On the Late Paleoindian temporal assignment for the Honey Run Site (33-Co-3), Coshocton County, Ohio: A morphometric assessment of flaked stone stemmed lanceolate projectile points. (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maguire, Leanna; Buchanan, Briggs; Boulanger, Matthew T.; Redmond, Brian G.; Eren, Metin I.
• Is Part Of: Journal of archaeological science. Volume 20(2018)
• Page Start: 588
• Page End: 595
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Archaeology -- Periodicals; Archaeology -- Research -- Periodicals; 930.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.05.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-409X

Abstract

Abstract: Based on flaked stone projectile point manufacture and proximity to stone outcrops, archaeologists designated the Honey Run site (33-Co-3), Coshocton County, Ohio, to be a Late Paleoindian workshop. Specifically, the Honey Run site yielded stemmed lanceolate points reminiscent of Late Paleoindian types found in Western North America. Here, we test the validity of the assertion that Honey Run is Late Paleoindian in age. Given the absence of samples for radiocarbon or luminescence dating, we do this by comparing a series of morphometric attributes recorded from the Honey Run point specimens to those recorded from the Burrell Orchard site, another Ohio site possessing stemmed lanceolate points, but that is well dated to the Late Archaic period. Our analyses demonstrate that the Honey Run point sample is not morphometrically different from the Burrell Orchard point sample. While we do not know the absolute age of the Honey Run points, and thus whether the point similarity between Honey Run and Burrell Orchard represents a case of technological convergence between a Late Paleoindian and Late Archaic site, or whether the similarity represents a contemporaneous cultural horizon between two Late Archaic sites, what our results do convey, however, is that automatically assuming Honey Run is Late Paleoindian based entirely on projectile point typology is precarious. Highlights: The Honey Run site, Ohio, was thought to be Late Paleoindian in age. We show that the stone points cannot be distinguished from Late Archaic ones. Assuming age simply on projectile point typology is precarious.