An Unspectacular Gary Point

[spot]

Good afternoon,

This point is quite well made for what it is and I call it a Gary. Perino called it a Gary. Since there has been some difference in opinions concerning the most appropriate name for some of the points that I have posted and called Gary's; I would like to know what any of you would call this if not a Gary. It is from Bowie Co., Texas. Yes, an old "Lake Texarkana" piece from the early days.

All opinions are invited; just keep the recovery location in mind as you postulate.... :>)'s

Thanks for looking,

spot

[Molly.]

That's a beauty be it a Gary or not.
Thanks for showing us.

Molly.

[Neanderthal]

I do not think that is a typical "Gary" point. I am very familiar with Greg's stance on the matter, as I've had many in-depth discussions with him about it and it may shock you to find that he agreed with me. It's one point type that I've studied in-depth and have worked for a long time to clear the stigma on. There was a huge mistake in the first naming (and dating) of the first Gary's by Newell & Krieger. You only have to look as far as the "Age & Culture" identified for them to see how big of a question mark they are " Late Archaic throughout woodland and caddoan periods". These are completely different people, different cultures, different times, different methods ....and they are all supposed to be one type? Nuh-Uh. As a joke, I have started to loosely term them all as Krieger points (yes, after Alex Krieger). LOL

I believe the name should be reserved for the Caddoan contracting stemmed points. There are many other contracting stemmed point types that occur in the area Gary's are found that have no direct relationship at all! In fact, let's take just the TX /Ok/LA area by itself. You have the Dawson, Langtry (according to some), Gary and Petit Jean River just to name a few (there are more) - these are well established forms that can look the same in certain situations. Now think of the contracting stemmed forms that have no affiliation to those forms, and yes, there are many. When you travel further in any direction, you run into even more contracting stemmed forms , it's a melee. Perino published that he believes there could be as many 7-15 different contracting stemmed forms that are currently called Gary. Well, the number in actuality is probably much higher than that. Until some of these forms can be found in distinct datable context with a known cultural affiliation, it will continue to be a mess. Other of these points have been identified for years but hadn't been noticed by most collectors (See Table Rock Pointed Stem, Petit Jean, etc) due to lack of reference material. The naming of all contracting stemmed forms as Gary is just as messed up as the "Rice" shelter faux-pas that happened up in Missouri. It's common, and has happened far too frequently. Typology is far from an exact science and there are so many mistakes that it just leaves a person reeling.

For the record, the rarest type of "Gary/Krieger" that I have seen is the notched variety. Out of thousands that I have personally found I have only found one. I can count on a single hand the number of authentic ones that I have personally seen. They do occur, but are extremely rare. There is another rarity that seems to only occur in a small area in Northeastern Oklahoma - it's a thin, WELL barbed contracting stemmed form (not to be confused with Dunn).

Anyways. Regardless of what you call your point, it's a nice one and you should be very proud of it. Typology is fun and can be very confusing...I need a beer.

Just for you spot, thought you may enjoy this - The photo below is one of the original "Petit Jean River", found on Texarkana Lake. Sorry about the glare in the pic.

[spot]

Good afternoon,

Moly, thanks for your kind words, I'm glad you like it.

Neanderthal, I like your response! It's actually my position also. I'm not sure of your position on the following though but here are a scant few of my thoughts. You're certainly invited to comment on all this.

Until more scientific data like dating and stratigraphic association are known, the attempt at typing is confounded by the huge amounts of nomenclature assigned to contracting stem points. The process is ill conceived in many ways. I completely disagree with the typology used by some which seeks to rename the point type based on its "stage". Some are called one thing in first stage, given another name at mid life and called something else when they are at the stage of discard. This form of typology is flawed. Some folks think it's "smart" to call everything a certain name. I think it's dumb myself. I'll bet Greg would agree since he lamented the naming of several point types as being misleading. He went so far as to write that we were "stuck with it" until the point was properly renamed. Also, even though he noted that there were many different types of Gary's, he certainly didn't muddle the water by trying to hang a name on them all. Neither should we untill more substantiated data becomes available. In cases where that data exists and is thorough enough to be definative, then by all means apply a name. Simple enough.


Thanks for looking,

spot

[Neanderthal]

Until more scientific data like dating and stratigraphic association are known, the attempt at typing is confounded by the huge amounts of nomenclature assigned to contracting stem points. The process is ill conceived in many ways. I completely disagree with the typology used by some which seeks to rename the point type based on its "stage". Some are called one thing in first stage, given another name at mid life and called something else when they are at the stage of discard. This form of typology is flawed. Some folks think it's "smart" to call everything a certain name. I think it's dumb myself. I'll bet Greg would agree since he lamented the naming of several point types as being misleading. He went so far as to write that we were "stuck with it" until the point was properly renamed. Also, even though he noted that there were many different types of Gary's, he certainly didn't muddle the water by trying to hang a name on them all. Neither should we untill more substantiated data becomes available. In cases where that data exists and is thorough enough to be definative, then by all means apply a name. Simple enough.


Thanks for looking,

spot

I agree 100%. I couldn't have said it any better and won't even attempt it.

I tend to stay away from forcing a name on a point without there being definitive traits. Unfortunately alot of collectors are afraid to call something an archaic corner notched dart, but choose instead to shove it into a niche of Haskell, Afton or Cooper....regardless of accuracy. There's nothing wrong with being vague if it's more accurate.

There are alot of screw-ups out there in typology. Take the Albertson point for example. The type is mentioned in Perino's third volume, and attributed to being named by Don Dickson. However, if you ask Don about the point, he'll be quick to tell you that there's no such point type and that it was all mis-communication..lol.

Back to watching football, there are some great games on today!!!

[WhiteCountyPaleo]

Is that first stage? Looks like it is to me.

[gilmerman]

That's a good strong point, its beautiful, but some what thick, think it was used with an atalatal or as a knife? Its well made by a skilled craftsman.