 |
   |
Friday, October 26, 2018
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Who Dun It? Clovis, Folsom, or Something Else? Part IV
 |
| Figure One - 3.5-inch-long semi-translucent biface, a surface find from private land in south-central Wyoming. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
There is a fair chance that the beautiful biface in Figure One is an ultrathin knife form from a Paleoindian prehistoric culture between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago. Why do I say fair chance and not more definitive? Because the late Jim Roth surface-found this artifact on private land in Carbon County, Wyoming, out of archaeological context. Since surface artifact hunters must be 'part detective' when it comes to identifying some artifacts, I will provide some evidence for a prehistoric culture I think it came from. But first, I want to explore a passage from my historical fiction book on Paleoindians titled GHOSTS of the HEART.
For those of you who have not read my popular prehistoric adventure series about the Folsom People, the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy, my main character, Chayton, and other hunters in his tribe carried ultrathin knife forms to filet meat from the prey animals they butchered. In this scene, Chayton and the hunters set up a trap and harvested a small herd of bison. I imagine hunting bison 12,600 years ago was an adventure in itself. Butchering the bison was probably even harder work.
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.
 |
| Figure Two - CLICK for INFO |
Now that I gave you a taste of GHOSTS of the HEART, let's go back to the knife form in question. I believe that this knife form is definitely Paleoindian, either a Folsom ultrathin knife form or a Clovis ovate biface.
Why? Let me explain my logic.
1. The dimensions of this knife form are: 88 mm long, 42 mm wide, and 5 mm thick, giving it a width-to-thickness ratio of 8.4, well within the arbitrary width-to-thickness ratio for ultrathin knife forms of 7 or greater.
2. The raw material is wild: a beautiful semi-translucent, banded petrified wood.
 |
| Figure Three - 3.5-inch long biface surface found in Wyoming. One edge along the biface was polished smooth, indicating to me that the user handheld it. Note the diving flakes near the middle of the biface. John Bradford Branney Collection. |
 |
| Figure Four - Powars II red ocher archaeological site in east central Wyoming. |
3. In several flake terminations, there appear to be oxidized iron deposits or staining, much like you would find when red ochre was applied. Ochre is a natural mineral containing ferric oxide. It is typically associated with clay and varies in color from light yellow to brown to red. Red ochre has been found in many different archaeological contexts, including Paleoindian occupation floors. Paleoindians sometimes painted their tools and projectile points with red ochre. Red ochre has also been associated with Paleoindian burials. Red ochre was widely used at Paleoindian levels at Powars II, Hanson, Hell Gap, Sheaman, and the Medicine Lodge Creek archaeological sites in Wyoming. Investigators discovered a grinding slab used for pulverizing red ochre nodules and rocks into powder at the Folsom level at the Agate Basin site in eastern Wyoming.
4. We know prehistoric people used different types of ochre for paint pigment, and we assume they used it for both functional and ritualistic reasons. Upper Paleolithic graves in Europe and at least one Clovis grave in the United States contained ochre. Ochre was used in the Magdalenian period in Europe as an ingredient in an adhesive to haft knife forms and projectile points to handles and foreshafts. Perhaps North American Paleoindians did the same and used red ochre as an adhesive for fastening projectile points and knives to spears and handles. We also know that red ochre preserves wood. That would explain the occurrence of red ochre in the hafting area of many Clovis projectile points. Some investigators also believe that Paleoindian flintknappers in North America might have used red ochre as an abrasive to polish and dull the lateral edges in the hafting areas of projectile points. Dulling the edges was a common practice in Paleoindian and Early Archaic times. We assume this dulling was done to prevent the sharp edges of the stone artifact from cutting the sinew lashings. Red ochre is also commonly found with Clovis tool caches, but we cannot be sure what purpose that served.
5. It is not coincidental that the predominant colors used in rock art and cave art in the Old World and in some cases, New World, were black (from charcoal, soot, or manganese oxide), yellow ochre (limonite), red ochre (hematite or burned limonite) and white (kaolin clay, burnt shells, powdered gypsum, or powdered calcium carbonate).
 |
| Figure Five - Clovis and Paleoindian biface thinning sequence. From The Agate Basin Site by George C Frison and Dennis J. Stanford. |
6. I love Paleoindian flintknapping, especially the biface thinning through percussion technology. The flaking on the artifact in figures one, three, and six screams out as Paleoindian origin. Paleoindians attacked a piece of flint with carefree but skilled abandon. The Paleoindian flintknapper's attitude must have been "why thin a biface with ten swings of a hammer when five swings accomplish the same goal?" Paleoindians thinned bifaces with wide, thin flakes that crossed the face of the biface, sometimes overshooting the opposite edge (see figure five). The end result was wide, thin, and long flakes that were exceptionally flat, which thinned the biface without losing overall length or width. On the artifact photographed in figures one, three, and six, several of these wide-thin-flat flakes terminate midway across the face of the biface, creating step or hinge terminations midway. These diving flakes created a biconcave cross-section for this knife form. Some of these diving flakes were met by diving flakes from the other side, creating an even more concave profile in the middle of the artifact.
 |
Figure Six - Reverse side of a 3.5-inch long biface. Note diving flakes near
the middle of the biface. John Bradford Branney Collection.
|
Few knife forms or biface types are culturally diagnostic. It usually takes finding them in situ under controlled archaeological and geological conditions to determine age or cultural affiliation. This knife form was a surface find, but I propose it came from the Folsom or Clovis Paleoindian culture based on its production technology, knapping characteristics, and the presence of oxidized red ochre. But just because I think that does not necessarily make it so.
Disclaimer: I have NOT had this knife 'officially' tested for the presence of red ochre, although several knowledgeable collectors and archaeologists have looked it over and concluded the same thing. My assumption that it is red ochre is from those opinions, my experience and research, and observation of the deposits under high magnification.
So, what is your opinion? Is it a Clovis Ovate Biface
or a Folsom Ultrathin Knife or maybe something else altogether?
The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his soon-to-be-released blockbuster Beyond the Campfire, Branney catapults his readers back into Prehistoric America where they reunite with some familiar faces from Branney’s best-selling prehistoric adventure series the Shadows on the Trail Hexalogy.
John Bradford Branney holds a degree in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. John lives in the Colorado mountains with his wife, Theresa. Beyond the Campfire is the eleventh published book by Branney.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Part II- Atlatl Weapons and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL
 |
| Figure One - Photo of a painting called Pre-Columbian Indian with Atlatl by the well-known Western artist James Bama. |
In Part One of my series on the Atlatl and the SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy, I discussed the overall concept of the atlatl weapon system and the advantages the thrower gained by lengthening their throwing arm with an atlatl. With everything else being equal, lengthening the throwing arm with a spear thrower or an atlatl increases
the velocity and distance of an airborne spear or dart. Higher velocity means better penetration, which translates to more tissue and organ damage in the prey. Of course, there is always too much of a good thing, and increasing the length of an atlatl past its optimal limit will significantly decrease the spear's accuracy.
A young elk bull and cow appeared out
of the trees, trotting out onto the open field. Chayton was at full alert. The
elk had yet to spot Chayton, and they were heading straight towards the hunter.
The bull elk was leading the way with the cow elk following behind. They held
their heads high as they sniffed the breeze for predators. Chayton was downwind, and he realized this was what Hexaka had planned the entire time.
Chayton’s
cocked his left throwing arm. He was
ready to heave the spear. He needed
the beasts closer. The bull was walking straight toward the hunter, but Chayton
did not like the chances of this throw. The bull had no vital organs exposed to
Chayton’s line of fire. Chayton
could throw the spear perfectly and still not kill the beast. The last thing
Chayton wanted to do was track down a wounded elk during the heat of the day across
country inhabited by wolves and mountain lions. He needed the elk to turn and
expose its side to his spear. Chayton
thought about moving his spot, but
one sound and both elk would be off and running in the opposite direction. If
the elk got any closer, they were bound to pick up Chayton’s scent.
Chayton searched the ground with
his off hand and found a rock. While his left arm kept the spear ready, he
hurled the rock off to his right. The rock bounced off a tree and rolled across
the ground. The bull elk turned to investigate the sound and in doing so, exposed
his side to the hunter. Chayton did not wait for any grass to grow; he hurled
the spear. The razor-sharp fluted spear tip popped loudly when it penetrated
the bull’s rib cage. The bull ran off as if nothing had happened. Chayton watched
the bull elk plowing through the trees and vanishing from sight.
What happened with the elk? You will have to read the SHADOWS on the TRAIL to find out. Don't worry, the journey I take you on will be worth your time.
 |
| CLICK for INFORMATION on SHADOWS |
In part two, I am exploring the flight of the atlatl-launched spear or dart, but first, a little housekeeping. In the following paragraphs, I will refer to the weapon that leaves the atlatl as a spear, even though some literature might refer to the weapon as a dart. In part two, the atlatl spear and dart are synonymous.
The mechanics of an atlatl system depend on the flexibility of the spear. When the atlatl pushes the spear forward (figure three), energy is transferred from the atlatl and stored in the spear, much like a spring. When the spear 'lifts off' from the atlatl, the stored energy is released and converted to additional velocity as it flies toward the target.
 |
| Figure Three - The ingenuity of the mechanics behind the atlatl is the stored energy within a flexed spear. |
Two concepts from physics help us to better understand the flight of an atlatl-launched spear. The first concept is momentum. Most of us have used the term momentum and generally understand how it works. Perhaps, we were talking about the momentum of our favorite sports
team or a political candidate's campaign. In physics, momentum is defined as the tendency of an
object to continue moving in its original direction. Momentum
is an object’s resistance to stopping. An example of momentum is a rolling freight
train that suddenly needs to stop. A loaded freight train's momentum takes the train longer to stop because of its momentum.
How is momentum calculated? Momentum (P) is equal to the object's mass (M) multiplied by the object's velocity (V). As an example, if a lighter atlatl spear is flying through the air at the same velocity as a heavier atlatl spear, the lighter spear has less momentum than the heavier spear. Also, less resistance is required to stop a lighter spear if traveling at the same velocity as the heavier spear. If one changes the mass or velocity of the object, momentum changes.
Momentum = P = M x V
As the equation above indicates, mass and velocity carry the same weight in calculating momentum. A slower-moving heavy spear can have the same momentum as a faster-moving light spear.
 |
| Figure Four - Middle Archaic atlatl dart points from the high plains showing size ranges. The longest point is 1.9 inches long. John Bradford Branney Collection |
The second physics concept is kinetic energy, which is defined as the energy
of an object in motion. The more kinetic energy a spear has, the more available
energy it has to penetrate the prey's hide, break any bones in its path, and push the projectile point and spear shaft further into the prey's body cavity.
Just like momentum, kinetic energy is defined using an object’s mass and velocity, but mass and velocity affect kinetic energy differently than momentum. While mass and velocity carry equal weight
in momentum, velocity is more important than mass in kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy (KE) is equal to one-half times mass (½ M) multiplied by (x)
velocity squared (V²).
Kinetic Energy = KE
= ½M x V²
To calculate kinetic energy, we divide the mass in half and square the velocity!
I mentioned earlier that a slower-moving heavy spear can have the same momentum as a faster-moving light spear. However, the faster-moving light spear has more kinetic energy than the slower-moving heavy spear. Velocity has a much stronger influence on kinetic
energy than it does momentum. If the heavy spear and light spear are flying at the same velocity, the heavy spear has more kinetic energy because it has more mass. Although mass is important when it comes to spears, velocity has a bigger influence on distance, kinetic energy, and accuracy. The atlatl or the spear thrower portion of the weapon system has little influence on the size or mass of the spear, but it does have a huge influence on increasing a given spear's velocity.
 |
| Figure Five - Paleoindians carrying atlatls and spears. |
Is a heavy or a light spear more lethal when it comes to hunting with an atlatl? Whittaker, Pettigrew, and Grohsmeyer
(2017) explored the relationship between heavy and light spears and suggested that Paleoindians who hunted large mammals such as mammoths or bison required heavier spears and projectile points. The spear had to be able to cut a hole through the animal's hide with enough momentum to reach its vital organs and/or cause lethal hemorrhaging. Close your eyes and imagine
hunting a gigantic mammoth with a light spear and a small
projectile point. I would say that would be like “hunting a bear with a willow switch”. Although it is not prudent to hunt mammoths with undersized equipment, that same equipment might be suitable for hunting wary antelope on the plains, where adding velocity improves both distance and accuracy.
It is logical to assume that Paleoindians customized their atlatl weapon systems for the type of prey they were hunting. If the targeted prey were mammoth or bison, the spears and projectile points might be heavier. If the targeted prey were deer, antelope, or mountain sheep, the spears and projectile points might be lighter and take advantage of increased velocity and distance. This is not any different from what modern game hunters do. You don’t see experienced hunters using rifles and cartridges designed for elephants on antelope or vice versa. That just doesn't make sense, and Paleoindians had to make sense if they wanted to survive.
Happy Hunting!
2017 Whittaker,
John C., Devin B. Pettigrew, and Ryan J. Grohsmeyer
Atlatl Dart Velocity:
Accurate Measurements and Implications for Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology
in Paleoamerica, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.
161-181. College Station.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
A High Plains Paleoindian Projectile Point Journey
A High Plains Paleoindian Projectile Point Journey
by John Bradford Branney
 |
Figure 1 - 4.3-inch-long Agate Basin lance point from Holt County, Nebraska and made from jasper around twelve thousand years ago. |
In this article, I often refer to an artifact as a 'point'. My use of the term 'point' does not reflect the artifact's past functionality as a tool, knife, or projectile point, but only a generic description for an artifact with a 'point'.
When artifact hunters and collectors get together, the discussions often lead to stories about artifacts and artifact hunts, and artifacts from the Paleoindian Period are often the subject of those show-and-tells. Paleoindian artifacts are the oldest and rarest, and their workmanship is often unsurpassed. I believe that most artifact collectors consider the Paleoindian Period the high mark in prehistoric flintknapping. Figure 1 is a prime example of the kind of workmanship we see from the Paleoindian Period. The flintknapper made that point straight and symmetrical. A few Paleoindian points that I have observed are literally works of art, produced by the 'best of the best' flintknappers back in those long-ago days.
Over the next few pages, I will present a pictorial journey of Paleoindian points and convey to the reader my thoughts on how and why projectile point types evolved. I have divided the analysis and artifacts into three Paleoindian Periods: Early, Middle, and Late. Figure 2 below shows the classic arrangement of High Plains Paleoindian projectile point types from approximately 13,000 to 10,000 years ago, left to right. That is the chronological order for projectile points that I remembered from childhood. It has generally not changed much from my childhood, although it is not as serial or sequential as I once thought: more on that later. In general, the overall evolution began with fluted or basally thinned points, then shifted to long, slender points. From there shoulders developed, and eventually the points became stemmed with squarish bases.
 |
Figure 2 - Three thousand years of Paleoindian projectile point evolution on the high plains. From left to right: Clovis (MT), Goshen (CO), Folsom (CO), Agate Basin (NE), Hell Gap (CO), and Scottsbluff (CO). For scale, the Scottsbluff point is 3.95 inches long. |
Early Paleoindian Period
Clovis is the most famous Paleoindian culture in the archaeological record across North America. The Clovis people were once thought to be the first Americans to explore the continent, but several archaeological sites have now challenged the longstanding Clovis First Theory (Branney 2019). The Clovis Complex still remains one of the oldest and most widespread settlement patterns across the continent, and the Clovis point is one of the most sought-after artifacts to find. The Clovis Complex ranged from Canada to Central America, and from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans. The point in Figure 3 is a classically-made Clovis point surface recovered in northern New Mexico.
 |
| Figure 3 - 3.85-inch-long Clovis spear/knife form from Colfax County, New Mexico. Pedogenic carbonate conceals the original raw material on both sides of the artifact. |
While Clovis points might not be as aesthetically pleasing or as delicately made as other Paleoindian projectile point types, such as Folsom or Cody Complex, they are highly coveted for both their rarity and reputation. I call Clovis the 'blue collar points' of the Early Paleoindian period. Flintknappers made them for the sole purpose of wounding or killing large megafauna. From a technological perspective, Clovis flintknappers were best known for their bifacial reduction processes, using mostly percussion flaking and limited their use of pressure flaking.
Percussion flaking used a physical strike or blow from a hammerstone or similar tool to detach large flakes from the raw material or artifact while pressure flaking applied a direct, concentrated force from a sharpened antler or bone to detach small, finer flakes from the artifact. In general, percussion was used for coarser work and shaping the artifact, while pressure was reserved for refining and sharpening the artifact.
 |
| Figure 4 - Clovis hunters driving a wounded mammoth into a dead-end arroyo some 13,000 years ago. Painting by Roy Anderson for National Geographic. |
Figure 4 is an artist's rendition of what archaeologists believed happened at the Colby Clovis site in northern Wyoming approximately 13,000 years ago. Clovis hunters herded wounded mammoths into a dead-end arroyo where they most likely waited for the beasts to bleed out and die. Whether Clovis points were lethal enough to kill a mammoth or mastodon outright is still actively debated (Bower 2022). The Clovis hunters were armed with spears with sharp stone points, making it easier to penetrate tough animal hides. The blade edges on the stone points were wide enough to cut a large enough hole in the hide to allow the weapon's foreshaft to enter the wound. The flintknappers polished the proximal margins of the point to prevent cutting the sinew used to attach the point to the weapon's foreshaft, preventing a catastrophic weapon failure during the hunt. The basal thinning and/or fluting streamlined the point with a split foreshaft. Clovis flintknappers made Clovis points stout enough to withstand the mechanical stresses of hunting large, dangerous megafauna.
 |
| Figure 5 -A Late Stage A Clovis preform* from the author's collection, surface found in southeastern Colorado. Note the long, wide percussion flakes typically used in Clovis biface reduction. *(Waters and Jennings 2015: 35). |
If Clovis points were the model of effectiveness and
efficiency, why did they disappear?
One possible explanation for the disappearance of Clovis points was a dramatic shift in the Late Pleistocene ecosystem and megafauna. Clovis people hunted or scavenged anything and everything that moved, from eleven-ton mammoths to jackrabbits. The monster-sized beasts, such as mammoths and mastodons, disappeared from the archaeological record around the same time that Clovis points disappeared. After that, the most popular prey for Paleoindians became the mighty bison. Adapt or die was a human trait 13,000 years ago and remains so even today. A change in prey might have motivated the Paleoindians to change their weapon components, specifically the projectile point design. Folsom, Goshen, and Midland projectile points appeared in the archaeological record near the tail end of the Clovis occupation. Certain Clovis features, such as concave bases, fluting or basal thinning, and polishing the blade edges in the hafting area, were retained. However, the projectile points became thinner and more delicate, with much more pressure flaking used. Figure 6 is a photograph of the three post-Clovis projectile point types that remained in use for nearly a millennium in Early Paleoindian times.
 |
| Figure 6 - After Clovis. From left to right: Goshen (ND), Folsom (KS), and Midland (WY). |
Figure 7 below is what I identified as a Folsom preform surface found in Mecosta County, Michigan and made from Norwood Chert. Although the preform was not a High Plains find, it was a perfect example for demonstrating the technological features required to flute a Folsom point. The first feature to notice was the broad and thin, well-spaced percussion flakes slightly arcing from both margins to form a ridge in the middle of the biface. Even with the ridge, the preform was thin with the thickest point in the middle measuring only 5.2 millimeters thick. The preform was also free of humps and dips that might cause a fluting failure.
On the proximal end of the biface, the Paleoindian flintknapper created a platform or fluting nipple (between the two red arrows). The nipple was created by removing two guide flakes on either side of it (red arrows). The guide flakes not only isolated the fluting platform at the base of the preform, but would have directed the channel flake along the middle ridge. The nipple was smoothed and bevelled on the reverse side. The flintknapper's ultimate goal was for the rock fracture to follow the middle of the ridge all the way to the tip while avoiding splitting, overshooting, or other damage to the preform.
During the fluting process, the preform would most likely be placed vertically on a stone anvil with the tip resting against the anvil's surface. The flintknapper blunted and polished the preform's tip (red arrow on the left), enhancing the tip's mechanical properties and mitigating any damage to the distal end when the flintknapper initiated the flute channel flake with an antler baton.
 |
| Figure 7 - Folsom preform ready to flute. |
We will never know why the flintknapper abandoned this preform.
Middle Paleoindian Period
Between 12,600 and 11,300 years ago, a major paradigm shift occurred with High Plains projectile point types. Frank Roberts (1943) was the first to formally document an Agate Basin point at a site by the same name in northeastern Wyoming. The Agate Basin projectile point type was a transformative change from the concave-based projectile points that preceded it in the Early Paleoindian Period. While Folsom, Goshen, and Midland points were thin and incorporated concave bases with either fluting or basal thinning, Agate Basin points were long and slender with lenticular cross sections and straight or slightly convex bases. Figure 8 illustrates the radical change in form and technology from Folsom to Agate Basin.
 |
| Figure 8 - Fluted Folsom point from central Wyoming (top), and an elongated Agate Basin point from northern Colorado. For scale, the Agate Basin point is 2.45 inches long. |
The changing of the guard from Folsom to Agate Basin did not happen sequentially. Goshen, Folsom, Agate Basin, and Hell Gap radiocarbon dates overlapped, and most investigators recognize that Paleoindians were making Folsom and Goshen points around the same time as Agate Basin points (Sellet 2001: 58; Branney 2015, 2022).
Where did the Agate Basin design come from? Why did Paleoindians pursue a different design? Did a High Plains Paleoindian wake up one morning with an idea for a new projectile point design? How did the Agate Basin design spread so far and wide from its point of origin? Did the technology originate within the existing population, or was it imported or traded onto the High Plains? There is much we still do not know about any of the Paleoindian projectile point types.
Archaeologist and flintknapper Bruce Bradley (2011: 485) wrote this about Agate Basin:
"It is my opinion that Agate Basin technology was not derived from Folsom technology on the Northwestern Plains and Rocky Mountains. This material [Agate Basin] could represent the first expression of northeast Asian technology, coming out of the northern Great Basin."
Perhaps Bradley was referring to the Haskett point from the Great Basin as the source for the Agate Basin design. Both point types were shoulderless, lanceolate-shaped, and from the Paleoindian period, but their manufacturing processes differed. While Haskett and Agate Basin were similarly shaped, Haskett points were generally larger, heavier, and had less workmanship done than a typical Agate Basin point.
The Agate Basin point remained in step with the High Plains Paleoindian tradition of high quality and artistry. Paleoindians obviously considered stone projectile points a critical component of their weapon system. It seemed projectile points meant much more than just a pointy rock at the end of a stick. Otherwise, Paleoindians would not have invested the time and effort to create projectile points that went far beyond what was required to kill the beasts of their time.
Agate Basin points were simple-looking technology, but took considerable effort to make. They were flat along their lengths with straight, smooth and symmetrical margins. The lower lateral and basal edges were often ground and polished to avoid cutting the wrapped sinew hafting. Agate Basin points were an efficient design that could be easily reworked, even when broken into segments. The Agate Basin point began a new trend and direction in High Plains projectile point technology that lasted over a millennium.
.jpg) |
| Figure 9- Two Hell Gap points mixed in with Agate Basin points at the type site. (Frison and Stanford 1982: 100-101). |
At the original Agate Basin type site in northeastern Wyoming, archaeologists received a glimpse of the 'shape of things to come'. Note the two points marked O and P in Figure 9. The Agate Basin points were mixed in with the 'next in line', a projectile point type archaeologists ultimately named Hell Gap. That provided more evidence that Paleoindian point types overlapped in both time and space. Hell Gap points were a continuation of Agate Basin technology, except that Hell Gap flintknappers terminated the production process earlier and added basal shoulders to improve anchoring the points onto foreshafts.
George Agogino (1961) first documented the Hell Gap projectile point type at the Hell Gap site in eastern Wyoming. Hell Gap projectile points were medium to large lanceolate-shaped points that were similar to Agate Basin points, except that the Hell Gap projectile points bore shoulders. Hell Gap stems were long and contracting. The blade edges from tip to base were either straight-to-concave or convex-to-straight-to-concave. The basal edges of the points were often ground and polished, which gave investigators an indication as to how far up the projectile point was hafted. The basal corners ranged from sharp to polished smooth. A classically made Hell Gap point surface collected in Goshen County, Wyoming, is second from the left in Figure 10.
 |
| Figure 10 - Middle Paleoindian projectile point evolution or revolution. From left to right: Agate Basin (CO), Hell Gap (WY), Alberta (CO) and Scottsbluff (CO). |
Then along came the Cody Complex!
G. L. Jepsen (1951) first coined the term Cody Complex to describe the coexistence of Scottsbluff and Eden points with Cody Knives at the Horner site near the town of Cody in northwestern Wyoming. An archaeological complex is a grouping of sites, structures, or artifacts demonstrating distinct cultural traits, shared time periods, or specific geographical ranges. The presence of a recurring assemblage of stone tools or manufacturing debitage at archaeological sites is thought to represent the technological traditions of a human group and is called a lithic complex. Figure 11 is a photograph of Cody Complex artifacts from the author's collection showing the five main artifact types.
 |
| Figure 11 - Five Cody Complex artifact types. From left to right: Alberta (NE), Scottsbluff (CO), Eden (WY), Firstview (CO), and Cody Knife (WY). |
The Cody Complex shared a common feature in their projectile points and knife forms that distinguished them from most other Paleoindian points: stems. While the earlier projectile point technology called Hell Gap possessed shoulders, Cody Complex flintknappers took the design a step further by squaring off the bases and creating a distinctive stem by intentionally removing thin pressure flakes along the lateral margins.
In her classic book Ancient Man in North America, Marie Wormington (1957) formally documented the Cody Complex and proposed the Cody Knife as the index type or marker for the Cody Complex, even in the absence of projectile points. Cody Complex projectile points and knife forms are some of the most distinctive and sought-after artifacts from Paleoindian America. Knell and Muniz (2013: 13) reported that Alberta/Cody, Alberta, Eden, Scottsbluff, and Firstview represented a temporal continuity for approximately 2,815 years, from 11,600 to 8,785 years ago. The authors added that the Cody Complex's wide geographic expanse was on par with the Clovis Complex, making it one of the most expansive complexes in prehistoric North America. Cody Complex artifacts have been found from the Great Basin in the west to the St. Lawrence River in the east, and from the Canadian plains in the north to the Texas Gulf Coast in the south (Knell and Muniz 2013: 13-14).
Figure 12 is a photograph courtesy of The Horner Site - The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex by George C. Frison and Lawrence C. Todd (1987). The image first appeared in Rocky Mountain Empire Magazine in 1949. Seventy-five years ago, scientists had a lot to
 |
| Figure 12 - The Cody Complex Caveman. How some people imagined Paleoindians. |
learn about the Cody Complex, and we still do. In 1949, some people were still lumping most Paleoindian projectile point types into a broad, catchall category from the Dust Bowl days called Yuma. The depiction of the 'caveman' on the magazine cover is particularly amusing. That muscle-bound, cartoonish character looked more like a cast member from the movie Planet of the Apes than a North American Paleoindian.
Based on their work at the Hell Gap site in Wyoming, Irwin-Williams et al. (1973: 47-49) proposed a projectile point development continuum from Agate Basin to Hell Gap to Alberta, and then to the rest of the Cody Complex point types. Huckell (1978: 188) argued that a projectile point development continuum should be based on both stylistic and technological factors. Huckell's hesitation for that particular development continuum was based on the technological changes occurring between the projectile point types. He observed that while Agate Basin flintknappers finished points with pressure flaking, Hell Gap and Alberta flintknappers finished points predominantly with percussion flaking. Technology switched again when flintknappers returned to pressure flaking for other Cody Complex types, such as Scottsbluff, Eden, and Cody knives. Huckell did admit that Hell Gap and Alberta flintknappers were not completely adverse to pressure flaking; they used the process for stem manufacturing, edge straightening, sharpening, and retipping.
Was there a projectile point development continuum
from Agate Basin to Cody Complex?
Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic Periods
 |
| Figure 13 - High Plains Jimmy Allen points from the author's collection. Note the presence of parallel oblique flaking scars on most. |
Around 10,000 years ago, an abundance of projectile point types appeared in the archaeological record from the plains, foothills, and mountains of the Rocky Mountain region. The new lanceolate-styled projectile point types with parallel-oblique flaking were a stark contrast from the Cody Complex's stemmed projectile points with transverse pressure flaking.
Archaeologist and master flintknapper Bruce Bradley (Larson et al. 2009: 271) opined on the projectile point diversity that came during and after the Cody Complex in the Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. He noted that the new wave of flintknapping styles incorporated a similar bifacial percussion reduction and pressure thinning from the Cody Complex, but the finished products looked quite different. He observed that several of those projectile point types often exhibited parallel oblique flaking. Bradley grouped the following projectile point types into a lithic complex that Holder and Wike (1949) originally named the Frontier Complex. The Frontier Complex included the point types of Jimmy Allen, Frederick, Lusk, Brown's Valley, and Angostura. Even though those five projectile point types had different shapes, Bradley (2010: 495) believed they shared a common technological technique called serial pressure flaking, which produced the parallel-oblique flake scars mentioned above.
One of those new projectile point types was reported in the late 1940s when an avocational archaeologist named Jimmy Allen discovered a Paleoindian bison kill site in the Laramie Basin of Wyoming. In 1959, University of Wyoming anthropologist William Mulloy and his crew excavated the site and named it the James Allen site. The archaeological crew recovered thirty fragmentary projectile points from the site, all of which exhibited similar flintknapping characteristics. The projectile points were unnotched and lanceolate-shaped with concave (indented) bases and rounded basal corners. Several points from the site exhibited parallel oblique pressure flaking. Mulloy christened the new projectile point Jimmy Allen after the discoverer of the site (Figure 13).
Why did Paleoindians adopt a new style of projectile point with a concave (indented) base design like the Jimmy Allen point? We have to assume that concave bases worked best with their preferred hafting method at the time. Perhaps the concave base design worked as "snug as a bug in a rug"; otherwise, the Paleoindians would not have made the change. There was always the possibility that the change was merely a response to human preference, and after all, that was not the first time for concave bases. It worked pretty well in the Early Paleoindian Period for Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, and Midland flintknappers.
Frison (1991: 67) reported evidence supporting a dichotomy in Paleoindian subsistence strategies between the open plains and the foothill-mountain ecosystems around 10,000 BP, or a range of 11,695 to 11,336 in calibrated calendar years. The long-enduring Cody Complex inhabited the open plains and focused its subsistence around bison procurement. In contrast, several deeply stratified rockshelters and open sites in the high country of Wyoming and Montana, such as Mummy Cave, Medicine Lodge Creek, Lookingbill, and Bighorn Canyon, indicated the presence of what archaeologists named the Foothill/Mountain Tradition. The Foothill/Mountain tradition had a different subsistence model that focused more on bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and plant gathering. They also used different projectile point types than the Cody Complex (Kornfeld 2013: 51). Figure 14 is a photograph of a few projectile point types from my collection used by the Foothill/Mountain Tradition. However, all of those projectile points were found on the open prairie, and not the foothills or the mountains.
Archaeologists have defined a dichotomy between the subsistence models of the Foothill-Mountain Tradition and the Cody Complex, and that appeared to be the case based on several archaeological investigations (see above). However, that did not exclude Cody Complex people from exploring the mountains or Foothill-Mountain Tradition people from heading to the prairies. My father found several Cody Complex artifacts while trout fishing in the high mountains of northern Wyoming, and I have found numerous Foothill-Mountain Tradition projectile point types out on the far-flung, dusty prairies of Wyoming and Colorado. In my opinion, there wasn't a clear geographic or ecosystem delineation for the Foothill-Mountain Tradition and the Cody Complex, only different people using different projectile point types at the same time while roaming the great outdoors and surviving the best they could.
 |
| Figure 14 - Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic points. From left to right: Pryor Stemmed (CO), Fishtail (WY), Lookingbill (ND), Mount Albion (CO), and Angostura (WY). |
Closing Thoughts
As an artifact hunter who has spent a good portion of my childhood and adulthood hunting, documenting, and writing about prehistoric people and their artifacts, I appreciate the progress and heavy lifting archaeologists have done to tie specific Paleoindian projectile point types into the archaeological record. I can walk a rancher's pasture and save a projectile point from being run over by a vehicle or crunched by a horse's or cow's hoof, and know what timeframe it came from just by looking at it. That's a far cry from the days when most Paleoindian projectile points were lumped into a singular category called Yuma.
It amazes me that Paleoindians throughout prehistory stuck to tried and true designs by making similar projectile points over long periods of time. For example, the people who made Clovis points used the same biface reduction and projectile point finishing for approximately three centuries (Waters et al. 2020). That was enough time for those ancient Americans to spread their projectile point technology across forty-eight states, Mexico, and Canada. Clovis points can be fat, skinny, long, and short, but they all possess similar technological features. Most other Paleoindian complexes conformed to a standard as well. The million-dollar question is what drove that consistency and discipline in projectile point design? Did the points fit in a certain hafting methodology, thus establishing a need for consistency? Was there a spiritual or ritualistic element involved? Were there specialists making the projectile points, and thus more of a cookie-cutter approach? Or was flintknapping so ingrained as a technological standard that Paleoindians copycatted the latest process and the design?
One must wonder why Paleoindians invested so much time and effort in creating projectile points that went well beyond a minimal level of functionality. After all, the main purpose of the projectile point was to be sharp enough to pierce the hide of the prey animal. Many Paleoindian points went beyond the workmanship and quality to achieve that fundamental purpose. I believe that excess workmanship had diminishing returns, but that was obviously not how Paleoindians felt about it. Perhaps flintknapping to an extreme was a winter hobby for Paleoindians as they sat around their dwellings waiting for the snow to stop. Or maybe there was symbolism or ritualism tied to the weapon systems. Or perhaps it was a competitiveness and pride thing: who can be the best? Competitiveness is part of the human spirit.
I grew up reading books by Wormington (1957), Steege and Welsh (1968) and Russell (1974), who all made it sound like Paleoindian projectile point typology was a serial process, one-by-one projectile point type at a time. However, with overlapping radiocarbon dates and reexamining the stratigraphy at sites, the sequential process does not pass muster. Sellet (2001: 57-60) wrote one of the better arguments against serial or unilinear evolution for Paleoindian projectile point types, and he also provided evidence that Paleoindian point types overlapped in both space and time. Sellet also cautioned against connecting Paleoindian cultural diversity with projectile point typology, quoting:
“Point types provide
a measure of time but not cultural relationships.”
While I mostly agree with Sellet, we cannot completely disconnect culture from the selection of a certain projectile point style. The best evidence of that connection is the numerous single-event kill sites where Paleoindians utilized a single projectile point type. Whether those hunters chose that style of projectile point because of its efficiency, technological consistency, or their targeted prey does not matter. When those people used that specific projectile point type at a single event, it became part of the archaeological record and the tool-making culture for that group. We have come a long way toward understanding High Plains archaeology from the days of Yuma points, E.B. Renaud, and Marie Wormington, but we still do not have a clear understanding as to why Paleoindians chose and then abandoned the projectile point types that they did.
References Cited
Agogino, George A.
1961 "A New Point Type from Hell Gap Valley, Eastern Wyoming." American Antiquity 26: 558-560, Salt Lake City.
Bower, Bruce
2022 "Clovis Hunters' Reputation as Mammoth Killers Takes a Hit" in Science News.
Bradley, Bruce A.
2010 "Paleoindian Flaked Stone Technology on the Plains and in the Rockies" in Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the High Plains and Rockies. Third Edition. Edited by Marcel Kornfeld, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek.
Branney, John Bradford
2015 "From Clovis to Hell Gap - Overlapping Technologies" in Academia.
2019 "Clovis First? Second? Third? Fourth?" in Academia.
2022 "Unwinding a Twister - Goshen/Plainview-Midland" in Academia.
Frison, George C.
1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second Edition. Academic Press. San Diego.
1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second Edition. Academic Press. San Diego.
Frison, George C., and Dennis J. Stanford.
1982 The Agate Basin Site. Academic Press. New York.
1987 The Horner Site - The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Academic Press. Orlando.
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, Henry Irwin, George Agogino, and C. Vance Haynes, Jr.
1973 "Hell Gap: Paleo-Indian Occupation on the High Plains." Plains Anthropologist. Vol. 18, No. 59, pp. 40-53.
Holder, P., and J. Wike
1949 "The Frontier Cultural Complex: A Preliminary Report on a Prehistoric Hunters' Camp in Southwestern Nebraska" in American Antiquity 14(4):260-265.
Huckell, Bruce
1978 "Hudson-Meng Chipped Stone" in The Hudson-Meng Site: An Alberta Bison Kill in the Nebraska High Plains by Larry D. Agenbroad. Northern Arizona University.
Jepsen, G. L.
1951 Ancient Buffalo Hunters of Wyoming. Newsletter, Archaeological Society of New Jersey, 24: 22-24
Knell, Edward J., and Mark P. Muniz
2013 Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.
2013 Paleoindian Lifeways of the Cody Complex. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake.
Kornfeld, Marcel
2013 The First Rocky Mountaineers - Coloradans Before Colorado. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.
Roberts, Frank H. H.
1943 "A New Site" in Notes and News, American Antiquity, Vol. VIII, No. 3, p. 300.
Russell, Virgil Y.
1974 Indian Artifacts. Johnson Publishing Co. Boulder.
Sellet, Frédéric.
2001. "A Changing Perspective on Paleoindian Chronology and Typology:
A View from the Northwestern Plains" in Arctic Anthropology 38:48-63.
Steege, Louis C. and Warren W. Welsh
1968 Stone Artifacts from the Northwestern Plains. Northwestern Plains Publishing Company. Colorado Springs.
Waters, Michael R. and Thomas A. Jennings
2015 The Hogeye Clovis Cache. Texas A & M University Press. College Station.
Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford Jr., and David L. Carlson
2020 "The Age of Clovis - 13,050 to 12,750 cal yr B.P.", in Science Advances, 21 October 2020.
Wormington, H. M.
1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4. Denver.
John Bradford Branney has been hunting and documenting artifacts since he was a wee little boy. His grandfather's artifact collection drove a passion in him that has never waned. While growing up, his family took many weekend outings to hunt for artifacts and fossils on the prairies of Wyoming.
Branney holds a B.S. in geology from the University of Wyoming and an M.B.A. in finance from the University of Colorado. He has written fourteen books and over one hundred articles on archaeology and geology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)