by Peter G. Murphy and Alice J. Murphy, St. Johns, Michigan
July 2014 Central States Archaeological Journal
The structural distinctions between named point types are often far from clear. As in all classification systems, the classifiers tend to fall into one of two categories, “lumpers” or “splitters.” Personal judgment is always a factor and can be very subjective, especially when it comes to minor or subtle differences among objects being classified. Distinctive side-notched points of the general type shown in Figures 1–2 are represented in most collections from the North Carolina Piedmont. Approximately five percent of the 1,279 identifiable points we found at 83 North Carolina Piedmont sites were of this general type. In the past, most such points found in the Southeast were readily classified as Big Sandy, a point commonly considered to be of Early Archaic age. Barnard (1988) shows an excellent selection of 25 Big Sandy points that illustrates the range of variability for the Piedmont region. The auriculate form of Big Sandy, in which the basal auricles, or tangs, flare outward and usually slightly downward, was first described in 1931 by Claflin, based on specimens from the Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia (Claflin 1931). A second variant of Big Sandy, the so-called notched form, was described in 1956 by Kneberg based on specimens from the Big Sandy site, Tennessee (Kneberg 1956). Most references describe Big Sandy points as being found widely in the lower, more eastern portions of the Midwest and through the Southeast. Notched points, generally, are considered to be one of five main projectile point types, along with lanceolate, stemmed, bifurcate and triangle (Hranicky 2011). There is great variability in the side-notched variety and in some regions generally similar forms are given other names, such as Otter Creek, Bolen and Taylor, among many others. Beasley (2011) described the similarity between Big Sandy and Bolen as an enigma.
Whereas Big Sandy had become a generally recognized designation for points of the type in Figures 1–2 from the North Carolina Piedmont, the situation evolved in 1970. Peter Cooper, in the pages of this journal, described what he considered to be a Big Sandy look-alike and named it Rowan (Cooper 1970). His work was based largely on points that he referred to as dart points, found in North Carolina’s Rowan County in the central-westerly Piedmont about 160 km to the west of the sites that were the source of our points (Figs. 1 and 2). Other points that Cooper studied were from Granville County, just to the east of our sites. The naming of a new point, Rowan, has led to some confusion, especially among amateur archaeologists and artifact collectors, some of whom began to call virtually all points of this general form Rowan rather than Big Sandy. There seems to have been an assumption that there had been an overall name change, from Big Sandy to Rowan, at least for points of the type found in the Piedmont. But in reality, this is not the case. Cooper defined and described Rowan points as a separate type, with features that he considered sufficient to be named a previously unrecognized type. According to Cooper, Rowan points occur widely in relatively small numbers through the Southeast, into Tennessee, and at some sites occur together with Big Sandy points. Specific age data for Rowan points are unavailable, but based on association with other types they are assumed to be Early Archaic, possibly B.P. 9,500–8,000. Big Sandy has been estimated at B.P. 8,500 (auriculate type) and B.P. 9,500 (notched type). Cooper (1970) and more recently Overstreet (2013) suggest that Rowan is “believed” to be derived from Dalton, Quad, Greenbrier or Hardaway and was a predecessor, possibly by as much as a thousand years according to Hranicky (2011), of Big Sandy and other later side-notched types.
Cooper describes Rowan points as differing from Big Sandy in a number of ways and feels they are best distinguished by a constellation of traits that include: overall length of 38–55 mm, ground and beveled bases and notches, elongated notches with asymmetrical tangs that are pointed or rounded and ground thin, and blades beveled on one or both edges. These are traits that can be very variable and often subtle on weather-worn and eroded points, certainly not obvious to those who have not handled a variety of both types. In our experience, which includes the examination of well over a thousand points from the Piedmont of North Carolina (Murphy and Murphy 2009), the differences often blur. It is fair to ask whether Rowan really deserves to be named as a distinct type, rather than a variant of Big Sandy peculiar to the region studied by Cooper. Opinions will differ on questions of this sort.
One way of addressing this issue is to look at the extent to which the Rowan type has been accepted in the published archaeological literature. Of 18 standard reference books and identification guides that focus on the eastern and southeastern portions of the United States published over the period 1983–2013, we found that only four make reference to or describe Rowan points and three of those four include Big Sandy as well. Eight refer to points of the general type (Figs. 1 and 2) as Big Sandy with no mention of Rowan. Six mention neither type. Only one reference (Peck 1993) describes Rowan but not Big Sandy.