H. B. Dowell, Mrs. James W. Cambron, Rodger Schaefer and Mrs. Don Mayhall, all of Decatur, Alabama, were most helpful in reading, typing, and duplicating manuscript copy.
Many members of the Alabama Archaeological Society and other individuals loaned their collections, from over the state of Alabama, for classification. This material helped establish point type and provided information on the distribution of types.
James W. Cambron
David C. Hulse
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this book is to fill a need for the identification of artifacts and to contribute to a unified nomenclature, especially concerning projectile point types in Alabama and adjoining areas.
Considerable material was classified and used to determine types. This includes approximately: 150,000 catalogued artifacts in the collections of the authors from 400 sites, mostly from the Tennessee Valley; about 5,000 Paleo, Transitional Paleo, and early Archaic artifacts from 281 sites classified in "A survey of Paleo-Indian Sites and Artifacts in the Tennessee River Valley;" and artifacts from over 250 sites in 27 Alabama counties, 7 Tennessee counties, 1 North Carolina county, 3 Georgia counties and 1 New York county (see distribution tables of state survey) loaned by Alabama Archaeological Society members and others.
Names and code numbers were assigned to each type of artifact. Combinations of characteristics both cultural and physical, including measurements, shapes, flaking, and materials, were taken from a series of each type and were used to determine each new type. Typical examples were selected to be illustrated and the illustrations were drawn with great accuracy and are considered superior to photographs, and all named points are drawn actual size. Cultural associations were determined by artifacts from excavated control sites. These control sites include Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter, Quad Site, University of Alabama Site Ms 201 (Rock House), Flint Creek Rock Shelter, Little Bear Creek Site Ct 8, and Flint River Mound Ma 48. All artifacts from these sites used in this paper were classified by the authors; thus a uniform interpretation of types was assured. Surface collections from more or less culturally isolated sites were also of value in determining cultural associations.