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