Madison

[clovisoid]

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.

I don't disagree with this statement, but I think it's simply a point of consistency. I applaud Matt for at least sticking to the definition of the original term.

Scully and a couple of other typologists (Perino, Titterington, etc.) named something like 25 different point types around Cahokia, many of them were specifically linked to a phase and pottery type. If memory serves me, Scully originally called them all Cahokia Triangles (or Mississippian Triangles) and then chose to split them because of contextual differences. The same for Spiro mound in Oklahoma, and for a bunch of mound sites in Missouri, Arkansas and Texas. Some were found as single deposit caches, likely bundles of hafted arrows in quivers. That is how pottery is typed and categorized, that is not how arrowheads are usually typed. And that is the source of the rub here. Modern archaeologists aren't as interested in typing as points as previous generations were.

Take the awesome frame you posted. I bet we could get those split into Madison, Hamilton, and Fresno types pretty easily, when the best definition for the type is protohistoric or historic triangular arrowhead. Every other name you could attach to them carries an unintended reference to geography or age. And I guess that is what irks me about it, people will go hyper specific to split apart Madison, Ft Ancient, Maud, Fresno, Hamilton, Camp Creek, etc. points based on attributes that aren't really part of the type definitions. (A really low level degree of irk, it's not something I spend any time thinking about until I am reminded of it.)

Basically when you choose to split the hair, you are going to find people who want to split it more than others. And then you get people who want to split it in arbitrary ways. We can’t all be right and wrong at the same time.

[CMD]

And I don't quibble with your points. I have not measure the basal width of those triangles in that frame that are not narrow isosceles. But any with a width less then 19.5mm would still be called Madison here in southern New England. I don't discourage Rowe's efforts at all. My point to him originally is the same point now. I could not lead an effort to change their name, then or now. I understand Rowe's point. What's not to understand? I guess we might blame William Ritchie for the adoptation of the name Madison for both those that look the part, and those that do not, but whose basal width is less then 19.5mm or 3/4".

[CMD]

[COLOR=black]

I don't disagree with this statement, but I think it's simply a point of consistency. I applaud Matt for at least sticking to the definition of the original term.

Scully and a couple of other typologists (Perino, Titterington, etc.) named something like 25 different point types around Cahokia, many of them were specifically linked to a phase and pottery type. If memory serves me, Scully originally called them all Cahokia Triangles (or Mississippian Triangles) and then chose to split them because of contextual differences. The same for Spiro mound in Oklahoma, and for a bunch of mound sites in Missouri, Arkansas and Texas. Some were found as single deposit caches, likely bundles of hafted arrows in quivers. That is how pottery is typed and categorized, that is not how arrowheads are usually typed. And that is the source of the rub here. Modern archaeologists aren't as interested in typing as points as previous generations were.

Take the awesome frame you posted. I bet we could get those split into Madison, Hamilton, and Fresno types pretty easily, when the best definition for the type is protohistoric or historic triangular arrowhead. Every other name you could attach to them carries an unintended reference to geography or age. And I guess that is what irks me about it, people will go hyper specific to split apart Madison, Ft Ancient, Maud, Fresno, Hamilton, Camp Creek, etc. points based on attributes that aren't really part of the type definitions. (A really low level degree of irk, it's not something I spend any time thinking about until I am reminded of it.)

Basically when you choose to split the hair, you are going to find people who want to split it more than others. And then you get people who want to split it in arbitrary ways. We can’t all be right and wrong at the same time.

I should not do this often, but this is from Boudreau's Madison page in his expanded typology. But, I will also say, knowing Jeff Boudreau personally, he would encourage this discussion and be an eager participant were he still with us. Here we also see the metrics Ritchie used for the points he called Madison......

[SDhunter]

Boy, some of those sure look like what I find in SD, but at least we don’t call them Madisons. We call them Plains Triangular. How many different ways can you make a Triangular point anyway?

[Cmcramer]

Thanks to all for an informative discussion that really helps understand this typology thing. I have several of these 'Madisons' from sites nearby Ontario Co. NY. ....in the Cayuga County / Finger Lakes Region.

I'm with CMD. Ritchie said they are Madison.....so be it.

[DavidD]

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.

Is the newest Overstreet the 15th edition? I'm building a library since I'm new to the midwest.

[CMD]

Yes, it is.