At the Hardaway site in Stanly County, North Carolina, Coe (1964) described
the Hardaway Complex and identified three projectile points as being representative
of this complex. These points were the Hardaway Blade, the Hardaway-Dalton
and the Hardaway Side-Notched. The latter two points were distinctive types
that have been found throughout the Southeast. However, the Hardaway Blade
is a most difficult and confusing point because it contains more than one
artifact type (Henry 2010, 2016). Coe’s description includes the following: “As
a type, this group of artifacts is poorly defined. The nine points illustrated
in Figure 56 show considerable variation and may represent more than mere
variation of a single type.” Nine of the 14 specimens found by Coe
were illustrated in Figure 56 and fall into three basic groups. The three
artifacts in the top row of the figure appear to be bases of typical blades
or preforms with straight to very slightly incurved bases. The middle row
of the figure contains three artifacts that appear to fit the description
of the Quad point described from Alabama. In fact, Coe considers two of the
specimens as atypical Quad points. In the bottom row of the figure are three
artifacts that have incurved bases and look like crude points and/or performs.
Justice (1987) treats the Hardaway Blade as a morphological correlate of
the Quad point. Although appropriate for the artifacts in the middle row
of Coe’s Figure 56, it is not appropriate for other artifacts included
in Coe’s treatise. Perino (1985) apparently utilized illustrated artifacts
found in the bottom of Coe’s figure to illustrate preforms for the
Hardaway-Dalton and Hardaway Side-Notched points. Daniel (1998) and Goodrum
(1974) also consider the Hardaway Blade as a preform for Hardaway points
and one of the four illustrated by Daniel has a nearly straight base like
those in the top row of Coe’s figure.
My own conclusions, based on literature reviewed and my personal experiences
in identifying thousands of points, including 62 Hardaway points, are that
the Hardaway Blade described by Coe includes three different entities (Henry
2010, 2016) as demonstrated in the artifacts in the three rows of Coe’s
Figure 56 and as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. One entity is a
blade base that could have been a tool, preform or projectile base. Based
on the nearly straight based preform shown by Daniel (1998) being similar
to the artifacts in the top row of Coe’s Figure 56, it is most likely
a preform base. The second artifact type included in the Hardaway Blade
description is the Quad point, which Justice includes in his Dalton cluster.
It is similar to the Dalton-Hardaway point and may represent a transitional
form between the Hardaway Blade and The Hardaway-Dalton point. The third
entity is a preform for the Hardaway-Dalton and Hardaway Side-Notched points.
This is what I consider to be the Hardaway Blade and would
include bases like those in the top row of Coe’s figure that have
straight or slightly incurved bases. Although a preform, the Hardaway Blade
was likely to have been also used as a projectile point and/or knife. Coe
said that thinning sometimes extended far down the face of the blade and
stated that many of the Hardaway-type points were facially fluted, and, in
cases where the side-notches or basal portions were missing, they could be
mistaken for fluted points. It is common to find this basal thinning or fluting
on Hardaway Blades, and this reinforces the interpretation that Hardaway
Blades were commonly used also as projectile points.
The purpose of this paper is to document another point type that I believe
is part of the Hardaway Complex. In a five-year period from June 17, 2011
to June 28, 2016, I found six points and point pieces from a site in Buncombe
County, North Carolina that I believe belong to the Hardway Complex (Fig.
1). I also identified others believed to be Paleo material from this site
as follows: two Clovis bases, three Dalton bases, four prismatic blades and
one square knife. In identifying the points in Figure 1 using the key I developed
for this purpose for Western North Carolina (WNC) (Henry 1991), they fit
best into the Hardaway Blade category. A common characteristic of these points
was thinning of the base that could be considered short flutes, as described
by Coe. Also, some of them possessed a dull prominent patina that indicated
to me considerable age. However, they included triangular specimens that
did not exactly fit the description of the Hardaway Blade.
I first reviewed the literature to see if I could find artifacts that might
fit the characteristics of these points. In doing so, I found a possibility
in Hranicky’s (2007) description of the Alamance point from Virginia,
which he considered pre-Paleo-Native American. Hranicky’s designation
of the Alamance point as being pre-Paleo certainly got my attention because
the heavy patina on some of the points I found convinced me that they had
considerable age. I finally found the original description of this point
by Painter (1963), but careful scrutiny of this paper revealed the material
described to be, in my opinion, typical Hardaway-Dalton points. Therefore,
I was left with my original thinking that the points I am documenting were
Hardaway Complex material even though some of them were triangularshaped.
However, I want to mention something I consider most interesting. My literature
review included close scrutiny of two points found in contexts considered
as pre-Clovis, i.e., the Miller Point from the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in
Pennsylvania and the Cactus Hill points from the site of the same name in
Virginia (Adovasio and Pedler (2016). However, in my opinion, these two points
better fit the description of the typical shield –shaped Hardaway Blade
point and not the triangular ...
|
|
Figure 1. Hardaway points from a site in Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
|
Read the complete "Perhaps Another Variety of Hardaway Points" column
in the Central States Archaeological Societies 2021
April Journal which can be purchased on-line after March 2022
