texas (Drafted by Lili Lyddon)
Figure 10 - Subregions in the Eastern Planning Region (Drafted by Lili Lyddon)
Figure 11 - Subregions in the Central and Southern Planning Region (Drafted by Lili
Lyddon)

Figure 12 - Northern Panhandle and Unnamed Regions (Drafted by Lili Lyddon)

Figure 13 - Agee point (Courtesy of Sam C. Johnson, Caddo Trading Company)
Figure 14 - Agee points (Courtesy of Chris Merriam)
Figure 15 - Ahumada points (Courtesy of the El Paso Archaeological Society)
Figure 16 - Alazán points from the Trans-Pecos (Courtesy of Robert J. Mallouf)
Figure 17 - Alba point from 41SJ13 (Photo by Brian Wootan)
Figure 18 - Alba points depicting various stem shapes (Courtesy of Thomas Oakes)

Figure 19 - Arrow points from 41NV670 (BVRA Contract Report 48) - p. 60

Figure 20 - Anagua points (Courtesy of Jack C. Bates, Jr.)
Figure 21 - Basset point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 22 - Basset points (Courtesy of Sam Johnson)
Figure 23 - Bayou Goula point (Courtesy of Thomas Oakes)
Figure 24 - Bonham points (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 25 - Bulbar Stemmed point from 41WH8 (Photo by Laura Nightengale, TARL)
Figure 26 - Cameron points from South Texas (Photo by Laura Nightengale, TARL)
Figure 27 - Caracara points (Replicas, courtesy of Adrien Facouis)
Figure 28 - Catahoula points from 41WA55 (Photo by Tanner Singleton)
Figure 29 - Chadbourne point from 41TA58 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 30 - Cliffton point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 31 - Cliffton points (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 32 - Colbert points (Courtesy of Thomas Oakes)
Figure 33 - Cuney point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 34 - Cuney points at TARL (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 35 - Deadman’s point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 36 - Diablo Points (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 37 - Edwards point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 38 - Form 2 points (Drawings by Richard McReynolds)
Figure 39 - Fresno points from Dimmit County (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 40 - Friley points (Courtesy of Thomas Oakes)
Figure 41 - Gar scale (Courtesy of Texas A&M University Press)
Figure 42 - Garza point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 43 - Guerrero-like glass point from 41SA25 (Courtesy of George Avery)
Figure 44 - Basset-like glass point (Courtesy of Texas A&M University Press)
Figure 45 - Glass arrow point (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 46 - Granbury point from 41HI1 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 47 - Guadalupe point (Courtesy of Jack C. Bates, Jr.)
Figure 48 - Guerrero points from 41WH8 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 49 - Harrell points (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 50 - Harrell points at TARL (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 51 - Hayes point from Cherokee County (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 52 - Hayes points (Courtesy of Sam Johnson)
Figure 53 - Homan point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 54 - Kobs Triangular (No image available)
Figure 55 - Livermore point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 56 - Livermore points (Courtesy of Robert J. Mallouf)
Figure 57 - Livermore points at TARL (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 58 - Lott point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 59 - Lozenge point (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 60 - McGloin point (Courtesy of Brandon Wilson)
Figure 61 - McGloin points at TARL (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 62 - Maud point (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 63 - Means points (Drawings by Richard McReynolds)
Figure 64 - Metal points (Courtesy of Michael Boutwell)
Figure 65 - Metal trade point (Photo by Brian Wootan)
Figure 66 - Hafted metal arrow point (Photo by the author)
Figure 67 - Brass point from 41PS16 (Courtesy of Texas A&M University Press)
Figure 68 - Metal points (Photo by Michael Boutwell)
Figure 69 - Metal trade point (Anonymous)
Figure 70 - Moran points (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 71 - Morris point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 72 - Padre points (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 73 - Perdiz points (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 74 - Perdiz points (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 75 - Pinwah points (Courtesy of Thomas Oakes)
Figure 76 - Ray point (No image available)
Figure 77 - Revilla point (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 78 - Rockwall point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 79 - Sabinal points from 41UV21 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 80 - Long narrow Sabinal point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 81 - Scallorn points (Photo by Brian Wootan)
Figure 82 - Scallorn points from 41BU17 (Photo by Tanner Singleton)
Figure 83 - Conch columella shell points (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 84 - Starr points from Northern Mexico (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 85 - Steiner point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 86 - Steiner point (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 87 - Talco point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 88 - Talco points from 41MX4 and 41FK1 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 89 - Toyah points (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 90 - Turner point (Courtesy of John Fish)
Figure 91 - Turney points from 41NA205 (Courtesy of Timothy K. Perttula)
Figure 92 - Washita point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Figure 93 - Washita points housed at TARL (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 94 - Young point from 41PP62 (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 95 - Zapata point from Northern Mexico (Photo by Laura Nightengale)
Figure 96 - Zavala point (Photo by Brian Wootan, replica by Matt Soultz)
Appendix III: County Abbreviations
 County Abbreviation County Abbreviation County Abbreviation
Anderson AN Comal CM Grayson GS
Andrews AD Comanche CJ Gregg GG
Angelina AG Concho CC Grimes GM
Aransas AS Cooke CO Guadalupe GU
Archer AR Coryell CV Hale HA
Armstrong AM Cottle CT Hall HL
Atascosa AT Crane CR Hamilton HM
Austin AU Crockett CX Hansford HF
Bailey BA Crosby CB Hardeman HX
Bandera BN Culberson CU Hardin HN
Bastrop BP Dallam DA Harris HR
Baylor BY Dallas DL Harrison HS
Bee BE Dawson DS Hartley HT
Bell BL Deaf DF Haskell HK
Bexar BX Smith Hays HY
Blanco BC Delta DT Hemphill HH
Borden BD Denton DN Henderson HE
Bosque BQ De Witt DW Hidalgo HG
Bowie BW Dickens DK Hill HI
Brazoria BO Dimmitt DM Hockley HQ
Brazos BZ Donley DY Hood HD
Brewster BS Duval DV Hopkins HP
Briscoe BI Eastland EA Houston HO
Brooks BK Ector EC Howard HW
Brown BR Edwards ED Hudspeth HZ
Burleson BU Ellis EL Hunt HU
Burnet BT El Paso EP Hutchinson HC
Caldwell CW Erath ER Irion IR
Calhoun CL Falls FA Jack JA
Callahan CA Fannin FN Jackson JK
Cameron CF Fayette FY Jasper JP
Camp CP Fisher FS Jeff Davis JD
Carson CZ Floyd FL Jefferson JF
Cass CS Foard FD Jim Hogg JH
Castro CAS Fort Bend FB Jim Wells JW
Chambers CH Franklin FK Johnson JN
Cherokee CE Freestone FT Jones JS
Childress CI Frio FR Karnes KA
Clay CY Gaines GA Kaufman KF
Cochran CQ Galveston GV Kendall KE
Coke CK Garza GR Kenedy KN
Coleman CN Gillespie GL Kent KT
Collin COL Glasscock GC Kerr KR
Collingsworth CG Goliad GD Kimble KM
Colorado CD Gonzales GZ King KG
Gray GY
 County Abbreviation County Abbreviation County Abbreviation
Kinney KY Oldham OL Throckmorton TH
Kleberg KL Orange OR Titus TT
Knox KX Palo Pinto PP Tom Green TG
Lamar LR Panola PN Travis TV
Lamb LA Parker PR Trinity TN
Lampasas LM Parmer PM Tyler TL
La Salle LS Pecos PC Upshur UR
Lavaca LC Polk PK Upton UT
Lee LE Potter PT Uvalde UV
Leon LN Presidio PS Val Verde VV
Liberty LB Rains RA Van Zandt VN
Limestone LT Randall RD Victoria VT
Lipscomb LP Reagan RG Walker WA
Live Oak LK Real RE Waller WL
Llano LL Red River RR Ward WR
Loving LV Reeves RV Washington WT
Lubbock LU Refugio RF Webb WB
Lynn LY Roberts RB Wharton WH
Madison MA Robertson RT Wheeler WE
Marion MR Rockwall RW Wichita WC
Martin MT Runnels RN Wilbarger WG
Mason MS Rusk RK Willacy WY
Matagorda MG Sabine SB Williamson WM
Maverick MV San Augustine SA Wilson WN
McCulloch MK San Jacinto SJ Winkler WK
McLennan ML San Patricio SP Wise WS
McMullen MC San Saba SS Wood WD
Medina ME Schleicher SL Yoakum YK
Menard MN Scurry SC Young YN
Midland MD Shackelford SF Zapata ZP
Milam MM Shelby SY Zavala ZV
Mills MI Sherman SH
Mitchell MH Smith SM
Montague MU Somervell SV
Montgomery MQ Starr SR
Moore MO Stephens SE
Morris MX Sterling ST
Motley MY Stonewall SN
Nacogdoches NA Sutton SU
Navarro NV Swisher SW
Newton NW Tarrant TR
Nolan NL Taylor TA
Nueces NU Terrell TE
Ochiltree OC Terry TY
 Appendix IV

Texas Arrow Points Found in Other States and Mexico

________________________________________________________________________

Arkansas

Agee, Bassett, Bonham, Hayes, Homan, Howard, Maud, Morris, Rockwall, Scallorn, Talco

Louisiana

Agee, Albam, Bassett, Bonham, Catahoula, Friley, Hayes, Homan, Howard, Maud,
Rockwall

Mexico

Ahumada, Caracara, Form 2, Garza, Guerrero, Metal, Perdiz, Revilla, Scallorn, Starr,
Toyah, and Zapata

New Mexico

Deadman’s, Fresno-like, Garza, Harrell, Livermore-like, Perdiz, Toyah, Washita

Oklahoma

Agee, Alba, Bassett, Bonham, Deadman’s, Fresno, Garza, Harrell, Hayes, Homan,
Howard, Maud, Morris, Perdiz, Rockwall, Scallorn, Talco, Washita
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
 Appendix V – Shapes of Arrow Points

As stated earlier, most projectile points were created from a triangular

template with numerous variations in overall appearance. This is a necessary
plan because a pointed tip is required for penetration. Some specimens have
tips that are somewhat rounded as opposed to the majority that exhibit a
pronounced point. This can be the result of use, reworking, or this tip was
considered suitable for that type. A factor that should not be overlooked is the
intended function of the finished artifact. Overwhelmingly, the artifacts described
and illustrated in this book are considered to have been created to function as an
arrow point, and this is probably true for the majority. However, while hafted, they
could have also been used for other tasks such as cutting. I believe this is more
likely with the larger dart points, some of which are too large and heavy for atlatl
use. The basic parts of a triangular-shaped point are illustrated below.
Triangular points, for example, have no stems, shoulders, notches, or barbs.
Others have elongated blades that culminate in what is referred to as a needle
nose, and some types have serrated edges, often to the point of being described
as eccentric. Others were reworked to function as a drill or perforator.
 Even though the edge of a point can be a valuable determinant in point
classification, it is the stem and base that are the most diagnostic features. The
examples depicted here illustrate the most common configurations.
 Appendix VI
Sites with Manning Fused Glass

Cherokee County

41CE19 (George C. Davis), 41CE49, and 41CE54

Houston County

41HO4, 41HO7, 41HO11, 41HO13, 41HO15, and 41HO17

Limestone County

41LT58

Nacogdoches County

41NA27 (DeShazo)

Polk County

41PK1

Rusk County

41RK9, 41RK10, 41RK11, 41RK13, 41RK16, 41RK17, 41RK19, 41RK20, 41RK21, 41RK23,
41RK26, 41RK30, 41RK32, 41RK36, 41RK39, and 41RK47

Trinity County

41TN11, 41TN31

Walker County

41WA1, 41WA52, 41WA71, 41WA72, 41WA65, 41WA66, and 41WA74

 Appendix VII: Counties in the Planning Regions

Central and Southern Planning Region

Central Texas

Bandera, Bastrop, Bexar, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Comal, Concho, Crockett,

Edwards, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Hays, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney,
Lampasas, Lee, Llano, McCulloch, Mason, Medina, Menard, Mills, Real, San
Saba, Schleicher, Sutton, Tom Green, Travis, Uvalde, and Williamson.
Central Coastal Plains

Austin, Colorado, DeWitt, Fayette, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Karnes, Lavaca,

Washington, and Wilson.
Coastal Corridor

Aransas, Bee, Calhoun, Cameron, Goliad, Jackson, Kennedy, Kleberg, Nueces,

Matagorda, Refugio, San Patricio, Victoria, Wharton, and Willacy.
Lower Pecos

Crockett and Val Verde.

Rio Grande Plains

Atascosa, Brooks, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kinney, La
Salle, Live Oak, McMullen, Maverick, Medina, Uvalde, Starr, Webb, Zapata, and
Zavala.

Eastern Planning Region

Prairie-Savanna

Bosque, Collin, Cooke, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Falls, Freestone, Grayson, Hill,
Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Leon, Limestone, McLennan, Madison,
Montague, Navarro, Parker, Robertson, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise.
Southeast Texas

Brazoria, Brazos, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris,

Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto,
Tyler, Walker, and Waller.
Northeast Texas

Anderson, Angelina, Bowie, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Franklin,

Gregg, Harrison, Henderson, Hopkins, Houston, Lamar, Marion, Morris,
Nacogdoches, Panola, Rains, Red River, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby,
Smith, Titus, Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandt, and Wood.

Plains Planning Region

Northern Panhandle

Armstrong, Carson, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Gray, Hansford,

Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter,
Randall, Roberts, Sherman, and Wheeler.

Unnamed

Andrews, Archer, Bailey, Baylor, Borden, Briscoe, Brown, Callahan, Castro,

Childress, Clay, Cochran, Coke, Coleman, Comanche, Cottle, Crane, Crosby,
Dawson, Dickens, Eastland, Ector, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Gaines, Garza,
Glasscock, Hale, Hall, Hardeman, Haskell, Hockley, Howard, Jack, Jones, Kent,
King, Knox, Lamb, Loving, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Midland, Mitchell, Motley,
Nolan, Palo Pinto, Parmer, Reagan, Runnels, Scurry, Shackelford, Stephens,
Sterling, Stonewall, Swisher, Taylor, Terry, Throckmorton, Upton, Yoakum,
Young, Ward, Wichita, Wilbarger, and Winkler.
 Trans-Pecos Planning Region

Brewster, Culberson, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves,

and Terrell.