 |
Figure one. Four-inch long ultrathin knife form surface found on private land
in central Wyoming and exhibiting thinness, bi-concave x-section,
great width, and long, flat flaking. Age is indeterminate.
John Bradford Branney Collection.
Introduction.
If you have read my prehistoric adventure series the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy, you know that my mythical adventures are about a Paleoindian culture called Folsom that existed in western North America around 12,500 years ago. One of the archaeological calling cards left behind by the Folsom Paleoindians was their beautifully crafted fluted projectile points. I have dedicated several articles to these wonderfully made projectile points so I will not cover them in this article.
 |
Another artifact that archaeologists often attribute to Folsom Paleoindians is the ultrathin knife form. Ultrathin knife forms were specialized stone tools made with sophisticated knapping technology by highly skilled knappers (figure one). Archeologists and collectors have defined the specifications for ultrathin knife forms by their thinness, bi-concave cross-section, width to thickness ratio, well-controlled marginal pressure flaking, and specialized flaking technique. A finished ultrathin knife form can be ovate, pointed, or bi-point in shape. I have examples from my collection below. Width to thickness ratios for ultrathin knife forms, measured in millimeters, often exceed values of ten or greater.
 |
Figure Two. 3.8-inch long ultrathin knife form made from Georgetown chert
and found in Coryell County, Texas by Hervey McGregor.
Note diving flakes near the middle of the biface.
Age is indeterminate. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
 |
Figure Three. Cross-section of the ultrathin knife form in figure two with
a width to thickness ratio approaching ten. Age is indeterminate.
John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Uses of Ultrathin Knife Forms.
Jodry (1998) noted that ultrathin knife forms were associated with Folsom camps and lithic workshops, but not kill sites and initial meat processing sites. Her conclusion was that ultrathin knife forms were used in the downstream meat processing sites, and not at the initial kill and rough butchering sites. Based on the use-wear, production technology, and archaeological context of ultrathin knife forms, Jodry proposed that Folsom people used ultrathin knife forms as knives for filleting meat. Based on archaeological evidence, we know that processing meat was one of the major activities in Paleoindians' lives. Since "true" ultrathin knife forms were so thin and delicate, it is hard to imagine that Paleoindians did not use them for slicing meat into thin strips or cutting meat away from the bones of their prey during the butchering process.
Jodry suggested further the possibility that ultrathin knife forms were women’s knives. She claimed this possibility based on the behaviors of historical Indian tribes where meat filleting was mostly a woman's task. From this observation, Jodry assumed that Paleoindian women may have acted the same was as historical Indian women and did much of the meat filleting. Her conclusion could be possible, but I find it a bridge to far to project activity from Paleoindians some twelve thousand years ago to historical Indian tribes some two hundred years ago. Therefore, I do not concur with her assumption that ultrathin knife forms were women's knives. As an outdoor enthusiast and past hunter, I envision these sharp ultrathin knife forms serving multiple purposes in the lives of Paleoindians, and my evidence is several ultrathin knife forms in my collection that have other uses such as engraving and burination (figure four).
 |
Figure Four - 4.6-inch long ultrathin knife form surface found on private land in
Sweetwater County, Wyoming. This knife form has a graver (G) on one end
and a burin tip (B) on the other end. Neither gravers nor burins
were unusual on ultrathin knife forms. Age indeterminate.
John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Over the years, I have picked up many artifact pieces that I suspected started out as ultrathin knife forms. Since ultrathin knife forms by definition were thin and brittle, many did not survive long enough for me or others to find them intact thousands of years later, and just like modern-day hunters who sharpen their hunting knives when they get dull, Paleoindians did the same thing with their knife forms. Many ultrathin knife forms that started out much larger and wider were resharpened down to smaller sizes, masking their original form. When found, these suspected pieces or smaller knife forms are oftentimes not conclusive enough to categorize them as originally ultrathin knife forms.
Figure Five. 3.5-inch long ultrathin knife form surface found in Wyoming and exhibiting fine marginal pressure flaking around the perimeter of the biface. Age indeterminate.
John Bradford Branney Collection.
Below, I captured a passage from my book GHOSTS of the HEART, the second book in the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy series. This scene took place right after the Folsom People trapped and killed a small herd of bison in an arroyo trap. The scene described the butchering and harvesting of the meat from the bison carcasses.
When it was all over, the tribe had killed twenty-two tatanka – bison. The meat from the herd would help the tribe through wani yetu – winter. One of the hunters ran to the camp to tell the people of the tribe. Before long, the entire tribe had returned to help butcher and carry the meat back to the camp. First, everyone in the tribe helped lay all of the carcasses on their bellies with legs sprawled. Then a team of two or three butchers worked on each carcass; while one person held and positioned the carcass, the other person chopped, sawed, and cut. The team of butchers then cut the hide lengthwise down the back. They then pulled the hide to the ground on both sides of the carcass, creating a mat that would protect the butchered meat from the ground. The team of butchers extracted the tender cuts of meat under the skin of the back first, followed by the forelegs, shoulders, hump meat, rib cage, and body cavity. They would not waste anything. The team of butchers opened up each body cavity and removed the heart, liver, and gall bladder.
With hammer stones, choppers, and stone knives, the butchers then harvested the hindquarters, hind legs, neck, and skull. As the team of butchers systematically stripped the meat from the carcasses, others carried the meat back to the camp where they cut it into strips and hung it from sagebrush and tree branches to dry. The Folsom People would make pemmican from the meat that was too tough to eat. They then extracted two more delicacies from the skull, the tongue, and the brain.
By the time the sun was in the west, the tribe had stripped the tatanka carcasses clean. They would leave any remaining meat for the scavengers of the night. That evening in the camp, there was a grand celebration as the Folsom People celebrated the great hunt.
Origin of Ultrathin Knife Forms.
 |
Figure Six. From Bradley (1982)
|
There is evidence that the production of ultrathin knife forms by the Folsom prehistoric culture was an outgrowth of the Clovis prehistoric culture's biface reduction process. The use of overshot flakes and the intentional use of hinge and step terminations along the midline of an ultrathin knife form was very close to the process that Clovis knappers used for biface reduction (Bradley 1982: 203-208).
Bradley described two different thinning methods for biface reduction that both Clovis and Folsom flintknappers used. He called the first of these biface thinning methods alternating opposed biface thinning. This method is shown on the left-hand side of figure six. In this method, initial shaping and thinning of the biface involved the removal of large percussion flakes using a patterned sequence. The knapper removed the first large percussion flake from a margin near either end of the biface. The knapper then removed another large percussion flake from the same side but on the opposite end of the biface. Next, the knapper removed two large percussion flakes next to the first two percussion flakes, but on opposite edges. If the biface needed further thinning, the knapper removed one or more percussion flakes near the middle of the biface. These large, wide percussion flakes oftentimes traveled across much of the biface and in some cases took off a portion of the opposite edge in what we call an outre passe or overshot flake.
 |
Figure Seven. 3.32 inches long, paper-thin ultrathin knife form
surface found in east-central Colorado. Probable meat filleting knife.
Note overshot flaking. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Bradley called the second biface thinning method used by Clovis and Folsom flintknappers opposed diving biface thinning. This method is shown on the right-hand side of figure six. As thinning on a biface progressed and the biface became routinely flaked, the knapper switched to a different style of thinning flake. This new thinning flake style allowed for maximum thinning with less risk of overshot flakes. The knapper accomplished this by removing a sequence of flakes from one edge of the same face with intentional hinge-fracture terminations at or near the midline of the biface. The flake scars were then met by a series of thin flakes from the opposite edge which removed most of the hinge-fracture terminations from the flaking from the initial edge. This flaking method created a biface that was oftentimes thinner in the middle than along the edges. The cross-section of a biface successfully executing the opposed diving biface thinning method was biconcave, meaning that the biface was thinner in the middle than along its edges.
 |
Figure Eight. Cross-section of ultrathin knife form
from figure six. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Once the knapper thinned the ultrathin knife form to the desired state through percussion flaking, he or she finished the ultrathin knife form by removing small pressure flakes around the edges of the biface. I often refer to these tiny marginal retouch flakes on the edgework of ultrathin knife forms and Folsom projectile points as "flea bites".
 |
Figure Nine. Ultrathin knife form surface found by Keith Glasscock in 1954 in Tom Green County, Texas. It is 137 millimeters long, 58.5 millimeters wide, and
6.9 millimeters thick. Note the "diving flakes" near the center.
John Bradford Branney Collection. |
|
Cautionary Note.
You will note that in my first paragraph I did not state that ultrathin knife forms were a diagnostic artifact for just the Folsom Paleoindian culture because they are not. Other prehistoric cultures occasionally made ultrathin knife forms using similar technology with similar results. Paleo and ultrathin knife forms are some of the most overidentified and over-claimed artifacts in the collecting world. Every artifact collector wants one or thinks they have one in their collection because "true" ultrathin knife forms are both rare and valuable. But just because I or any other collector say it is so, doesn't make it so.
Based on archaeological evidence from Paleoindian sites, Paleoindians seldom went through the time and effort to create these delicate ultrathin knife forms. Evidence indicates that Paleoindians to a large extent just used large flakes or unifacial blades with retouched edges for their cutting and butchering needs.
If an ultrathin knife form is found on the surface of the ground on a prairie, river, creek, lake, plowed field, mountain, or wherever, it is impossible to determine with one hundred percent certainty that Paleoindians made that particular ultrathin knife form. For that ultrathin knife form to be attributed to Folsom or any other prehistoric culture, the artifact has to be found in dated stratigraphic and archaeological context or in clear association with other diagnostic Folsom or other culturally diagnostic artifacts. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing otherwise. There are all kinds of claims when it comes to surface found artifacts, but the proof is in the technology used and the context of where it was found. Although the Folsom prehistoric culture appeared to prefer ultrathin knife forms, that is not enough proof to conclusively assign surface found ultrathin knife forms to that culture.
 |
Figure Ten. Ultrathin knife form surface found by Keith Glasscock in 1954 in Tom Green County, Texas. It is 137 millimeters long, 58.5 millimeters wide,
and 6.9 millimeters thick. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Bradley, Bruce
1982 Flaked
Stone Technology and Typology. In The
Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern
High Plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. J. Stanford, pp. 181 – 208.
Academic Press, New York.
Jodry, M.A.
1998 The Possible Design of Folsom Ultrathin
Knife Bifaces as Fillet Knives for Jerky Production. Current Studies in the Pleistocene 15: 75-77.
