 |
| Figure 2.1 - Dorsal side of a 4.9-inch long unifacial blade, surface recovered on private land in south-central Wyoming. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Figure 2.1 is a wonderful example of the dorsal side of a well-flaked side scraper on a unifacial blade that was surface recovered on private land in south-central Wyoming. After the knapper removed the blade from the core, he or she worked a scraping edge onto it. The ventral face of the blade is smooth with a slight bend and a small amount of linear retouch (figure 2.2). The ridge or aris running down the dorsal face of the blade is the scar from two previous blade removals from the blade core. Since this was a surface find out of archaeological context, I cannot say for sure that someone from the Clovis prehistoric culture made it.
 |
| Figure 2.2 - Ventral side of the 4.9-inch-long unifacial blade in figure 2.1, surface recovered on private land in south-central Wyoming. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
My prehistoric adventure book series is called the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy and it is about prehistoric people who existed over 12,000 years ago called the Folsom People. These people roamed North America in the Late Pleistocene from around 12,900 to 12,200 years ago. I have published several articles about the Folsom Paleoindian culture, so I won't be writing about them in this article. I am focusing my writing for this article on unifacial blades, but I will be comparing the toolmaking of the Clovis prehistoric culture with the Folsom prehistoric culture.
 |
| Figure 2.3 - A Recent Book - CLICK to ORDER |
In the archaeological record of the High Plains of North America, at least two distinct cultures or complexes preceding the Folsom complex, Clovis, and Goshen. Many people contend that the Clovis people were the ancestors of the Folsom people, but there is no archaeological evidence that defines the relationship between Clovis and Folsom. Since the Clovis nor the Folsom culture did not leave behind any written transcripts, we must speculate as to their relationship with what these people left behind in recorded archaeological sites. This is insufficient at best when trying to establish the cultural relationships between two prehistoric peoples.
We know from radiocarbon dating and geology the general time frames when the Clovis and Folsom cultures existed. We know from their campsites and kill sites what they ate and generally how they lived. We know that both cultures focused a good part of their sustenance efforts on big game. Based on the archaeological record, the Clovis culture was known as mammoth hunters while the Folsom culture focused on bison and smaller game. However, based on archaeological data, both cultures were not too proud to eat almost any animal, no matter its size or taste.
There were a few differences between Clovis and Folsom that investigators see in the archaeological record related to lithic or stone tool technologies. We know that both Clovis and Folsom fluted their projectile points and that the fluting process for Folsom was more involved and intricate than that of Clovis. On some of the Clovis points in my personal collection, fluting appeared to be an afterthought or not a significant part of the process at all while fluting on Folsom was the critical deliverable that defined Folsom.
 |
| Figure 2.4 - Probable Clovis blade surface recovered 5/24/2003 in an arroyo in Weld County, Colorado. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
Folsom flintknappers made very thin bifaces with biplanar or biconcave profiles, instead of the typical biconvex biface profile of Clovis flintknappers. We call these thin Folsom bifaces ultrathin knife forms. I have previously published articles on ultrathin knives so I will not cover them here.
We also saw an increase in the making and use of end scrapers from Clovis to Folsom. End scrapers appear to have been a much more prevalent part of the stone tool kit during Folsom times.
One of the most intriguing differences between Clovis and Folsom stone tool technologies was the heavy use of blades by the Clovis culture. After Clovis, the archaeological record showed a significant drop off in blade knapping and usage. Although, investigators do find an occasional blade in Folsom and later tool assemblages, blades were more of an exception in the post-Clovis record.
Figure 2.4 is a probable 3.3-inch-long Clovis unifacial blade surface recovered by me in a small arroyo in Weld County, Colorado on May 23, 2003, and made from a gem-quality, pale red Flat Top Chalcedony. The length-to-width ratio on his blade is 3.3 to 1. The blade demonstrates linear retouch along all its edges. Two other blades and two Clovis projectile points have been surface recovered by me in this same arroyo.
 |
| Figure 2.5 - A handful of stone tools on blades for cutting, drilling, gouging, and scraping. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
What is a blade?
Blades are one of the most misunderstood terms in North American archaeology. Some people refer to unnotched projectile points or any kind of stone knife as a blade. Or if a well-made knife form does not have a hafting notch component, it instantly becomes a blade. The above examples should be called bifaces, not blades! Over the past few years, there has been a concerted effort from professional and amateur archaeologists alike to call bifaces what they are; bifaces! And to call blades what they are; blades! I understand old habits are hard to break, but we should try to call them by the appropriate terminology.
According to Bradley, Collins, and Hemmings in their book Clovis Technology, blades are defined as specialized, elongated flakes intentionally detached from a core selected and prepared for that purpose. These flakes or blades are often twice as long as they are wide.
 |
Figure 2.6 - 3.4-inch-long unifacial blade surface found on private land on 5/5/2015 in central Wyoming. The Paleoindians who made this blade used it as a knife. The lower left-hand corner of the piece also has a graver tip. Material is a grayish red Tiger Chert. John Bradford Branney Collection.
|
How did Clovis People make blades?
Figure 2.7 is from another wonderful book entitled Clovis Blademaking Technology, written by Michael Collins. A general overview of how we think Clovis People produced blades is as follows: the Clovis flintknapper found a suitable rock or cobble (2.7 a) which allowed the flintknapper to remove as many blades as possible from the blade core. The flintknapper started the process by knocking off one end of the cobble with a hammerstone (2.7 b). The resultant fractured surface on the end of the cobble then became the striking platform for subsequent blade removals.
Most cobbles selected by the flintknapper had at least one face that was pointed or convex enough for the flintknapper to remove the first blade. When the knapper removed this first blade, cortex or rock rind covered it. Cortex partially covered subsequent blades (2.7 i) until the cortex was completely gone from the blade core. If the cobble did not have a suitable pointed or convex face, the flintknapper created a ridge on the cobble through bifacial flaking (2.7 c and 2.7 d). This bifacial ridge is called the crest and the detached triangular blade that came from the crest is called a crested blade (2.7 e and 2.7 g). Once the flintknapper removed several blades from the blade core, it looked something like 2.7 f.
 |
Figure 2.8 - High Plains blades, showing the variety of shapes and sizes.
Blades were used for cutting, scraping, gouging, drilling, and slicing. The longest
blade in the frame is 4.3 inches long. John Bradford Branney Collection
|
Even though we want to adhere to our definition of a blade twice as long as it is wide, blades come in all shapes and sizes. While some blades show very little modification by a human hand, other blades are well worked. While some blades were purposely used for cutting only, other blades had drilling, scraping, cutting, engraving, and gouging functionality. Figure 2.8 shows a variety of shapes and sizes of unifacial blades from the author's collection.
One of my big regrets is not learning about blades earlier in life. I wonder how many blades I walked over in the field without giving them a second glance because I thought they were just chipping debris. Having a real answer to that question might give me heartburn. That is why when I artifact hunt now, I pick up and inspect every suspicious flake
What makes my prehistoric artifact passion so fun is learning something new each and every day!
No comments:
Post a Comment