Bi-Pointed Knife ID from Kerr Co. Tx

[MidlandMan]

I found this one about three years ago in Kerr Co. Tx. The site produced Transitional Archaic back to Early Archaic with no Late Prehistoric artifacts whatsoever. So to me that makes it a bad candidate for a first stage Harahey. It is paper thin and exceptionaly well made of translucent rootbeer and measures three and threequarters inches long. Any ideas as to type or stab at time periods anyone?

[gpblood]

very very nice

[Mojave]

Looks classic Harahey to me...

[MidlandMan]

I agree it looks classic Harahay Mojave but not one out of thousands of artifacts could be placed into a Late Prehistoric context, especialy not Toyah Horizon. The diagnostic artifacts pulled out about the same time as this were Pedernales, Martindale, and Uvalde. I suppose a single artifact from the Toyah horizon could have been left here with little other evidence of their passing but it does seem unlikely to me.

[Rockit Man]

Very nice.. could this be a lerma pointed base? fits the early archaic time frame and in the examples I see in My reference books has the same faking style.

[joshuaream]

I tend to trust the site, if there weren't any late period artifacts found I'd just call it a well made archaic knife.

I'm certainly not an expert on Haraheys, but most of the dates that I have seen for Haraheys come from Wa$hita sites in Kansas and other areas. And those Alibates Haraheys look different to me than some of the Central Texas pieces that are typed as Haraheys. I wouldn't be surprised if the dates for the Texas ones don't line up as perfectly as Overstreets and others suggest.

[MidlandMan]

You know Rockit I considered that but when I did some indepth research on Lerma ( 'The Archaeology of La Calsada; A Rockshelter in the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico' by C. Roger Nance ) I realized that NOTHING called Lerma in Texas is in reality Lerma as originaly described in Mexico! The dating for Lerma comes close to Early Paleo in parts of Mexico and occures in a similar time slot to Clovis/Folsom which are not found sympatricly. Therefor I'm back to square one. Also would not mind hearing chatter on my assertion that Lerma is not part of Texas ( or any other part of the US ) archaeological record and orphans all those points/knives attributed to the type!

[comanche]

Mid Man.
I have been through the Whole Idea Of Lerma for a Few Months.
And Although Not generally Accept as a valid Point type by "Academia here In Central Texas. Dr. Hester Made reference about The Lerma point in south Texas.I understand they only touched briefly on the subject in the New Publication.

I my self tend to think of them as Related to the True Lerma Point type.Just as I Find other Examples of ""Transitional Like Artifacts in Early Archaic Context.,,,,JMO
////c

[Cluton]

I think typology in Texas has been flipped upside down, especially recently! I think types that were excepted for decades are now said not to be valid is quite confusing! Not to mention aggravating! MM, that piece is probably a Harahey knife, because even at certain digs, many paydigs in Texas, tons of archaic pieces will be found and then oops, out comes a Perdiz! So ya never really know, I like the archaic knife guess too though!!? As for Lermas, it's probably not a valid type in Texas, that's just my opinion though! But we also just found out we don't have Covingtons and Fridays, so there ya go! Bodabing, bodaboom!! lol oh and the new Evant, just a longer stemmed Carolton!! But what do I know!

[MidlandMan]

I've encountered this same problem in Taxonomy. You have your Lumpers and your Splitters. The tendancy is to become complacent with the old nomenclature and it is comforting to look at something and be able pigeonhole it quickly. But as science progresses and the information base changes then suddenly we are not sure about what this or anything else is and the sense of insecurity creeps in until we decide for ourselves if the changes are deserved and warranted at which time we may begin to feel more (or less) at ease with the new current of thought. Imagine how thirty years ago when it was suggested that Golondrina was not a variety of Plainview and over a thousand years sepperated them! We now feel comfortable with that idea but back then many were up in arms! Now its simply a fact. Thats what I see happening here. Points and other described artifacts are not meerly objects that have the same shape and function but also denote a cultural, technological, and distributional relationship. All three of these aspects are essential in any systematic typology!