No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
During the cataloging of a collection of some 650 tiny projectile points from the banks of the Columbia River in Columbia County, Oregon, an unusual specimen was brought to light. All but five of the points in the collection are under 3/4 inch in length and are proportionately narrow and thin. The five larger specimens were, then, immediately outstanding. Of these, one is of the corner-tang variety. It is 2.13 inches long, 1 inch wide, and 0.36 inch thick. It is made from a tan, slightly opalitic chalcedony,8 a material which is quite common in the collections of chipped stone artifacts from the lower Columbia River area.
The specimen is of the type that Patterson has called “diagonal corner-tang” and possesses a small crescent notch on the side opposite the tang. The tang is quite narrow and pointed. The chipping is somewhat rough and uneven, and on one side there appears to be something of a channel groove running approximately two-thirds the length of the specimen. This is, in all probability, quite accidental.
1 The collection was made over a period of years by the late Col. Joseph W. Day of St. Helens, Oregon, and was kindly given to the Oregon State Museum of Anthropology at the University of Oregon by Mrs. Irene M. Day.
2 J. T. Patterson, The Corner-Tang Flint Artifacts of Texas, University of Texas Bulletin, Anthropological Papers, Vol. I, No. 4, 1936.
3 Identified by Dr. Lloyd W. Staples, Asst. Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon.
4 Patterson, op. cit., p. 10. See also PI. 5, Fig. 21.
5 H. E. Fischel, “A Note on Corner-Tang Artifacts,” American Antiquity, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1938.
6 On the basis of their hafting equipment, Patterson's suggestion as to their use seems reasonable. However, the writer fails to see any reason to suppose an evolutionary development of the four types from “the common spearhead type of knife” (see Patterson, op. cit., p. 26) other than pure speculation. Nor can he understand why the type could not possibly have developed in an agricultural area. Is it impossible for an agricultural people to use cutting or scraping tools?
7 J. T. Patterson, Supplementary Notes on the Corner-Tang Artifact, University of Texas Bulletin, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 1, No. 5, 1937.