Who Were Those Guys? A Shadows on the Trail Adventure

Who Were Those Guys?

A Shadows on the Trail Adventure

by John Bradford Branney

Figure One - The red arrow indicates the location where I found a 1.8-inch-long  
Washita arrow point. Prehistoric rockshelter in the background.   

The northeastern Colorado ranch is located in a large bowl-shaped basin. A small intermittent creek drains the basin to the southeast. The creek is fed cool water from several natural springs along its route. The creek was quite prolific in the past, meandering and braiding its way tens of miles until joining the South Platte River. Over the last hundred years, agricultural use caused a few of the creek's water sources to dry up.

The headwaters of the creek butt up against sandstone bluffs of the Oligocene-Miocene geological age. In the past, finding extinct mammal fossils was as easy as pie; it is not so easy these days. It was also easy to find prehistoric artifacts a few decades back, but now I have to work for every artifact. In the past, I found chipping debris galore, fire-blackened rocks eroding out of embankments, and several artifacts on any given day. Over the past forty years of hunting the ranch, I have discovered everything from Clovis to historical Indian artifacts and every prehistoric culture between. It would be a shorter list for me to name the High Plains projectile point types I have not discovered on the ranch versus listing the projectile point types that I have discovered. But over the last decade, my artifact finds have dwindled. I still hunt the ranch two or three times a year, and occasionally I land a nice artifact, but the glory days of artifact hunting are gone. However, I still have a few stories about artifact hunting on the ranch.        

In September 2003, I returned to the High Plains from my home in Texas to hunt artifacts. Originally, I was not scheduled to hunt the ranch because I wanted to let natural erosion catch up with my artifact-hunting pressure. However, I found an extra day in my schedule with nothing planned so I told myself, “Why not hunt that ranch?” And I am glad I did. I found a couple of beautiful end scrapers, several broken projectile points, a mano, several other worked pieces, and the "prize of the day." This story is about that "prize of the day" and the people who probably made it.    

Figure Two - In situ photograph of the 1.8-inch-long
Washita arrow point.

The "prize of the day" was a beautiful 1.8-inch-long Washita arrow point eroding from an embankment approximately twenty to thirty meters down the hill from the prehistoric rockshelter in Figure One. To this day, it is one of the finest Washita points that I have ever found (Figures Two and Three).  

Figure Three - 1.8-inch-long Washita arrow point made
from what I believe is Smoky Hills Jasper out of Kansas.    

The prehistoric humans who made that projectile point used a raw material called jasper. Prehistoric people liked jasper, and based on this jasper's yellowish tone, the projectile point's raw material might be Smoky Hills Jasper out of Kansas but I cannot be sure.

  

Central Plains Tradition

From around A.D. 900 to A.D. 1000, the people of the Missouri River areas of Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, in what archaeologists call the Central Plains tradition, were influenced by the prolific Mississippian culture to the east. The people of the Central Plains tradition shared similar technologies, subsistence patterns, and socio-economic systems across a wide geographical area. Archaeologists have traced the Arikara, Mandan, Pawnee, and other historical Indian tribes along the Missouri River Basin to the Central Plains tradition. 

The Republican River is a small tributary of the Missouri River with its headwaters originating in eastern Colorado. The river flows from its headwaters in Colorado across northwestern Kansas into southwestern Nebraska and then back into north central Kansas before joining with the Kansas River, which ultimately joins the Missouri River.

The discovery by archaeologists of prehistoric hamlets in central and eastern Nebraska and Kansas gave rise to a phase within the Central Plains tradition called Upper Republican (Strong 1934). Based on radiocarbon dating, the Upper Republican phase began around A.D. 1000 and lasted until around A.D. 1400. There are various hypotheses as to what happened to the people of the Upper Republican phase but that topic is outside the scope of this article. 

Horticulture, hunting, and gathering drove the Upper Republican economy and lifestyle. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Upper Republican people grew maize, gourds, squash, beans, and sunflowers. They cultivated their crops with hoes made from the scapula bones of bison. Evidence shows that the Upper Republican people on the Central Plains supplemented their farming and hunting with wild plant harvesting, fishing, and mussel gathering.

The Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains was characterized by substantial earth-lodge dwellings (Wedel 1961:94). The people lived in rectangular to semi-rectangular lodges built slightly below the ground surface. The lodges ranged from 500 to 1200 square feet with covered entrances facing south or east, away from the prevailing winter winds. A central fire pit and one or more subterranean cache pits were located within each lodge. Posts outlined the perimeters of each lodge with four or more postholes found in the middle for roof support. The lodges were randomly placed along mostly stream terraces and exhibited little or no central planning. (Steinacher and Carlson 1998).

The main chipped stone tool assemblages of the Upper Republican phase were associated with hunting, butchering, and animal hide processing. Artifact assemblages included bifaces of various sizes and shapes for cutting and chopping, end scrapers, engravers, and drill forms. The projectile points associated with the Upper Republican phase were usually small and triangular, with side-notches and tri-notches. When found on the High Plains, artifact hunters like myself classify those small triangular side-notched and tri-notched projectile points as Washita and Harrell arrow points. Figure Four is a photograph of examples of Washita and Harrell arrow points that the author surface found in northeastern Colorado. The centerpiece is the Washita point photographed in Figures Two and Three.     

Figure Four - Examples of side-notched and tri-notched arrow points surface
recovered on the High Plains of northeastern Colorado. The author assumes 
these points originated in the High Plains Upper Republican phase.  
Is that a good assumption?    

Upper Republican ground stone tools included pipes, abraders, hammerstones, spheres, manos and metates, nutting stones, and disks. Bone implements included bison scapula hoes, splinter awls, eyed needles, fishhooks, beads, tubes, and shaft wrenches. Less dominant bone tools included engraved bison bone toes, eagle bone whistles, and in one case an engraved human skull fragment (Steinacher and Carlson 1998; Wedel 1986:108). I have found examples of some of those ground stone tool types on the High Plains but since other prehistoric cultures used them as well, I cannot attribute my surface finds to the Upper Republican phase.   

Figure Five - from Cassell (1997:214)

A thinner-walled, globular ceramic pottery design from the Upper Republican phase replaced the thicker-walled, conoidal ceramic pottery design from the earlier Plains Woodland tradition (Figure Five). According to Ellwood (2002:34), Upper Republican people constructed ceramic pottery using a lump or patch accretion method. Then they finished by rolling a cord-wrapped, dowel-like instrument along the surface to seal the junctures. Raw materials for the vessels consisted of locally derived crushed sedimentary rock, clay, and granite. Upper Republican ceramic pottery was jar- to pot-sized and exhibited high shoulders with narrow necks and collared or braced rim mouths (Wedel 1986:106). 

The Upper Republican potters often decorated the collars with two to eight incised horizontal lines, repeated triangles, or excised nodes. The surface finish exhibited short, choppy cord marks, with obliteration or smoothing of the cord marks, especially near the bottom of the pot. Handles or lugs were rare on Upper Republican ceramic pottery. 

Wedel (1986) proposed that Upper Republican ceramic pottery might have been used to boil meat or vegetables, such as maize, beans, and wild tubers; or for dry storage; or as water containers. The Upper Republican ceramic pottery design from the Central Plains carried over onto High Plains sites which I discuss in the next section.       

Figure Six - Upper Republican potsherds from eastern Colorado. Bottom row left
to right: Weld County, Lincoln County, Lincoln County. Top row: Weld County.   

Sigstad (1969:18-19) identified two classes of Upper Republican ceramic pottery. Class I  Frontier Ware exhibited collared rims while Class II Cambridge Ware exhibited flared rims. Figure Six exhibits Upper Republican potsherds which I surface recovered on the High Plains. On July 6, 1986, I found the rim fragments in the center and right of the lower row. I discovered them near a north-facing rock shelter on private land near Cedar Point in eastern Colorado. Note the incised horizontal lines near the bottom of each fragment. Both pieces appear to have originated from the same ceramic pot. I recovered the other two rim fragments from multicultural sites in Weld County, Colorado. Those rim fragments fall within Sigstad’s Class II Cambridge Ware category also. 

I have found hundreds of potsherds while surface hunting for artifacts in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. The potsherds are usually small, measuring one inch by one inch or smaller. On that scale, it is nearly impossible for me to tell whether the potsherd originated from an Upper Republican or Plains Woodland ceramic pot. Identification of the culture is much easier if the potsherd is from a distinctive rim or is large enough to see the curvature of the original pot. 

Elwood (2002:40) suggested Upper Republican and Plains Woodland ceramic pottery can be differentiated using form and surface finish. While Plains Woodland vessels were conoidal in shape, Upper Republican vessels were globular in shape (Figure Five). That only helps if the potsherds are large enough to determine the curvature of the original pot. Elwood stated that while Plains Woodland exhibited clear and deep cord marks, Upper Republican cord marks were often choppy, smoothed over, or partially obliterated. Figure Seven shows a few potsherds I found in northeastern Colorado. Note the clear and deep cord marks on most of the pieces. I believe all of the potsherds in the figure originated as Plains Woodland pottery except perhaps the bottom pieces on the left which could be Upper Republican.  

Figure Seven - Surface found potsherds from northeastern Colorado.
Did these come from Plains Woodland or Upper Republican?  

    The High Plains Upper Republican Phase

At the same time that Upper Republican people were inhabiting small hamlets in central Kansas and Nebraska, a similar-aged culture existed along the grasslands of western Kansas and Nebraska, eastern Colorado, the panhandle of Nebraska, and southeastern Wyoming. I will refer to that similar-aged culture as High Plains Upper Republican even though I believe its relationship to the original Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains is unknown. Archaeological evidence suggests that High Plains Upper Republican people occupied sites along the escarpment ridge flanking the Colorado Piedmont, (Irwin and Irwin 1957; Wood 1967), the northern and southern tributaries of the South Platte River, and the Arikara-Republican drainage system (Withers 1954).

High Plains collectors and professionals discovered artifacts in rock shelters, on buttes and bluffs, and along stream terraces similar to those documented at the Upper Republican hamlets in central Kansas and Nebraska. The rock shelter sites were quite small and occupation zones consisted of diffused middens containing chipping debris, animal bone fragments, hearths, and ashy soil. The butte and bluff campsites offered excellent views but meant hauling water upslope and those sites did not offer protection from cold northerly winds.  

Archaeologists investigated and documented several High Plains Upper Republican campsites in eastern Colorado including the Peavy, Smiley, Agate Bluff, and Happy Hollow rock shelters and the Buick, Kasper, Biggs, and Donovan open campsites. Radiocarbon dating suggested occupations between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1400 (Wood 1990). 

In comparing the original Upper Republican sites in central Kansas and Nebraska with the High Plains Upper Republican sites to the west, Laura L. Scheiber (2006:135) wrote, "These western sites are known more for what they lack (houses, hoes, and corn) than for what they possess." The Upper Republican people on the Central Plains held different lifestyles than those on the High Plains. To the east, the Upper Republican people placed heavy emphasis on horticulture and permanent dwellings while in the west there was little or no horticulture and permanent dwellings. Thus far, the only evidence of any horticulture for the High Plains sites was a single maize kernel buried four and a half feet deep at the Agate Bluff site in northeastern Colorado. Cassell (1997) also noted that bison scapula hoes, prominent on the Upper Republican sites on the Central Plains were completely absent on the High Plains sites. During my research, the closest I found for permanent dwellings on High Plains Upper Republican sites were the pit houses archaeologists investigated at Cedar Point Village (Wood 1971:55-56). Wood (1971:81) suggested that "Cedar Point pit houses are not comparable to any of the five-post foundation structures reported by Gunnerson for Dismal River."

Scheiber (2006:135) stated above what was missing from the High Plains sites, so what did the High Plains sites have in common with the original Upper Republican sites on the Central Plains? Based on radiocarbon dating, sites on the Central Plains and High Plains existed contemporaneously from around A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1400. Archaeologists have also identified the same styles of ceramic pottery and projectile points on the High Plains and Central Plains sites. 

Figure Eight - Washita-lookalike arrow point surface recovered on
private land in southwestern Wyoming on 9/3/2013. I cataloged
this arrow point as a Plains Side-Notched.      

When I surface recover a Washita or Harrell projectile point in eastern Colorado or southeastern Wyoming, I assume the High Plains Upper Republican people made that point. Is that a good assumption? Probably not since I find Washita and Harrell lookalikes outside the known geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican. Figure Eight is such an example. I discovered that 1.1-inch long Washita lookalike point on September 3, 2013, on a private ranch west of Baggs in southwestern Wyoming. It looks like a Washita arrow point in every aspect but I found it well outside the geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican. In southwestern Wyoming, that type of projectile point is not called a Washita, it is called a Plains Side-Notched.   

The side-notched point in Figure Eight is not an anomaly. I have found many Washita and Harrell lookalikes across the High Plains. Washita and Harrell point lookalikes are found all across Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas to the north, and as far south as Oklahoma and Texas. Similar point types are found in the Southwest and across the Great Plains. Collectors and archaeologists have christened them with names such as Plains Side-Notched, Plains Tri-Notched, Billings, Desert Sierra, Desert Delta, Reed, Peno, Cahokia, Irvine, and Emigrant, just to name a few.  

Were those projectile point designs a convergent technology developed independently from the Upper Republican phase? Did those projectile point designs originate in the Central Plains and spread from there or did those designs originate someplace else? Does the lack of High Plains sites underestimate the geographical range of the Upper Republican phase? Were the Washita and Harrell projectile points I photographed in Figures Three and Four made by High Plains Upper Republican people? Those are unanswered questions I found no answers to during my research.   

Of course, people have opinions, but opinions are only sometimes backed up with facts. Bottom line, side-notched and tri-notched projectile points like Washita and Harrell were widely used, far beyond the known range of High Plains Upper Republican. The design swept across the entire western part of the continent. Surface finding Washita and Harrell projectile point types in the geographical range for High Plains Upper Republican is still not conclusive evidence for the presence of High Plains Upper Republican.  

  

Figure Nine - A small rockshelter I discovered in eastern Colorado in the 1980s.
The roof of the rockshelter collapsed a couple of decades ago, burying 
the remaining prehistoric occupation levels under rocks.     

Figure nine was a small south-facing rockshelter I discovered in eastern Colorado in the early 1980s. On my initial visit, I found ash, charcoal, burned bone, and chipping debris on the ground in and around the shelter. Most of the rockshelters I have investigated faced south. Facing south meant the rockshelter captured sun rays in the winter and the rock behind the rockshelter blocked those nasty winter winds. That particular rockshelter was small and could only accommodate a single family. The roof of the rockshelter looked unstable so I contacted a local university to see if they were interested in investigating it. The university never bothered to get back to me, so I proceeded with my salvage operation.    

In that rockshelter, I found a lot of chipping debris and burned bone. I also found a couple of bone awls, several Late Prehistoric projectile points including Plains Woodland and Upper Republican types, scrapers, and a couple of flake knives. On the pasture in front of the rockshelter, I discovered several Late Prehistoric and Late Archaic artifacts. The roof collapsed on the rockshelter fifteen to twenty years ago, burying the remaining occupation levels under massive sandstone boulders.

     

Theories of Origin for High Plains Upper Republican 

Any viable theory on the origin of High Plains Upper Republican must provide evidence that answers basic questions. Did earth-lodge dwellers from the Upper Republican phase of the Central Plains tradition abandon their earth-lodge homes and lifestyles and head west to the High Plains? If so, was that move to the High Plains seasonal or permanent? Or did indigenous people already living on the High Plains interface and trade with the original Upper Republican people from the Central Plains?

Lindsey and Krause (2007:96) encapsulated the wide range of theories by stating, "Ceramic-bearing campsites in eastern Colorado and western Nebraska have been attributed to Woodland stage hunters and gatherers, mobile hunting/gathering populations making Upper Republican-like pottery, and Upper Republican cultivators ranging to the west to hunt." 

Wedel (1961:102) suggested that there was a need for more evidence to be collected and analyzed from the High Plains sites before questions of origin could be answered. He stated that it was impossible to determine whether Upper Republican material on the High Plains sites marked seasonal hunting camps for the Upper Republican horticulturists out of the Central Plains. 

Wood (1969) proposed that the Upper Republican campsites on the High Plains were occupied by Upper Republican earth-lodge dwellers from the Central Plains during seasonal hunting forays. Wood's evidence was based on a lack of burial sites, horticultural tools, and permanent structures at the High Plains campsites. Wedel (1970:7-10) and Reher (1973:119) argued that Wood's theory was illogical. Reher refuted Wood's claim that earth-lodge dwellers would travel two hundred miles across excellent bison hunting grounds to hunt other bison on the High Plains. 

By comparing artifact inventories reported from historical Pawnee hunting trips to the artifact assemblages in Upper Republican campsites on the High Plains, Roper (1990) argued that the artifact assemblages on the High Plains were too culturally diverse and well-represented to be from temporary hunting camps.  

Steinacher and Carlson (1998:248) summarized three hypotheses for the High Plains Upper Republican sites. The first hypothesis was the Wood proposal above where earth-lodge dwellers from the east made periodic or seasonal trips to the High Plains to replenish their resources. The authors noted that raw material originating in the High Plains was used almost exclusively on stone tools discovered in some Upper Republican sites in Kansas and Nebraska. That raw material could only get to the Central Plains from the High Plains by trading or transporting it. 

Using geochemical analysis, Roper et al (2007) determined that a few of the ceramic pots discovered in High Plains Upper Republican sites used clay from the Medicine Creek area of southern Nebraska. That was evidence that at least a few Upper Republican ceramic pots were transported from the Central Plains to the High Plains. The researchers also noted that during the excavation of House 5 in the Medicine Creek area of Nebraska investigators discovered a large quantity of Flattop Chalcedony from eastern Colorado. That provided evidence of raw material movement from the High Plains to the Central Plains during the Upper Republican phase.         

The second hypothesis suggested by Steinacher and Carlson was that some people from the east gave up their sedentary horticultural lifestyles on the Central Plains and took up nomadic hunter and gatherer lifestyles on the High Plains. That is a logical hypothesis if we assume that some humans around A.D. 1000 were as adventurous as the pioneers who settled in the western United States in the 1800s. Humans have a desire to live their lives the way they want. Some people prefer a predictable lifestyle while other people like taking bigger risks. The High Plains Upper Republican people might have abandoned their farming hamlets along the tributaries of the Upper Republican River in Kansas and Nebraska to head west just like the pioneers of historical times did.       

The third hypothesis that Steinacher and Carlson suggested was that indigenous people already occupying the High Plains established trade with the Upper Republican people in the east. We already know that Upper Republican people along the Central Plains ended up with raw material originating from the High Plains, and ceramic pottery from the Central Plains ended up in High Plains Upper Republican sites. Was that material shared between two groups from the same phase or two entirely different phases or societies?

Figure Ten - 1.1-inch-long Washita arrow point that the author found on 
May 18, 2024, in Logan County, Colorado. Over the decades, 
the author has found many Washita and Harrell
arrow points and potsherds in the area.  

Conclusions 

Is it a good assumption that High Plains Upper Republican was the western extension of the Upper Republican phase of the Central Plains? 

Based on archaeological evidence, the Central Plains and High Plains people lived vastly different lifestyles. On the Central Plains, horticulture was an important part of the economy while on the High Plains horticulture appeared to play little or no role. Even with the different lifestyles, there was a relationship between the High Plains and Central Plains people during the Upper Republican phase. At High Plains sites, archeologists found Upper Republican pottery manufactured with clay from the Central Plains, and at Central Plains sites, archaeologists found raw material originating on the High Plains. We know that the Upper Republican people from the Central Plains and High Plains used the same styles of side-notched and tri-notched projectile points. 

That is clear-cut evidence that material moved between the Central Plains and High Plains populations during the Upper Republican phase. However, the evidence of material movement does not define the social relationship between two groups of people. Were those people kinfolk or not related? Did the Upper Republican phase on the Central Plains use the High Plains as outposts or for seasonal hunting trips? I found no smoking guns or evidence that conclusively answered those questions. 

When excavating a Late Prehistoric site on the High Plains, archaeologists have three markers used to identify the presence of Upper Republican. First, the age should fall between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1400. Second, small, triangular side-notched and tri-notched projectile points should be in the artifact inventory. And most importantly, the distinctive Upper Republican ceramic pottery must be present. If there is evidence of horticulture (corn), working hoes made from bison scapula, and permanent dwellings that is a bonus, even though Scheiber (2006:135) reminded us that, "These western sites are known more for what they lack (houses, hoes, and corn) than for what they possess." 

Surface finds of Upper Republican material are an entirely different ball game. For one thing, it is impossible to accurately date materials out of archaeological and stratigraphic context. Secondly, the presence of side-notched and tri-notched arrow points of the Washita and Harrell variety may or may not be associated with High Plains Upper Republican. The most important artifact for determining the presence of High Plains Upper Republican is the distinctive ceramic pottery. Of course, the potsherds must be large enough to differentiate them from earlier Plains Woodland ceramic pottery. Of course, finding an entire High Plains Upper Republican pot would be a surefire indicator. I have been searching for that well-preserved ceramic pot for decades. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Finding a well-preserved Upper Republican ceramic pot is as rare as finding moose feathers. 

References Cited

Cassell, E. S.

1997    The Post-Archaic of Eastern Colorado. In The Archaeology of Colorado, pp. 215-219. Johnson Books. Boulder.  

  

Cooper, Steven R.

                2018   The Official Overstreet Indian Arrowheads Identification and Price                                             Guide. Stevens Point, WI.     
 

Ellwood, Priscilla B.

2002    Middle Ceramic Period in Colorado. In Native American Ceramics of Eastern Colorado. University of Colorado Museum. Boulder.                                  

Irwin, Cynthia, and Henry Irwin

             1957      The Archaeology of the Agate Bluff Area. Plains Anthropologist                                            8:15-38.               

Lindsey, Roche M., and Richard A. Krause

             2007        Assessing Plains Village Mobility Patterns on the Central High                                           Plains in Plains Village Archaeology, edited by Stanley A. Ahler and                                Marvin Kay.       

Reher, Charles A.

1973       A Survey of Ceramic Sites in Southeastern Wyoming. The Wyoming Archaeologist. XVI, pp 1-2.     

Roper, Donna C.

1990      Artifact Assemblages Composition and the Hunting Camp Interpretation of High Plains Upper Republican Sites. In Southwestern Lore,

                56(4): pp. 1-19.  

Roper, Donna C., Robert J. Hoard, Robert J. Speakman, Michael D. Glascock, and Anne Cobry DiCosola
                2007    Source Analysis of Central Plains Tradition Pottery Using Neutron                                           Activation  Analysis: Feasibility and First Results. Plains Anthropologist,                              Vol. 52, No. 203 (August 2007), pp. 325-335. 

Scheiber, Laura L.

                 2006  The Late Prehistoric on the High Plains of Western Kansas, High Plains                                Upper Republican and Dismal River in Archaeology of Kansas, edited by 

                            Robert J. Hoard and William E. Banks. Lawrence, KS.           
 

Steinacher, T. L., and G. F. Carlson

    1998   The Central Plains Tradition in Archaeology of the Great Plains, edited by W. Raymond Wood. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence.

Strong, William Duncan

                 1934    An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology. Miscellaneous Collections 93(10): iii-323.     

               

Wedel, Waldo R.

1961        Prehistoric Man on the Great Plains. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman. 

1970        Some observations on “Two House Sites in the Central Plains: An experiment in Archaeology. Nebraska History 51(2) pp. 1-28.  

 

1986        Central Plains Prehistory: Holocene Environments and Cultural Change in the Republican River Basin. University of Nebraska. Lincoln.

 

Withers, Arnold M.

              1954         University of Denver Archaeological Fieldwork. Southwestern Lore                                   19(4):1-3.         

Wood, J. J.

1967        Archaeological Investigations in Northeastern Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.  

Wood, W. Raymond

1969         Ethnographic Reconstructions. In Two House Sites in the Central Plains: An Experiment in Archaeology, edited by W. Raymond Wood, pp. 102-108. Memoir 6. Plains Anthropologist.     

              1971         Pottery Sites Near Limon, Colorado in Southwestern Lore, Vol. 37,                                   No. 3, December 1971.  

                             

1990        A Query on Upper Republican Archaeology in Colorado. In Southwestern Lore, 56:3-7.        

 

About the Author

 

John Bradford Branney began collecting and documenting prehistoric artifacts in Wyoming with his family at the ripe old age of eight years old. He has amassed a prehistoric artifact collection numbering in the thousands. He has written eleven historical fiction books and over ninety papers and articles about Paleoindians, prehistoric artifacts, and geology. The author holds a B.S. degree in geology from the University of Wyoming and an MBA in finance from the University of Colorado. He lives in the Colorado Mountains with his family.

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.