by Peter G. Murphy and Alice J. Murphy, St. Johns, Michigan
More than a hundred years of archaeological research and information garnered from well documented amateur collections have made it possible to identify and date many of the more distinctive projectile points found in North America. Over a thousand types have been described in journals and reference books. But other points, especially the less common types and those with transitional characteristics, present classification challenges even to the professional archaeologist. The two points in Fig. 1 present such a challenge. Of the 1,279 identifiable projectile points we surface-collected over a three-year period from 83 cultivated-field sites in six counties of North Carolina’s Piedmont, only two (Fig. 1) appeared to be of the Fountain Creek type first described in 1978 by Floyd Painter in The Chesopiean. He described the point as rare and estimated that fewer than 75 were known to have been found, mainly in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
Painter (1978) provided dimensional data for 24 examples of his proposed Fountain Creek type and illustrations of six points, but the illustrations are somewhat stylized drawings rather than photographs of actual points. Based largely on form, he believed Fountain Creek is related to, or a variant of, the Early Archaic Palmer type first described by Coe (1964) in North Carolina. In his guide to projectile points of Virginia and the Carolinas, Peck (1993) does not make reference to Fountain Creek points, but one of the three Palmer points he illustrates clearly resembles Painter’s Fountain Creek type. The same is true for one or two of the 21 Palmer points pictured in Barnard’s (1988) guide to Southeastern points.
Both of the points in Fig. 1 have Fountain Creek characteristics, but the point on the left, with the deep serrations, is most similar to Painter’s illustrations. Further, the two points in Fig. 1 are similar to six of the ten examples pictured in Overstreet (2011). Interestingly, Overstreet did not include Fountain Creek points in his 1st edition (1989), but by the 3rd edition (1993) four examples were pictured. Substantive information on the point is very limited and only a few other publications make any mention at all, among them Dragoo (1993) and Hranicky (2011). In the comprehensive survey of 30,164 identifiable North Carolina points reviewed by McReynolds (2005), Fountain Creek is not among the 35 recognized types.
The characteristics that define Fountain Creek points include 2–7 deep serrations or notches on each blade margin, a ground and slightly curved (convex) base, and length of 27–55 mm (Painter 1978). The width-to-length ratio of Fountain Creek points shown in Overstreet (2011) averages 1:2.3; our two examples average 1:2.4. The similarities between the two points in Fig. 1, found at a site in Chatham County, are somewhat subtle. Both have ground, rounded bases (unlike the straight or slightly concave bases of most Palmer points), blades with relatively straight, serrated edges, and both are made of the same type of metavolcanic stone with similar patination. The serrations are largely worn down on the smaller point.
Figure 1. Two Fountain Creek points from a site in Chatham County of the North Carolina Piedmont. The point on left is 45 mm long.
Although Painter perceived a connection between Fountain Creek and Palmer, Overstreet (2011) suggests a similarity with Kirk Stemmed points. As discussed in Murphy and Murphy (2012), Palmer and Kirk are sometimes considered to be elements of an Early Archaic complex of point types, rather than distinct entities, although Palmer is considered the earlier of the two types. The site from which we collected the points in Fig. 1 yielded a wide variety of Archaic Period points, including Palmer and Kirk. If Fountain Creek points are indeed of the Early Archaic Period, they would fall within the age range of approximately 10,000–7,000 B.P. But we have seen no record of them being found in controlled excavations with actual evidence of age or relationships to other point types. Coe (1964) shows one point with Fountain Creek traits among a group of excavated Palmers, but he represents it as just another Palmer. His Palmer points tend to fall into two basic categories; those that are fairly broad relative to their length (width-to-length ratio 1:1.3) and those that are more slender (width-to-length ratio 1:2.3). Relative to Palmer, the 24 Fountain Creek points described by Painter (1978) tend to be intermediate (1:1.8) in width-to-length ratio.
Until good examples of Fountain Creek points are found in controlled excavations of stratified sites, their age and relationship to other points, such as Palmer or Kirk, will remain speculative. Painter’s (1978) suggestion of a relationship with Palmer appears entirely valid. The points share characteristics that can make it difficult to distinguish between the two and they occur in the same region. However, until further evidence is acquired it may be most reasonable to consider Fountain Creek points as components of a Palmer-Kirk complex. It remains to be seen whether they deserve to be recognized as a separate type rather than a variant of a more established type. Whatever the case, points of the form shown in Fig. 1 are uncommon even in their apparent main region of occurrence, Virginia and North Carolina. They present engaging questions concerning their proper classification relative to other points of the Southeast.
References
Barnard, Frank K.
1988. How to Find and Identify Arrowheads and Other Indian Artifacts (Southeastern United States). F.K. Barnard, Rt. 6, Box 511, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 53 pgs.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 54(5). 130 pgs.
Dragoo, Don W.
1993. Projectile Points of the Archaic Period, Eastern North America. Institute for Human History, Gloucester, Virginia. 36 pgs.
Hranicky, Wm Jack
2011. Prehistoric Projectile Points Found Along the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 282 pgs.
McReynolds, Theresa E.
2005. Spatial and Temporal Patterning in the Distribution of North Carolina Projectile Points. North Carolina Archaeology 54:1-33.
Murphy Peter G. and Alice J. Murphy
2012. Palmer Points Reflect On-Going Change in the Early Archaic Southeast and Demonstrate the Complexities Inherent in Point Classification. Central States Archaeological Journal 59(3):149-151.
Overstreet, Robert M.
2011. Official Overstreet Identification and Price Guide to Indian Arrowheads. House of Collectibles. 1264 pgs.
Painter, Floyd
1978. The Fountain Creek Projectile Point. The Chesopiean 16(1-3):32-33.
Peck, Rodney M.
1993. Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Piedmont Archaeological Society of N.C. and S.C., Inc., 2121 Quail Drive, Harrisburg, North Carolina. 43 pgs.
