Announcement

**Lindenmeier-Man** · 01-01-2019, 01:55 PM

I can ask Matt Rowe , he is the true editor...

**Tam** · 01-01-2019, 02:05 PM

LM are you referring to Land of the Lost ?

**Gatorboy** · 01-01-2019, 02:10 PM

Ok I was wrong, I do see Madison listed in some regions but no longer listed in my region which is Eastern Central...

**gregszybala** · 01-01-2019, 03:14 PM

That is surprising and quite an omission. Must have simply been overlooked or part of the not all points that look like a Madison are actually a Madison discussion.

**CMD** · 01-01-2019, 04:59 PM

I remember a number of years ago that Matt Rowe was very upset that Madison was used as a type name in New England. I remember this because he preferred I stop using the name on this forum. But, my own argument at the time was that the Massachusetts Archaeological Society's typology guide called our late most triangles Madisons. As well, it was the type name used by professionals and amateurs alike in my region. Therefore, my not calling them Madisons on the forum would not change a thing in that respect. When I woke up tomorrow, they were still going to be called Madison points here. It was not my job to determine the nomenclature of point typology.

Boudreau, in his revised typology for New England has the following to say: "The Madison points shown by (New York State Archaeologist) Ritchie are all from a single site in Ontario Co., New York. All have a basal width of 3/4"(19.5mm) or less. They are equilateral(20%) or isosceles(80%) triangles. Bases are straight(47%), concave(53%), or rarely convex. Blade edges are straight(73%), slightly convex(17%), or concave(8%). If a narrow view is taken of Madison and related types, then they are usually narrow isosceles triangles. In that case, Madison points are not at all common in Southeastern New England. If Ritchie's example is followed, any triangle with more or less straight base and blade edges, with a basal width of 19.5mm or less may be considered to be a Madison point."

There are a few things to consider here. There is no national nomenclature committee determining what type names to use in what regions. And Overstreet is not going to take over that task. Typology is regional, at least after the Early Paleo types. And apparently identical point types, of the same age, often go by different names in different regions. Names become borrowed, when perhaps they should not. In New England, borrowing the type name Hardaway-Dalton is a possible example. But, once they are found in a datable context here, they will acquire a new name unique to New England. Just has not happened yet.

Madison is associated with a certain culture, not present in New England. So, perhaps the name should not be used here. But, it is! But, without a nation wide committee of archaeologists laying down the law on type names, these situations exist. It's just the way it is, and Overstreet is not going to change that. Nor will I stop calling them Madison points when I find them, when all pros and collectors here call them Madison points.

Here is a small Madison triangle from one of my RI sites:

**tomclark** · 01-01-2019, 07:12 PM

I'd be "upset" if they called our Pinellas Points, Madisons... Typists might even call this one a Safety Harbor.. Madisons do not occur in Florida but if you get just past the Georgia line the same true triangular arrowhead might be called a Madison.

**sailorjoe** · 01-02-2019, 01:10 AM

If the first fluted points were found in a dig near Boston and were named Boston points,. then later on similar points were found near Clovis, we would say they had found some more Boston points. We still don't know where the first Bostons were made.. Similarly, the fact that Madison points were first named from a specific dig and published as such, does not mean that that style originated there. The arrowhead style in vogue over much of what is now the eastern USA during the Mississippian period does not mean that the Mississippian culture started them. Decatur points were first named in a publication by authors who found many near Decatur, AL. I suspect that point hunters in Illinois and Kentucky likely had them in collections before the publication came out. They just didn't know what to call them. I've found types in north Alabama that don't appear in the Handbook of Alabama archaeology. I had to look at other sources to ID what I found. For example, I found three Calf Creek points in north Alabama. They are not in that handbook. Oh, and for what it's worth they are not listed as being found in the east central region in Overstreet either. Guess the old timers never got around to reading the book. I'm still gonna call them Calf Creeks. No use to make up another name for them. There are no hard and fast rules for point types as exists in the biological sciences for plants and animals.

**CMD** · 01-02-2019, 08:55 AM

The only thing I should add, or at least want to add, is that everyone is expecting the newest Overstreet to be the best edition yet, due to Matt Rowe's involvement. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that will be the case. I have perhaps 7 editions. I just don't feel I need any more then that, as I really only collect material from southern New England anyway. One of the real positives of the guide published by the Mass. Archaeology Society's is that, for each New England type, it lists the analogues of our points from other regions, and what their type names are. I also find this approach to be one of the big advantages that Noel Justice presented via his "cluster model" where typing points is concerned. Unfortunetly, it is hard to find copies of his guide dealing with the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. I am lucky to have a copy, and often refer to it, as well as Jeff Boudreau's expanded New England typology, now impossible to get. But, to be clear, I am not dismissing the usefulness of the Overstreet guides, and I expect the latest rendition will be the best one yet.

**clovisoid** · 01-02-2019, 09:58 AM

Good for Matt on getting that cleaned up.

Madison points are one of those relatively few types that we know were made by a specific group of people in a relatively specific area during a relatively narrow window of time. If it wasn’t made by those people, then it’s something else. It’s the same way with some of the named Mississippian pottery types and styles, or a Chevy vs Ford pickup truck.

Maybe the proper clustered term would be Mississippian triangles.

**CMD** · 01-02-2019, 11:48 AM

Some of the problems discussed here, and others, are a result of the appearance of the internet. Before Facebook, before artifact forums, collectors in southern New England(and plug in your own region here) communicated among themselves, and rarely with other collectors far and wide beyond our region. I'll give one example, involving lithics, where a problem developed due directly to the internet. The lithic is argillite. When I would show one of our argillite points on various forums, I caught a lot of flak that boiled down to this: "why are you calling that argillite? It isn't. It's slate!!". Well, all I really knew is we called it argillite, but it did look like slate from the Carolina slate belt. Even patinated to virtual identical appearance. So, who was it who was objecting? Folks who were used to the form of argillite common to the mid Atlantic states, sourced in NJ and Pa, used in Va., etc. It really looked like nothing we in New England called argillite.

Well, it was Roger Lawrence who provided clarification. Southern New England argillite was argillaceous slate. NJ and Pa argillite was argillaceous shale. And that difference made a big difference in their respective appearance. And, thanks to Roger, if someone from the mid Atlantic says "that is not argillite!", I can now provide an answer.

To at least some degree, it is the same with type names for points. Here in southern New England(or your own region), all that really matters is that collectors here are on the same page with type names. But, introduce a more varied geographic audiences, and problems can, and do, occur. I long ago concluded that borrowing and using the type name Hardaway-Dalton in New England created far more headaches then it was worth. We know what we refer to by the name(although heavily resharpened examples intergrade with different triangle types and make ID's immeasurably difficult), but show a collector from North Carolina, and the reaction is likely to be "Are you kidding me?!"

The internet exacerbated this confusion. Typology is regional. Names from one region are borrowed by another region. Stay within your own region, stay on the same page with your own circle of collectors, everything is fine. Jump onto social media, with collectors from all over, and confusion can develop.

The suggestion of calling our last point type prior to arrival of the English "Mississippian Triangles" is a possibility, though the Mississippian culture did not occur here, and, at any rate, Madison will still hold the day, from the practical level. But Mississippian triangle might avoid confusion in conversations involving collectors from several regions, and it does comport with the cluster model utilized by Justice.

**Jethro355** · 01-02-2019, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by clovisoid View Post

It’s the same way with some of the named Mississippian pottery types and styles, or a Chevy vs Ford pickup truck.

.

God knows there’s a ton of truth in THAT statement.

I’ve seen and been guilty of using terminology for pottery types like Old Town Red and Bell Plain countless times to describe pottery that wasn’t that, but looked just like it.

**Hoss** · 01-02-2019, 06:14 PM

The New York Typology book written by William A Ritchie show photos of Madison points found in New York State. http://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/pr...son-plate.html

**CMD** · 01-02-2019, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Hoss View Post

The New York Typology book written by William A Ritchie show photos of Madison points found in New York State. http://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/pr...son-plate.html

Here is a frame of Seneca Iroquois material, collected at the Dann Site, in the village of Lima, in western NY. This Seneca village was occupied from c.1655-1680. Here we can see metal points were in use, but flint triangles, many of the Madison type, were still in use as well. Even though there is no association with Cahokia points, and we would not expect there to be, the name Madison might be said to be "grandfathered in" at this late stage of the game. At least in New York and New England. If this were to change, it would have to be the result of efforts by the pros, and not popularized typology guides. No disrespect intended to Overstreet, it's editors, or any of the guides. As Boudreau relates, "a number of related Late Woodland and Mississippian forms are common across all of the states east of the Mississippi River". "Forms overlapping Madison temporally and morphologically include: Hamilton Incurvate, Fresno, Maud, Starr, and Fort Ancient."

**sailorjoe** · 01-02-2019, 10:57 PM

Hi Charlie. Those Seneca points look just like the Madisons I found in north Alabama. I had 50 of them in my old collection. I kept one just for old times sake. Looks like what you have. I also had 25 Ft. Ancient points. Not found anywhere near the Ft. Ancient site. They are still Ft. Ancients. I'll bet I could get a handful of them, each from a different eastern or midwestern state and no one could tell the difference. Heck, I can't even tell the difference between a Toyota made in Japan and one made in the states just by looking at the outside of the rig.

Announcement

Madison

Madison

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment