R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the Plano-Convex End Scrapers

Figure One - 2.7-inch-long plano-convex end scraper surface found by the author
in Carbon County, Wyoming on August 7, 2023. 

My relentless pursuit of the elusive prehistoric projectile point introduced me to several of its artifact relatives over the years. One of those relatives was the plano-convex end scraper. Many of my artifact hunts were saved when I found a well-crafted and beautifully made plano-convex end scraper. On most of the well-known sites in my area, surface artifact hunters have found most of the projectile points, but an occasional nice end scraper can still be found. Why do heavily hunted sites still yield a few plano-convex end scrapers while most projectile points are gone? I will answer that question after I briefly introduce you to the plano-convex end scraper type.  

Figure Two - Author's drawing of the profile
and the dorsal face of a typical 
plano-convex end scraper. 

Figure two is my chicken scratching of a typical, but well-made plano-convex end scraper. Most end scrapers started out as percussion flakes removed from a rock core. The top drawing shows the end scraper's side profile while the bottom drawing is looking down at the dorsal face of the end scraper. The distal end or scraping edge of the end scraper is to the left while the bulb of percussion or where the flake was hammered from the core stone is to the right. The scraping edge, or bit as some people call it, is usually roughly perpendicular to the long axis of the flake and on the opposite end from the bulb of percussion. End scrapers are nearly always unifacial, i.e., only flaked on the dorsal face. The ventral or bottom of the artifact is normally smooth and either flat or slightly bowed or concave. When an end scraper lies buried on the prairie with its smooth, ventral side up, they are difficult to recognize as artifacts. I have learned through experience that if the flake is the right shape and size, bend over and pick it up.

Let me get back to my original question. Why do my heavily hunted sites still yield a few plano-convex end scrapers while most projectile points are gone? One reason is that most artifact hunters focus primarily on finding projectile points and knife forms. Some artifact hunters might not even bend over to investigate a flint chip that does not meet a projectile point's size, shape, and flaking pattern. Another reason is that inexperienced artifact hunters or rockhounds don't know much about end scrapers and aren't looking for them. Those people can spot a projectile point as well as anyone, but they might not be able to identify an end scraper. 

In my early teens in Wyoming, I was in that latter category. I remember picking up several of those odd, turtle-shaped pieces of chert and wondering what they were. I threw the more colorful and interesting ones in an old shoe box with other interesting rocks and broken artifacts. When I received the classic artifact book by Steege and Welsh (1961) for Christmas, I learned what an end scraper was. It did not take me long to dig through that shoe box and catalog all the end scrapers that were there. I wonder how many beautiful end scrapers I walked across or discarded before I read that book.

Figure Three - A large, beautiful 2.0-inch-long paleo-convex
end scraper that the author found on April 10, 1988
in Logan County, Colorado.   

Figure Three is a photograph of the dorsal face of one of my favorite plano-convex end scrapers made from a slick yellowish-tan jasper and found in northern Colorado. That particular end scraper probably served two purposes. It has a scraping edge on the distal or working end of the tool and on the right corner of the working end, there was a well-worked spur used to gouge and engrave materials. Farther down into the article, I will discuss 'spurred' end scrapers.     

The main uses for plano-convex end scrapers ranged from removing flesh and fur from animal hides to scraping bone, wood, and shell material. When I study my end scraper collection, it is apparent that end scrapers were used for different applications for different lengths of time and on different types of material. Wear patterns on the working ends of the end scrapers vary from smooth and highly polished to striated and fractured. Softer materials like animal hides tend to polish the bit end while more rigid materials like wood or bone, tend to fracture or leave scratches and gouges on the bit end. I have found numerous end scrapers that were snapped in half from bending pressure perpendicular to the length of the end scraper. In my opinion, those end scrapers were most likely used on more rigid materials and were probably mounted in a wood or bone handle. The wood or bone handle added leverage to the overall composite tool and increased the bending pressure on the end scraper enough to snap it in half. Without the additional leverage from a wood or bone handle, it would have been difficult for a prehistoric human to have the finger strength to snap the thicker end scrapers in half just by working with it in his or her hand. 

Figure Four - A multi-purpose end scraper found on July 27, 1985, in Weld County, Colorado.
The scraping or bit edge is to the right and the engraving tool is to the left.
There is also a handy indentation made just right for the user's thumb.    

The occasional end scraper served multiple purposes besides its main function as a scraping tool. I have found end scrapers with spurs, gravers, drills/perforators/awls, burins, and shaft straighteners. Figure Four is a well-made plano-convex end scraper made from Flattop Chalcedony. On the distal end of the artifact is a rounded scraper edge while on the proximal end of the artifact is a razor-sharp engraver. This plano-convex end scraper was most likely handheld and the indentation on the dorsal face was the perfect spot for the user to place a thumb. This plano-convex end scraper was a surface find in 1985 on a small prehistoric campsite site in northern Colorado. I also surface-recovered a Paleoindian Clovis projectile point base, a Middle Archaic Duncan dart point, and several Late Prehistoric arrow point fragments on my visits to the site. How old is that paleo-convex end scraper in Figure Three? We will never know the answer to that question. 

According to Steege and Welsh (1961), the plano-convex, snub-nosed end scraper was the only artifact type that remained unchanged from Paleoindian times to historical times. That causes a dilemma for us artifact hunters who only hunt the surface of the ground. Since end scrapers survived throughout prehistory without much change, they are not reliable for age or cultural determination unless found in an undisturbed archaeological or stratigraphic setting. 

George Frison (1991) postulated that the presence of spur(s) at the distal end of an end scraper was a possible clue to the age of the end scraper. Frison designated a Paleo End Scraper (PES) as a “type of spurred end scraper that is a good but inconclusive indicator of Paleoindians.” Frison went on to state that “an occasional spurred scraper (PES) appears in post-Paleoindian site components, but in general, the true spurred endscraper seems to largely disappear from tool assemblages of the post-Paleoindian period.”

Figure Five - Paleo end scrapers of spurred-end scrapers surface found on multicultural
sites in Wyoming and Colorado. The red dots mark the edges with spurs.    

Frison (1974) and Frison and Stanford (1982) proposed that finding a single PES was a strong indicator of Paleoindians and that finding more than one PES on a site practically guaranteed the presence of Paleoindians. I believe they contradicted that statement by declaring that the complete absence of PES does not eliminate the presence of Paleoindians since some Paleoindian kill sites had few or no PES present in the bone beds.

Figure Five is a photograph of a few spurred-end scrapers or Paleo End Scrapers from my collection. All of them were surface finds on multicultural sites. Having recovered numerous Paleo End Scrapers or spurred end scrapers on the ground from sites of all ages, I do not agree with Dr. Frison's assessment that spurred-end scrapers are a good indicator of the presence of Paleoindians, at least from a surface find perspective. Frison's evidence points to Paleoindians using Paleo End Scrapers, but I have found excellent examples of PES on a multitude of surface sites ranging from Paleoindian to Late Prehistoric, and several multicultural sites. From the perspective of a surface artifact hunter, I do not see a direct correlation between my Paleoindian sites and spurred end scrapers. 

My point is not to refute Dr. Frison's findings but to add caution in citing ages for spurred end scrapers, especially those found while surface hunting. In my opinion, the best bet when finding a spurred-end scraper on the surface of the ground on any site producing artifacts from multiple cultures is to state that the spurred-end scraper "might be Paleoindian."    

 

Figure Six - A variety of High Plains end scrapers from my collection
demonstrating various sizes, shapes, materials, and features.  

Plano-convex end scrapers come in all shapes, sizes, and materials. The steeply angled working edge was the common denominator. In my collection, I have end scrapers that are less than an inch long to well over three inches long. Obviously, prehistoric people used different sizes for different tasks. 

Figure Six shows a few plano-convex end scrapers from my collection and some variations in shape, size, materials, and features. The end scrapers range from beefy to thin, long to short, with and without hafting elements, and with and without spurs. The only two end scrapers in the photograph that are diagnostic to any specific prehistoric culture are artifacts two and three in the third row. Artifact two possessed a hafting element from the Late Archaic Pelican Lake prehistoric culture and artifact three possessed a hafting element from the Middle Archaic McKean prehistoric culture. After finding and collecting hundreds of end scrapers, one thing I can write with one hundred percent certainty; no two end scrapers are alike.

Figure Seven - The working edge of an end scraper the 
author found in northern Colorado. The flaking is as fine 
as that found on any projectile point.   

In conclusion, this is my call to arms for all of us! Rescue those end scrapers from shoe boxes, coffee cans, cigar boxes, and chip piles or any place they have been discarded. Study them, display them, and be proud of them! They are not as glitzy or glamorous as projectile points or knife forms, but they are the blue-collar stone tools of prehistoric times. Next time you are in the field artifact hunting, go ahead and pick one up. Listen to its story and give it the R-E-S-P-E-C-T that it deserves!  

References Cited  

Frison, George C. 

1974    The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press. New                 York.  

1991    Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press. New York.  

Frison, George C., and Dennis J. Stanford.

1982    The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern                 Plains. Academic Press. New York.  

Steege, Louis C., and Warren W. Welch 

1961    Stone Artifacts of the Northwestern Plains. Northwestern Publishing Company.                     Colorado Springs.      

About the Author  

John Bradford Branney is a geologist by education and a prehistorian by avocation. He is the author of eleven books, five of which are historical fiction novels based on the lives of Paleoindians living on the High Plains of North America. Branney is currently writing the sixth book in his Paleoindian Odyssey book series titled The SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy.      

CLICK for The SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy

 

Who Dun It? - Part V - The Rocking Chair Knife

 

Figure One - 2.7-inches-long "Rocking Chair" knife form, surface found in
Carbon County, Wyoming, and made from root-beer-colored chalcedony. 

Many of the articles I have written focus on prehistoric projectile point typology along the High Plains of North America. I have previously written about the differences between Folsom and Clovis points, how to distinguish between Goshen and Midland points, the evolution of projectile points from Clovis to Scottsbluff, Middle Archaic projectile point types, and dozens of other articles. I also wrote a series called Who Dun It where I evaluate enigmatic and unusual prehistoric artifacts from my collection. Those "odd-looking ducks" do not fall within any known category or type of stone tools or projectile points. What I try to do is unravel some of the unknowns around those artifacts. 

Click GHOSTS of the HEART 

This specific article is my fifth installment of the Who Dun It series and the beautiful knife form I will be evaluating is photographed in Figure One. This side-notched knife form is 2.7 inches long and was surface recovered on private land in Carbon County, Wyoming. I call it the Rocking Chair knife form. I refer to this artifact as a knife form even though I cannot be sure what function it served in prehistoric America. I am guessing it was not used as a spear point and it was much too large for a projectile point. The only thing sure about the functionality of that artifact is that I am not sure.   

The artifact material is a nice piece of root-beer-colored chalcedony. I am guessing the source of the material was southwestern Wyoming where finding root-beer-colored chalcedony artifacts is not unusual.  

When I first saw the Rocking Chair knife form, I thought it was an odd-looking duck. 

And you know what? I was right; that artifact is an odd-looking duck in more ways than one. Of the thousands of artifacts I have found or seen, I cannot ever recall seeing one made quite like this one. I call it the "Rocking Chair" knife form because of its rounded base which reminds me of a rocker rail on a rocking chair. I am sure there are other Rocking Chair knife forms out there, I just have not seen one. As far as categorizing it into knife form or projectile point typology for the High Plains, the Rocking Chair knife form is a legitimate headscratcher. 

Figure Two - Side A of 2.7-inch-long "Rocking Chair" knife form.
The alleged flute is circled in red and labeled "F".  Striking
platform for removing the alleged fluting flake
is marked "P".       

Is it Fluted or is it Basally Thinned? 

Let me step right into the more controversial and debatable issue about this knife form and that is whether or not it is fluted. Yes, I just wrote fluting in regards to this side-notched knife form. You might respond to my comment with something like, "On the High Plains, we only know fluting on Clovis and Folsom points," and I could not agree with you more. But, let's take our blinders off for a moment and objectively look at both sides of the knife form in figures two and three. Go ahead. I will wait until you have enough time to study the photographs before giving you my opinion.  

Figure Two is Side A of the knife form and I have circled in red the extent of the flute and labeled it with an "F". Tell me that does not look like a flute. Based on a single striking point or platform labeled "P", it appears that the prehistoric flintknapper removed that one large flake with one striking blow in the center of the artifact's base. You can tell by the artifact's translucency where the thinnest part of the body is and it is at that striking platform. 

Some of you might argue, and rightly so, that it is not a flute, it is a thinning flake. In my experience, thinning flakes were usually removed with multiple strikes and seldom extended into the body of the artifact as much as this one. I have seen Clovis points with smaller flutes than the point in Figure Two. 

Figure Three - Side B of 2.7-inch-long "Rocking Chair" knife form.
The "alleged flute" is circled in red and labeled "F".  Striking
platform for removing the alleged fluting flake
is marked "P".      

You might have convinced me that the "alleged flute" in Figure Two happened as an accident or knapping error if the same thing did not happen on Side B (Figure Three). The Side B "alleged flute" is definitely not as grandiose as the Side A "alleged flute", but it is still quite visible. Whether both were created as a flute or a thinning flake we will never know for sure, but I am calling them flutes. 

The first thing I thought of when I saw the "alleged flutes" on this knife form was that maybe a later prehistoric culture picked up an earlier culture's fluted projectile point or knife form and reworked it into its current form as the Rocking Chair. Logically, I just could not make sense of that theory. For one thing, evidence of a striking platform is quite evident on the base of the Rocking Chair. That indicates to me that the flintknapper who made the Rocking Chair was the same person who struck off the flutes or thinning flakes. I have seen older projectile points salvaged and reworked by younger prehistoric cultures. We will never know for sure how much salvaging and reworking of older artifacts actually occurred. I imagine most of the distinguishing characteristics of the older projectile point were wiped out with the new flintknapping. I once found a Middle Archaic dart point with what appeared to be Folsom flutes running down the middle of the point on both sides. That particular Middle Archaic flintknapper refurbished a broken Folsom point into the type of projectile point that his culture used. 

Figure Four - The possible process that led to the 
Rocking Chair knife form. Blue marks the
notching on the original biface.  

So, how did the Rocking Chair knife form come about? 

After thoroughly studying the Rocking Chair knife form, I propose that it started out as a large biface, much like the caramel-colored one on the left in Figure Four. The proximal end or base of that biface was rounded and the Rocking Chair flintknapper only needed to add two side notches (blue outlines) to attach the biface/knife form to a handle. When the knife blade dulled, the owner resharpened it several times until the blade edges were skinnier than the knife form's hafted base and notching areas, much like the Rocking Chair looks.    

Figure Five shows where I laid the Rocking Chair knife form on top of the caramel-colored biface. My purpose in doing this "before and after view" was to theorize what the Rocking Chair knife form looked like when it was originally made (caramel-colored biface). Then, as resharpening occurred on the knife form, the blade edges of the original biface were reduced in width, and we ended up with the Rocking Chair.   

    

Figure Five - The caramel-colored biface underneath
is how I envision the Rocking Chair started out. 

As far as the age and prehistoric culture of the Rocking Chair knife form, that is a tough one to say. As far as I know, the characteristics of the Rocking Chair knife form do not fit within any known projectile point type or archaeological complex on the High Plains. I am fairly confident that the Rocking Chair knife form was not made by Paleoindians even though it possesses those "alleged flutes", and I am reasonably confident it was not made by Early Archaic people, although side notching did show up on the High Plains during the Early Archaic in the form of the Lookingbill projectile point type. The Rocking Chair knife form does not resemble the typical Middle Archaic artifact, either. 

If I were a betting man, I would place my money on the Rocking Chair knife form coming from either the Late Archaic or the Late Prehistoric cultures, sometime between 3,000 years ago and before the Europeans showed up on the High Plains. I could easily lose that bet but then again, we will never know for sure.  

 What is your opinion?

    

About the Author 

The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are well-known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his latest blockbuster saga titled Beyond the Campfire, Branney catapults readers back into Prehistoric America where they reunite with a few familiar characters from Branney’s best-selling prehistoric adventure series the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy.

John Bradford Branney holds a geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. Branney lives in the northern Colorado mountains with his family. Beyond the Campfire is his eleventh published book.

Atlatl Weapon System - Part IV – A High Plains Atlatl Weight

Figure One - the 3.2-inch long atlatl weight surface found on February 27, 2023.   

Atlatl weights are a rare artifact to find along the high plains. Most of the suspected atlatl weights that I have found or what others claim are atlatl weights are actually quite crude and indistinguishable. In fact, if I hadn’t picked up my alleged atlatl weights on known prehistoric campsites, I probably wouldn’t have given them a second glance. The gap in the workmanship between most high plains atlatl weights and the beautiful bannerstones and boatstones of the eastern United States is Mississippi-wide. Whether or not bannerstones and boatstones were used as atlatl weights might still be up for debate but that usage seems likely to me. Figure two is a drawing of the various components of an atlatl weapon system, showing in red the atlatl weight itself.

Figure Two - The various components within a typical atlatl weapon system
with atlatl weight circled in red. Courtesy of donsmap.com.  

One theory for prehistoric people's use of atlatl weights was as charms and totemic pieces for their atlatl handles, but if you look at some of the so-called atlatl weights from the high plains, they are little more than polished river pebbles and they aren’t too “charming” at all. Figure three is a photograph of three alleged high plains atlatl weights surface found on prehistoric campsites. Those alleged atlatl weights are not pretty although they do exhibit wear and polish. I am pretty sure they were prehistoric stone tools used in some capacity, but I will never be completely convinced prehistoric people used them as atlatl weights. To be completely convinced, I would need to find them attached to the original atlatl handle.

Figure Three - Three alleged atlatl weights
from my collection. 

My luck with finding a true atlatl weight changed on February 27, 2023. I no longer needed to insert the adjectives alleged or so-called on that one. I recovered an undeniable atlatl weight from a dry stream bed while hunting artifacts and fossils on a private ranch in northeastern Colorado. The first artifact I found that day was an Alberta dart point made from Knife River Chalcedony from the ten-thousand-plus-year-old Cody Complex. I would have been more than happy to find just that artifact, but I kept meandering up that dry stream bed. About a hundred yards upstream from the Alberta dart point I spotted what appeared to be an old ballpoint pen lying in the sand. Over the decades that dry stream bed accumulated a lot of farm and ranch refuse. I have seen empty feed sacks, plastic water bottles, used cow ear tags, tractor parts, old oil filters, beat-up cattle feed buckets, and used tires. I picked up that old ballpoint pen and it was like 110 volts A.C. ran through me. That ballpoint pen was made of stone! A shock wave coursed through my old bones. Instead of a modern-day writing utensil, I held in my hand a beautiful, well-made atlatl weight (figures one, four, and eight).

I have been hunting artifacts for a heck of a long time. Over the course of my life, I have found some amazing and outstanding artifacts, but I have never found anything quite like that beautiful atlatl weight. It is a high plains rarity. I think my exact words were “HOLY CR_P!” when I realized it wasn’t an old ballpoint pen in my hand.       

I stood there in the middle of the sandy stream bed glaring at the artifact reconciling with my mind what I just found. It appeared the material was either a gabbro or a diorite. It was an atlatl weight in the shape of a small boatstone. The artifact was meticulously made, shaped, and polished by human hands that obviously took pride in what they were making. I hunt artifacts at least fifty times a year and I find a lot of prehistoric artifacts on an annual basis. If I am lucky I might find a really exceptional artifact once or twice a year. I found that really exceptional atlatl weight early in the year. That gave me hope for the rest of the year! 

Figure Four - 3.2-inch long atlatl weight showing slightly concave planar surface.   

Using Neuman’s (1967:48) atlatl weight classification I determined my atlatl weight was a Class I atlatl weight. Of sixty atlatl weights from thirty-nine locations in North America, Neuman classified thirty-seven of them as Class I. Neuman described Class I atlatl weights:

“This is the most popular class under consideration. All are of stone. In side view these appear loaf shaped with blunt to rounded to vaguely point ends. They are plano-convex in cross section usually with slight concavity to the planar surface. They may have one or more grooves on their convex surface, or they may be plain.”

                       Length mm             Height mm              Width mm                 Weight gm

Range               41-94                       12-27                      14-33                      11.3-79.2

My atlatl weight is 81 millimeters long, 14 millimeters high, 11 millimeters wide, and weighs 12.6 grams. It is in the upper range of Neuman’s Class I for length and in the lower range for height and weight. It falls outside the range for width.

Figure Five - Examples of Class 1 atlatl 
weights from Stevenson and Meyer (2020). 

I always assumed that prehistoric hunters used atlatl weights to add mass to their atlatl handles to increase the momentum of the throwing motion. The higher momentum then translated into faster velocity and farther distance for the projectile or atlatl dart. I thought my assumption was pretty cut and dry until I researched the topic.  

Numerous atlatl weight theories and experimentation sprouted after the discovery of atlatl handles with small stones attached to them in the southwest United States. Stevenson and Meyer (2020:4) reported that based on archaeological evidence, atlatl weighting, and fletching were probably North American innovations. However, I am not so sure about that. I reviewed Usacheva’s (2013:59) article on Eurasian artifacts with transverse grooves (ATG) and concluded that a few of the artifacts bore an uncanny resemblance to the grooved, loaf-shaped atlatl weights found on the Great Plains of North America (figure six). In my opinion, there was a possibility that a few of the Eurasian artifacts with transverse grooves were used as atlatl weights, and not shaft straighteners as prescribed in her article. I reached out to the author to pass along my thoughts, but as of today, I have received no feedback.  

What purpose did those small weights play in the performance of the atlatl weapon system? When evaluating a prehistoric weapon system, there are several parameters that define a system’s performance. Those parameters include ease of use, killing power, velocity, projectile distance, and accuracy to the target. I have discussed ease of use and killing power associated with the atlatl weapon system in previous articles (Branney 2018; 2018a; 2013). In this article, I will explore the effects of an atlatl weight on velocity, distance, and accuracy.       

Webb (1957) theorized that the atlatl weight transferred momentum from the atlatl handle to the projectile or dart and that resulted in increased force and distance. In physics, force is defined as the push or pull on an object (the atlatl dart) with a mass (the atlatl handle) causing a change in velocity. Hill (1948) experimented with different combinations of atlatl handles, weights, and spears and concluded that adding weight to the atlatl handle did not increase velocity or distance (Whittaker 2010:207). Hill’s experiment highlighted that the best-performing combination came from a weighted atlatl handle with a lightweight dart. Mau (1963) experienced a fifteen to twenty-five percent improvement in distance using a moderately weighted atlatl handle while Howard (1974) experienced an eighteen percent drop in the distance with a weighted atlatl handle. In his testing with different sizes of atlatl handles, Van Buren (1974) saw no improvement in the distance by adding more weight to the atlatl handle.

Figure Six - Look familiar?
Examples of Eurasian artifacts
with transverse grooves. 
Usacheva (2016).    

Palter (1976) approached the atlatl weight theory from a slightly different angle, noting that adding a moderate weight produced flexing in the atlatl handle. The flexing was supposed to add springlike energy to the existing lever action of the atlatl weapon system. However, Palter concluded that adding weight to the atlatl handle was not always good for the performance of the system and that the heavier the atlatl weight, the less distance the dart flew. Perkins (1993) agreed that atlatl weights increased the flexure and stored energy within the atlatl handle, but that the flexing did not significantly influence the velocity of the dart. Whittaker, Maginniss, and Hilton (2005) agreed that flexure within the atlatl handle did not significantly improve dart velocity. Whittaker (2010) stated that adding weight slowed the atlatl handle down during the throwing motion. The velocity was particularly impacted toward the distal end of the atlatl handle where maximum velocity was most critical for throwing performance.

The above citations and results are only a partial list of experiments done to determine the performance and purpose of atlatl weights. The inconsistencies between experiments and conclusions are clear. After my research, I concluded that no one really knew what the purpose of atlatl weights was. Raymond (1986) blamed the contradictory results on too many variables within and between the various experiments. Some of the variations he noted were the types of wood used, the dimension of the atlatl handles and darts, and the ability to reproduce and measure each atlatl toss with minimal variation between each toss. After reviewing the work of others, Raymond did his own testing and determined that with a weighted atlatl handle, he could throw two to seven meters farther (5-11%) and increase the dart’s velocity up to 8.2%.

Raymond downplayed the importance of his results. He made the profound observation that incremental improvements in velocity and distance with an atlatl weight were irrelevant within the world of hunting. The goal of hunting was to bring down prey as quickly and efficiently as possible. To achieve that goal, atlatl hunters needed to be relatively close to their prey. Raymond believed that close-range accuracy was more critical to successful hunting than incremental improvements in velocity and distance. That was especially relevant to the atlatl weapon system which was not known for its accuracy over long distances.  

Stevenson and Meyer (2020) summarized the possible benefits of atlatl weights such as charms or totemic symbols, improving the velocity and distance of the dart, acting as an “at rest” balance between the atlatl handle and the dart, adding spring energy through the handle and dart flexing, and steadying the inertia to improve accuracy. After their summary of past experiments, the authors agreed that the real purpose for atlatl weights was still undetermined. The authors agreed with Raymond that when hunting, the atlatl weapon system required the hunter to be as close to the target as possible. That notion negated any benefit to small improvements in velocity and distance. It appeared that close-range accuracy might be the name of the game and might be the prehistoric reason for atlatl weights. 

Figure Seven - CLICK for SHADOWS on the TRAIL Pentalogy 

Brown (1967) applied mechanical physics in his argument that atlatl weights stabilized the throwing motion. When launching an atlatl dart, the atlatl handle rotates around a fulcrum. A fulcrum is a point on which the lever rests. The inertia for that throw can be expressed as:

I = ⅓ML²

Where I = moment of inertia

M = mass

L = length of the atlatl handle from the distal to the proximal end

 

The moment of inertia is the quantity expressing a body's tendency to resist angular or rotational acceleration. The greater the inertia, the more resistance there is to the body achieving maximum velocity. For anyone who has played baseball or softball, a baseball bat is a good example of the inertia concept. A person swings a lighter baseball bat with more velocity than a heavier bat because it is more difficult to accelerate a heavier bat. Heavy bats and atlatl handles have higher inertia than light bats and light atlatl handles!

When adding weight to an atlatl handle, the inertia increased, but so did angular or rotational momentum, which is expressed as:

 L = MVR

L = angular momentum

M = mass

V = velocity

R = radius

 

By adding an atlatl weight, the combination of higher inertia and higher angular momentum stabilized the throwing arc of the atlatl handle resulting in an improvement in close-range accuracy. 

Figure Eight - Photograph taken on February 27th, 2023, just moments
after picking up what I believed was an old ballpoint pen.  

I end this article with the same opinion that I started out with; the reason(s) behind why prehistoric people added weight to atlatl handles is still undetermined. We remain in the theory and experimental stage. Prehistoric people might have used atlatl weights as charms or totemic symbols, to improve velocity and distance, to enhance close-range accuracy, or all of the above. I doubt we ever find a conclusive answer. 

I must give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the prehistoric people who came up with the innovation of the atlatl weight. Prehistoric people were pretty savvy and smart individuals. Those people knew why they used atlatl weights several millennia before Sir Isaac Newton or books on physics. If close-range accuracy was prehistoric people’s primary goal (which is what I personally believe), they came to that conclusion from the good ole scientific method called trial and error. If we could take a time machine back in time, I think we would be amazed at the innovations that prehistoric people came up with while surviving in a very tough and unforgiving world.    

See you next time!

 

References Cited.

Branney, John Bradford. 2018. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part Three. Academia.

 

2018a. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part Two. Academia.

 

2013. The Atlatl Weapon System and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL – Part One. Academia.    

Brown, Jeffrey L. 1967. The Use of Atlatl Weights: a Suggestion. Southwestern Lore. 32(4): 84-85.     

Hill, Malcolm. 1948. The Atlatl, or Throwing Stick, A Recent Study of Atlatls in Use with Darts of Various Sizes. Tennessee Archaeologist. 4:37-44. 

Howard, Calvin D. The Atlatl: Function and Performance. American Antiquity. 39(1): 102-104.   

Mau, Clayton. 1963. Experiments with the Spear Thrower. The New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 29:1-13.

Neuman, Robert W. 1967. Atlatl Weights from Certain Sites on the Northern and Central Great Plains. American Antiquity. Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan. 1967).    

Palter, John L. 1976. A New Approach to the Significance of the "Weighted" Spear Thrower. American Antiquity. 41(4): 500-510.

Perkins, W.R. 1993. Atlatl Weights: Function and Classification. Bulletin of Primitive Technology, 1(5): 58-61.     

Raymond, Anan. 1986. Experiments in the Function and Performance of the Weighed Atlatl in World Archaeology. Volume 18, No. 2, October 1986.  

Stevenson, Thomas W., and David Meyer. 2020. The Atlatl Weights of Saskatchewan in Archaeological Survey of Alberta Occasional Paper No. 40.

Usacheva, I.V. 2013. On the Function of “Grooved Stones” in Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia, 41 (4). 

Usacheva, I.V. 2016. Transverse Grooved Artefacts from Southwestern Asia and Northern Eurasia: Common Traits and Reconstruction of Function. Journal of Lithic Study.    

Van Buren, G.E. 1974. Arrowheads and Projectile Points. Garden Grove. Arrowhead Publishing Co.

Webb, William S. 1957. The Development of the Spearthrower. University of Kentucky Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 2.  

Whittaker, John C. 2010. Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology. Experimental Archaeology, edited by Jeff Ferguson.

Whittaker, John C., Andrew Maginniss, and Charles Hilton. 2005. Physical Principles and the Atlatl: Throwing Motion and Atlatl Flex. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa.      

 

About the Author.  

John Bradford Branney is an author, geologist, and prehistorian. Since retiring from a thirty-four-year career in the oil and gas industry, Branney has written eleven books and over ninety articles and papers, mostly focused on geology, paleoclimatology, and archaeology. Branney received a BS degree in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado. He currently lives in the Colorado Mountains with his family.         

 

The Saga of Dr. Evil and Mini-Me

 The Saga of Dr. Evil and Mini-Me

by John Bradford Branney

Figure One – The dorsal side of the first “mystery stone” that  I found at the prehistoric
rock quarry on 12/20/2020. Definitely faceted and polished. The scale is 6.5 inches long.  

Anyone who has hunted artifacts for any length of time has picked up a rock or two that they did not know whether ole Mother Nature or a prehistoric human modified it. Every time I go artifact hunting, I bring back a couple of mystery stones to study under better light and magnification. More often than not, I toss those mystery stones out with the other rocks and chipping debris alongside the road in our pasture. Those tossed pieces are a story unto themselves. Someday when I am long dead and gone, some curious lad or lass will be walking along that road and see all the chipping debris and think they discovered the motherlode, maybe the next Lindenmeier archaeological site.

Five days before Christmas in 2020, I hunted a new spot in northern Colorado along the hills and floodplains of an intermittent creek. I did not have much hope in finding any artifacts because I knew that locals were hunting the area for several decades. But as the old saying goes, “you never know what you are going to find until you look”. Besides, I needed to get away from the house for a nice winter stroll.   

I was pleasantly surprised to discover what appeared to be a prehistoric rock quarry on a hill overlooking the creek (figure two). There were digging pits and a couple of really nice stone circles. In my opinion, the rocks used in the stone circles were much too large just to hold down the bases of the tipis. Some of the rocks would have taken two strong people to haul them to the circle. My gut told me that the previous occupants used the stone circles for some unknown ritual. Quartzite chipping debris littered the ground over several acres along the ridge but worked pieces and artifacts were few and far between. That was exactly what I expected; the locals hunted it out. Mixed amongst the quartzite, I did find the occasional jasper or chalcedony flake that the prehistoric occupants hauled to the site.   

I spotted an interesting piece of diorite that looked completely out of place on the ridge. I picked it up for a closer examination (figure one). The ventral side of the rock was flat and wore its original dull and craggy rock surface while the rounded dorsal side of the rock was faceted and appeared modified by some process, either natural or by human hands. The distal end of the rock featured a worn and polished tip. The rock exhibited a beveled, polished edge around its perimeter, except for the proximal end which remained sharp. I studied the proximal end of the rock, and it

Figure Two – Foggy, cold, and windy morning in November 2022 on the ridge at the prehistoric rock quarry, November 2022. In the middle ground is a well-made stone circle made from massive quartzite cobbles, the same rock type the prehistoric people were mining.

was a little banged up as if someone used it as a pick or hammer. I did not think much of the rock, but I threw it in my backpack anyway. I left the site with a few worked artifact pieces, so the trip was not a complete bust. And it isn’t every day that I crossed paths with a legitimate prehistoric rock quarry.

When I arrived home that evening, I evaluated the worked pieces and threw most of them alongside our road. Then, I remembered the backpack and the mystery stone. I retrieved and studied that rock from every angle under good light and magnification. For some reason, that rock intrigued me. The ventral side was rough, dull, and natural while the dorsal side looked pecked and formed. The facets on the dorsal side were distinct and fairly sharp. Most of the polished beveled perimeter along the ventral part of the rock looked modified by a human, in my opinion. What kind of selective weathering would leave the bottom of the rock original and rough while polishing the top of the rock, and the edges and tip? It was time to crack open some books. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I knew I wasn’t on the verge of discovering the “Holy Grail of All Prehistoric Artifacts” or “King Tutankhamun’s Mask”. I was under no delusions. At that stage in my evaluation, it was just another rock. I have seen the majestic hardstone artifacts people find east of the High Plains; the pipes and bannerstones and holy cow, some of those axes! Wow! I have hunted the High Plains most of my long life and the best hardstone artifacts I have found are metates, lots of manos, and an occasional axe, pony tie, or roller pestle. That is about it. Hardstone artifacts on the High Plains are as rare as moose feathers.  

It took me a few days for my curiosity about that puzzling chunk of diorite to wear off. I cataloged the rock in my artifact database as an adze or a hide-burnishing tool. Then, I went about my business. I did not know what that mystery stone was, and so I chalked it up to another one-off mystery. Life went on and I hunted artifacts at least once per week throughout 2021.

I returned to that prehistoric rock quarry thirteen months later on January 17, 2022. I discovered another mystery stone, just like the first one, only smaller. The second mystery stone was almost like the first one: same material, design, polished edges, worn tip, and unifacial profile (figure three). I named the smaller one Mini-Me after the little guy in the Austin Powers movie. If the smaller mystery stone on the left in figure three is Mini-Me, then the larger mystery stone on the right must be Dr. Evil. That makes sense to me.

For those of you who have not seen the Austin Powers movies, you are probably asking yourself, “What in the world is he talking about?” I request some latitude when dealing with my bizarre sense of humor and in my odd comparison of rocks to movie characters.

I posted a couple of photographs of Dr. Evil and Mini-Me on an artifact social media site just to see if anyone recognized what they were. I know, I must have been either brave or stupid to ask for serious feedback on an internet artifact site. The feedback did not disappoint me. I received a barrage of incoming missiles. It was open season on poor ole Dr. Evil and Mini-Me. The reactions and responses ranged from cynical to consolatory. I received advice ranging from “leave it where you found it” and “better luck next time” to 

Figure Three - The second mystery stone on the left (Mini-Me), and the 
first mystery stone on the right (Dr. Evil). Dr. Evil is 6.5 inches long. 

“are you kidding me?” I received little encouragement and zero serious answers. The feedback was pretty harsh, but I gave it a try. 

Next, I e-mailed a couple of photographs to an artifact hunter who knows his High Plains stuff inside and out, and he pretty much indulged me in my fantasy. I saw through his kind comments, but I could tell Dr. Evil and Mini-Me did not impress him. I am sure he thought I was sniffing too much glue or something. After thoroughly studying the two mystery stones, I was convinced more than ever that someone from the prehistoric past modified them. But who did it and for what purpose? I tucked the ‘artifacts’ away and my puzzle remained unsolved.

I returned to the quarry site on an intensely cold and windy day in February 2022. My hands and feet practically froze off! My eyes never stopped watering from the blast of arctic wind! While shivering my pea-sized brain out of its cranial cavity, my weeping eyes focused on the ground. Doesn’t an old saying go, “the third times the charm?” Sure enough, I discovered number three.  It was not as classy and polished as the first two mystery stones, but it was the right shape and form, and in my humble opinion, it was not natural. Finding that third mystery stone reenergized my interest in solving the mystery!

  

Figure Four – Rounded and polished bottom edge of Dr. Evil, mystery stone

number one. The scale is 6.5 inches long.

 

I went searching through my archaeological library for lookalikes, but no tuve suerte. I was disappointed in my research results, but not entirely discouraged. By now, I was convinced more than ever I was finding something unusual and cool.  

In November 2022, I returned to the rock quarry site and found two more of the mystery stones. Figure five is the new lineup. So far, I have found eight mystery stones at the rock quarry site, and one mystery stone on another multicultural site about four miles north-northeast of the rock quarry. A buddy of mine also found one on a site about thirty miles southwest of the rock quarry. I now believe that I am on to something! My big question is what is it that my something is onto? I often wonder why I have not found any of these mystery stones before 2020. Is that because I was not looking for them? And why have I not seen these in archaeological site reports from the High Plains? Were these unique to that one area? Was one person making them and I just happened to find his calling cards?

While I can only speculate what the prehistoric human(s) used them for, I wasn’t looking for them on other sited before I found Dr. Evil and Mini-Me. It makes me wonder how many other Dr. Evils I walked over in my lifetime of artifact hunting.

Figure Five – Nine mystery stones from December 2020 to November 2022,

all from the same rock quarry site except for one.

In November 2022, I sent a couple of photographs to a High Plains archaeologist I happen to know at a nearby university. My thinking was perhaps he saw these before at some site. The archaeologist promptly e-mailed me an internet link of photographs of ventifacts; stones or pebbles shaped, worn, faceted, cut, and/or polished by the abrasive or sandblasting action of windblown sand, generally in desert environments. Without ever checking out Dr. Evil and Mini-Me in person, the archaeologist rejected my premise.      

Well…what can I say. Nevertheless, I am pursuing my research until I find answers. My collecting at the rock quarry will continue, full steam ahead. There is a remote chance that the mystery stones are not prehistoric artifacts, but naturally formed ventifacts or geofacts. The wear, polishing, and/or could be purely coincidental. If that is the case, which I do not believe, Mother Nature is really, really good.

I question why I haven’t discovered these mystery stones at other sites in the area? The simple answer might be that I was not looking for pieces of diorite or other igneous rocks on those sites. Ordinarily, I won’t pick up a chunk of diorite or granite, or other igneous rock unless it has the right shape for a metate, mano, pestle, pony tie, or axe.

Why haven’t I seen these mystery stone types in archaeological site reports from the High Plains? If archaeologists found them in situ, wouldn’t they publish them in archaeological reports? Perhaps, the answer is that one prehistoric or historic Indian tribe made and used the mystery stones on a localized basis for processing animal hides. Maybe, one person or a small group of people made them in that specific area for a specific purpose. Who knows? I don’t. Maybe someday I will know the answers.                

                 

 

John Bradford Branney is an author, geologist, and prehistorian. He has written eleven books and numerous magazine articles mostly focused on geology and archaeology. He received a B.S. in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado. He spent thirty-four years in the energy business. Branney lives with his family in the Colorado mountains