CROW and the CAVE - Book Review by Prehistoric AMERICAN

CLICK to ORDER

CLICK to ORDER CROW and the CAVE

Short Faced Bear - Predator, Scavenger, of Just Plain Terror?

Figure One - Arctodus simus, the giant short-faced bear.  

One of the major themes that I emphasized in my prehistoric adventure book series titled the SHADOW on the TRAIL Hexalogy was that life was onerous and difficult for the First Americans, or Paleoindians, living on the High Plains of North America. They not only had to deal with finding food and water every day, but they also had to contend with natural and manmade disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, blizzards, droughts, and the hostilities from other humans. It was surely no Garden of Eden. 

One of the bigger challenges that High Plains Paleoindians faced was big and aggressive mammal carnivores. On good days, Paleoindians were at or near the top of the food chain, but I am sure there were days when the human hunters became the hunted. With only their stone-tipped spears and a heartful of courage, Paleoindians faced more than just a few formidable adversaries from the animal kingdom. 

Figure Two - CLICK for the SECOND EDITION

In the second edition of my prehistoric adventure titled CROW and the CAVE, two super mammal predators appeared in my story. I took some liberty in introducing these beasts during the time of the Folsom Complex around 12,600 years ago, even though there is no archaeological evidence that this particular species was still around that late in prehistory. See, it went extinct about that time, like many species within the Pleistocene megafauna. Currently, the last recorded occurrence for this species came at the Lubbock Lake site during the Clovis Complex (Johnson 1987:88), some two to three hundred years before my book began. However, I am a realist and believe that as more Paleoindian sites are found and studied, some of these extinct animal species from the Pleistocene might show up in the archaeological record later than anyone expected.  

Below in red is a short passage from CROW and the CAVE that introduces these beasts to you and my book readers:

Hoka hobbled up the ridge, heading westward. Cansha and Heesha caught up to their father. They were not going to wait around to see what happened next. Centuries of combustible material on the cave floor ignited into flames. A short-faced bear, taller than a bison, burst from the cave. The bear stood outside the cave grumbling and peering around in search of whatever disturbed its rest. Smoke from the den billowed upward. The warriors stood paralyzed. A couple of them defecated right there on the spot. None of them had ever seen such a gigantic monster before with huge teeth and long curved claws. Some had heard campfire tales about such a beast but seeing one in person was much more salient than hearing stories.

The gigantic bear glared at the warriors while sniffing the air. It opened its massive jaws and tilted its head to the side. Its yellowish teeth glinted in the bright winter sun. Then, another short-faced bear exploded out of the smoke-filled den and stood alongside the first bear. This bear was smaller, perhaps a yearling or two-year-old, but it was still bigger than several warriors. Its singed fur smoldered in the frosty air. It had been a long winter for the bears. The bears’ appetites had awakened along with their surly dispositions.  

The now-extinct Arctodus simus, or short-faced bear, was quite a specimen. Based on fossil remains, scientists estimate that Arctodus simus stood a good five and a half feet tall at its shoulders, tall enough to look most Paleoindians straight in the eyes while standing on four legs. The short-faced bear reached ten feet long, and if it stood up on its hind legs like a modern bear species does, a good-sized male stood eleven to twelve feet with a fourteen-foot vertical arm reach. It is estimated that a good-sized male could weigh as much as two thousand pounds. A one-ton bear is nothing to sneeze at. Scientists estimate that male bears were around fifteen percent larger than females. Based on skeletal remains, the size of the short-faced bears seemed to fluctuate with climate, perhaps adhering to Bergmann’s Rule which states that birds and mammals in cold regions are bulkier than individuals of the same species in warm regions.

Figure Three - Not sure if this is accurate to scale, but you 

get an idea of the size of the Arctodus simus. A giant 

short-faced bear was no laughing matter for Paleoindians.   

Arctodus simus, or short-faced bears, possessed short faces with wide muzzles resembling more of a big cat than a modern bear. Arctodus simus's broad, high vaulted heads differed from narrow-skulled, long-nosed modern bears such as brown and black bears. Based on skeletal remains, Arctodus simus appeared to be fleet of foot. Ursine bears, such as brown and black bear,s are pigeon-toed and tend to waddle back and forth when they walk or run. Arctodus simus walked and ran in a straight line. Scientists estimate that the giant short-faced bear could run anywhere between thirty and forty miles per hour, fast enough to run down most prey, including humans. From this estimated speed, short-faced bears could even run down speedy wild horses and pronghorn over a short stretch of land. 

Arctodus simus was the most powerful predator of the American Pleistocene! (Anderson 1984: 55).  

What did Arctodus simus eat?  

Matheus et al. (2003) studied the oxygen and nitrogen levels in fossil bone collagen for lions, scimitar cats, short-faced bears, wolves, and wolverines in East Beringia, and found that all these predators ate bison, horse, and mammoth, and to a lesser extent, caribou and musk ox. The scientists determined that while scimitar cats ate mostly mammoth meat, lions ate mostly bison. The scientists established that although short-faced bears and wolves loved mammoth meat, their diets were quite diverse, and they ate meat from a variety of mammals. Based on their study, the scientists concluded that Arctodus simus was a pure carnivore that scavenged prey mammal carcasses.  

Another analysis on food intake for Arctodus simus came from Wise About Bears (wiseaboutbears.org). They reported that "its [short-faced bear] skull and shearing type of teeth indicate a highly carnivorous way of life. Its eye sockets are set wide apart and face forward, giving it excellent vision. Its short, broad snout had a huge nasal passage, which probably means it had a keen sense of smell and could inhale great volumes of oxygen while pursuing prey. The large width of the jaws in relation to their shortness, plus the huge insertions for biting muscles, gave this bear a vise-like killing bite and the ability to crush bones to obtain marrow. Tests of bone samples show a very high ratio of nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14, a nitrogen “signature” that indicates a true carnivore. Everything considered, paleobiologists conclude that the giant short-faced bear ate only meat."

Based on its powerful jaws and humongous teeth, the short-faced bear devoured almost anything it wanted, but it appears it was more scavenger than killer, although it probably was proficient at both.

Figure Four - A saber-toothed cat faces off with a short-faced bear over the eating rights
of a horse carcass. The landscape looks like my typical stomping grounds. 
The source of this painting is unknown.   

Arctodus simus was probably quite intimidating to most species, and with its long gait and locomotion capability, the species probably covered a lot of ground. So, what happened to it? Why did it go extinct? At the same time that the short-faced bear and large Pleistocene herbivorous megafauna were struggling to survive, along came more efficient omnivores, the grizzly and brown bears. When the Pleistocene herbivorous megafauna went extinct, it must have heavily influenced the survival of Arctodus simus. 

The fossil record cannot tell us anything about the short-faced bear's temperament. Was it aggressive toward other animals? Humans? Was it moody and cantankerous like grizzly bears, or did it have a more tolerant temperament like black bears? One thing is for sure: I would not want to cross paths with a hungry Arctodus simus! When you read CROW and the CAVE, you will understand why.  

Read the entire SHADOWS on the TRAIL Hexalogy series for all my stories.    

    

      

Figure Five - CLICK to ORDER SHADOWS on the TRAIL, the Second Edition

1984    Anderson, Elaine

           Who's Who in the Pleistocene: a Mammalian Bestiary in Quaternary Extinctions - a              Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and Richard G. Klein. The                            University of Arizona Press. Tucson. 

1987    Johnson, Eileen.

            Lubbock Lake - Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High Plains. Texas A & M             University Press. College Station. 

2003  Matheus, P., R.D. Guthrie, and M.L. Kunz. 

             Predator-prey links in Pleistocene East Beringea. Evidence from stable isotopes.                    Third International Mammoth Conference, 2003: Program and Abstracts: 80.                         Occasional Papers in Earth Sciences No. 5. Paleontology Program,                                         Government of the Yukon.              

        

Part I - The "Spark" for CROW and the CAVE, an Adventure by John Bradford Branney

CLICK to PREORDER for 10% DISCOUNT

My latest book CROW and the CAVE will be released March 8, 2018. In advance of that release date, I want to give you a little background on how this book came about. The passage below is the first part in a two part blog posting that describes the events leading up to my writing CROW and the CAVE.  

As an author, my historical fiction originates from research, real-life experiences, and an active imagination. Since many of my books are about Prehistoric America, I rely a lot on documented archaeological evidence. However, on December 3, 2016, I had a real-life experience that changed my life and I decided to adapt this encounter to my latest prehistoric adventure entitled Crow and the Cave.

Our German Shepherd Madd Maxx and I were prehistoric artifact hunting on a ranch in northern

Colorado when a herd of horned cattle decided they did not care for Madd Maxx. These cattle must have thought that Madd Maxx was a predator, like a wolf or a coyote. One of the horned beasts decided to remove the predator from the pasture. She lowered her head and rammed into Madd

Madd Maxx

Maxx, sending the one hundred-pound shepherd flying. I intervened between Madd Maxx and the orange-colored beast and paid the price. The horned devil that just launched Madd Maxx into inner space came after me, ramming her skull into my chest. Not having other options, I grabbed the cow by the horns and hung on for dear life. She shoved me backwards across the pasture, picking up speed as we went along. I concluded that hanging on to her horns was not going to end well for me, so I let go, and she ran right over the top of me. Ouch! She knocked the wind out of me. I was in pain and I could not breathe. Later, I found out that I had sustained three broken ribs and a bruised lung. I remember hearing Madd Maxx barking which was a good sign. He was still alive. I staggered to my feet like a fallen boxer rising for an eight count. Before I could straighten up, the horned devil plowed into me. One year later, I still remember that teeth-rattling jolt when her massive skull smashed into my back. I went down hard. I later found out I had sustained kidney, liver and adrenal gland damage. If I had any oxygen in my lungs to start with, it was all gone. I tried to crawl away, but the devil cow was on me, pinning me to the ground with her skull and horns, swinging her head from side to side, trying to hook me with her horns. Fortunately, I was wearing a backpack filled with bulky winter clothes. The devil cow ended up destroying the backpack, but wearing it saved my life. I had been carrying a metal walking stick that she also destroyed. As she mauled me, I remember seeing a huge dust cloud rising above the pasture. I was drowning in a sea of dust. The entire herd was on the war path. While I was trying to escape with my life, so was Madd Maxx, and he had the rest of the herd to contend with. I fought to breathe, but every time I took a breath, the cow slammed into my back.

As I laid there getting bludgeoned by this beast, I felt relieved when I heard Madd Maxx. I knew that if I heard him, he was still alive and if I was going to save him, I first had to save myself. I yelled for help, but that was futile. I was in the middle of nowhere and my yell had no energy, whatsoever. I

Madd Maxx

fought to escape, but the horned beast kept smashing into my back. She walked all over my legs and back with her sharp hooves. I swear it felt like she was kneading bread on my legs like some massive hooved cat. The more I resisted, the more aggressive the horned beast was. I wrapped my arms around my head, hoping to protect my skull from her horns and hooves. She had already loosened my front teeth. I remember thinking that I was going to "die by cow". I understand that we all die of some cause, sooner or later, but “death by cow”?

Based on the above narrative, you can see that Madd Maxx and I are in quite a pickle. You will have to wait until Part Two of the blog posting to see how we get out of it. Then, in subsequent blog postings, I will give you a taste or two about my prehistoric adventure CROW and the CAVE.    

CLICK to preorder CROW and the CAVE for 10% Discount

CLICK for Part Two of the "Spark".

The Goshen-Plainview Dilemma

Figure One - A Plainview point on the left was surface recovered in Deaf Smith County, Texas.
A Goshen point on the right was surface recovered in Weld County, Colorado.
John Bradford Branney Collection. 

Can you tell the difference between the two prehistoric projectile points in figure one? Quite frankly, I cannot see much of a difference besides the different materials used by the Paleoindians who made them. That is about it! Technologically and morphologically those two projectile points are identical. 

The projectile point on the left side in figure one was surface rescued from private land in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used Alibates agatized dolomite from the Panhandle of Texas to make that point. I call that projectile point type: Plainview. 

The 2.3-inch-long projectile point on the right side in figure one was a surface recovery from private land in Weld County, Colorado. Its Paleoindian flintknapper used a grayish orange petrified wood to make that projectile point. I call that projectile point type: Goshen.

Hmm...Same style and technology for those two projectile points...Why do two identical projectile points carry different projectile point type names?

Let me explain the backstory behind those two projectile point types, and then I will explain what is happening to sort out the Goshen-Plainview dilemma.  

Figure Two - CLICK for Book INFORMATION

During the summer of 1941, two young cousins named Val Keene Whitacre and Bill Weaks dug into a soft caliche embankment along Running Water Draw near Plainview, Texas. What the two boys discovered advanced our understanding of human prehistory in North America. Whitacre made the critical discovery, finding a long, stone spear point with one end still embedded in thick, fossilized bone. When the boy picked up the bone and artifact, the bone crumbled apart. 

In 1944, two geologists Glen L. Evans and Grayson E. Meade dug into that same caliche bank and found an incredible discovery — a bone bed filled with skeletons and partial skeletons of approximately 100 extinct bison. The two geologists also found stone projectile points, knives, and scrapers associated with the bone bed.

Texas Memorial Museum and the University of Texas's Bureau of Economic Geology continued excavations at the site from June to October 1945 and in November 1949.

Figure Three - Known geographical distribution for Goshen,
Goshen-Plainview, and Folsom points. 

Even though collectors were finding similar styled projectile points of that distinctive type from Canada to Mexico (figure three), the discovery at Plainview, Texas marked the first time anyone found that projectile point type in direct association with fossilized remains of extinct animals. Archaeologists named that point type Plainview after the nearby town. Archaeological and geologic evidence determined that the Plainview projectile point was younger than another famous projectile point type recently discovered in New Mexico called Folsom. Archaeologists originally dated Plainview projectile points at around 10,000 years old.

Figure Four - Montana's Mill Iron Site Goshen projectile points,
practically indistinguishable from Texas's Plainview projectile points,
but over a thousand years older.   

In mid-August of 1966 at the Hell Gap site in Goshen County, Wyoming, archaeologists were ready to conclude their investigation when they discovered a cultural zone below the Folsom level, indicating that the new cultural zone was older than Folsom. A sterile layer of dirt separated the two cultural zones. At first, the archaeologists declared that the first complete projectile point in that new cultural zone was an atypical Folsom projectile point. The archaeologists then proposed that the new projectile point could be a Clovis projectile point but they quickly dismissed that idea. In his study of that projectile point, principal archaeologist Henry Irwin noted the similarities between the newly discovered projectile point at Hell Gap and the Plainview points previously found in Texas. However, Irwin and his associates encountered a dilemma in naming the newly discovered projectile point after the Plainview points in Texas. 

What was the dilemma?   

Plainview points in Texas were found above Folsom points in the geologic column at the Plainview site. Using the geological law of superposition meant Plainview projectile points were younger than Folsom projectile points. However, at the Hell Gap site in Wyoming, that new Plainview lookalike projectile point was discovered below Folsom projectile points making the Plainview lookalike projectile point older than Folsom projectile points. 

In a nutshell, the geological law of superposition states that in any sequence of sedimentary strata not overturned, the youngest stratum is at the top and the oldest stratum is at the base, in other words, each bed is younger than the one beneath it.      

The dilemma was that the projectile points from the Plainview and Hell Gap Sites were morphologically and technologically the same type, but the Plainview projectile points in Texas were younger than Folsom projectile points while at the Hell Gap Site, the Plainview lookalike point was older than Folsom. Therefore, based on that "age discrepancy", Henry Irwin reluctantly proposed a new projectile point type called Goshen, after the county where the Hell Gap site was located.  

Investigators confirmed the time gap between Goshen on the northern High Plains and Plainview along the Panhandle of Texas in the 1980s at the Mill Iron Site in Montana (Figure Four). George Frison (1996) realized there was not much difference between the points they discovered at Mill Iron and the Plainview points in Texas, except of course their ages. He addressed the situation by integrating the two projectile point types into one projectile point technology called Goshen-Plainview.  

How is that discrepancy in age explained? My gut feeling is that Goshen-Plainview technology overlapped with Folsom technology both temporally and geographically. The data at Hell Gap and the Plainview sites reflected two separate incidents for the presence of Goshen-Plainview, one incident in which it was older than the  Folsom occupation (Hell Gap) and one incident in which it was younger than the Folsom occupation (Plainview), but in both incidents, the occupants used Goshen-Plainview technology.  



CLICK for INFO on John BRADFORD Branney Books 


Postscript 

Since I originally wrote that article many years ago, much work has occurred to unravel the age discrepancies between Goshen and Plainview. Waters and Stafford (2014) redated the Goshen strata at the Mill Iron site in Montana and compared it to strata at other high plains Goshen sites such as Jim Pitts and Upper Twin Mountain. They found that Mill Iron showed the oldest age for Goshen while Jim Pitts showed the youngest age. They concluded from the data that Goshen's age range was approximately 12,500 cal BP to 11,800 cal BP. Based on that evidence, Waters and Stafford suggested that Goshen technology emerged sometime after the introduction of Folsom technology and continued into post-Folsom times. That was a big revelation at the time since most people believed that Goshen was older than Folsom based on the stratigraphic evidence from the Hell Gap site and the original dating at the Mill Iron sites.    

Dating the original Plainview site in Texas was always problematic. Buchanan, Collard, and O'Brien (2017) reported that archaeologists sampled four other Plainview sites in Texas: Bonfire Shelter, Lubbock Lake, Lake Theo, and Williamson-Plainview. The archaeologists came up with a minimum age range of between 12,100 cal BP and 11,300 cal BP for Plainview. Based on that data, it appeared that Goshen technology was older to the north, and spread to the south where it became what we call Plainview. Based on those two studies, it seemed that Goshen and Plainview overlapped in the north and south for approximately three hundred years and that Plainview carried on in the south after Goshen disappeared in the north.       

Goshen and Plainview were now in similar time horizons with the technology spreading geographically from north to south. Since investigators recognized the Plainview projectile point type first, perhaps we should abandon the Goshen projectile point type and roll those projectile points and Goshen sites under the Plainview umbrella. 

2017      Buchanan, Briggs; Collard, Mark; and O'Brien, Michael J., 

              "Geometric Morphometric Analyses Support Incorporating the Goshen Point 

             Type into Plainview" in Plainview, edited by Holliday, Johnson, and Knudson.                        History Faculty Publications. 27. 

1996      Frison, George C. 

              The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.           

2014    Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr. 

            "Redating the Mill Iron Site in Montana: A Reexamination of Goshen Complex                     Chronology" in American Antiquity 79 (3), pages 541-548. 

The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his latest blockbuster novel 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 geology degree from the University of Wyoming and an MBA from the University of Colorado. Branney lives in the Colorado mountains with his wife, Theresa. Beyond the Campfire is the thirteenth book published by Branney.

 

            

In the Groove with a Midland Projectile Point

Figure One - Side A of 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point showing the remnant of an
impact fracture that put the projectile point out of service until the user hastily repaired the tip.  

Ronny Walker surface rescued the 1.8-inch-long Midland dart or spear point in Figure One from a cotton field in Lynn County, Texas. I acquired this Midland point not for its beauty, even though I think it is beauty, but for its character. This projectile point saw a lot of action in its time, and if it could talk, I imagine it would have a pretty interesting story. Side A of the projectile point in Figure One clearly shows part of the impact fracture that damaged the projectile point's tip. The Paleoindian then repaired the projectile point and did a pretty sloppy job with the new tip.      

Midland projectile points exhibit wide, relatively flat flake scars that produce very flat cross sections. In outline, Midland projectile points resemble Folsom projectile points but are missing the flutes. Collectors and archaeologists often find Midland projectile points associated with Folsom projectile points leading some investigators to call Midland projectile points, unfluted Folsom projectile points. There are a few investigators who believe Midland projectile points and associated artifacts deserve their own cultural designation. Midland projectile points fall within the age range of the Folsom Complex, at around 12,900 to 12,200 years old. In my opinion, the same people made Folsom and Midland projectile points.    

Before this projectile point ended up in my collection, it belonged to Ronny Walker, Tim Elkins, Ed Rowe, Ron Van Heukelom, and Rodney Michel. Dwain Rogers, Bill Jackson, and Rodney Michel certified this projectile point as an authentic Midland projectile point.    

Now, I am going to take you on a quick journey back in time to get you in the groove for further analysis of the Midland projectile point. I am setting the dial on my time machine to 10,600 B.C. We will be going on a High Plains elk hunt with a Paleoindian named Chayton. This hunting excerpt is from the first book in my prehistoric saga titled SHADOWS on the TRAIL.         

Two majestic elk, a young bull and a cow, walked out from behind the trees, heading straight at Chayton. The bull led the way while the cow followed behind. The elk held their heads high and sniffed at the air, smelling for any danger that would set them off running. The elk, upwind from Chayton, did not pick up his scent and kept walking towards him.

Chayton’s left throwing arm was cocked and ready to throw the first spear, but the bull was still walking straight at him. Chayton did not like his chances for a kill with this throw. The bull had no vital organs exposed to Chayton’s line of fire and unless Chayton threw perfectly and severed an artery, the elk would not go down. The last thing Chayton wanted to do was track a wounded elk in this rugged country.

Figure Two - Reconstruction of the SHADOWS on the TRAIL scenario
with Chayton armed with a spear thrower and spear. However, this 
particular drawing is of two caribou bulls and not a bull and cow elk.

Chayton needed the elk to turn and expose its side to his spear. Chayton thought about moving, but one sound and he would send the elk crashing through the trees in the opposite direction. The elk continued to walk straight toward Chayton. Any closer and they would pick up Chayton’s scent.

Chayton searched the ground with his right hand and found a small rock. While his left arm kept his spear ready to throw, he hurled the rock to his right where it ricocheted off a tree. The bull reared back and ran away from the sound, exposing the left side to Chayton's spear. Chayton hurled the spear and the sharp fluted spear point popped when it penetrated the bull’s rib cage. The bull continued to run to the left while Chayton readied another spear. The confused cow ran away from Chayton, crashing through the trees that led back up the bluff. Chayton grabbed the rest of his spears and followed the blood spoor left by the bull.

Figure Three -  CLICK for SHADOWS on the TRAIL

When Chayton's spear smashed into the rib cage of the bull elk, the stone tip of the thin projectile point was most likely damaged and fractured, much like the Midland projectile point that I photographed in Figure One and in later figures in the article. 

Most prehistoric projectile points that I discover on the surface of the ground in the field are damaged in one way or another. On most of the prehistoric projectile points that I find, the damage appears to come from modern-day sources such as cows, plows, or earth-moving equipment. Most of the time the modern-day damage is obvious because of fresh breaks or fractures on the projectile point. However, there are a few projectile points where it is obvious that the damage happened in prehistoric times. The Midland projectile point is one of the latter.  

I seldom find pristine, undamaged stone projectile points. In my earlier artifact hunting days, I used to calculate in my head the ratio of "ninety percent or better complete" projectile points to total projectile point pieces found. I estimated that on average that ratio was somewhere between five and ten percent. That meant for every twenty projectile points, only one or two were "ninety percent or better complete". With each passing year, I am finding fewer total artifacts, and undamaged projectile points are even rarer than they were before. It was much easier to find prehistoric artifacts forty years ago than it is today. As I often remind myself when I am hunting, "Prehistoric artifacts are not a renewable resource."  

Fortunately, I am as interested in broken projectile points as I am in complete projectile points. I love doing what I call "autopsies" on damaged stone projectile points and speculating on how that projectile point ended up in the condition I found it. Please do not get me wrong, I would much rather find unblemished, perfect projectile points, but in today's world, damaged projectile points are the rule and not the exception. A person has to deal with the cards they were dealt.  

The root-beer-colored, semi-translucent Midland point in the figures is quite thin, and the Paleoindian who made the projectile point ground and polished the edges halfway up to the repaired tip (the red dots in Figure Four indicate where the projectile point was ground or polished). The repaired tip is not as noticeable on Side B in Figure Four as it is on Side A in Figure One, but the repaired tip still looks asymmetrical and hastily done and does not meet the same workmanship standards as the rest of the projectile point. 

Figure Four - Side B of the Midland dart showing much of
the original flaking. The repaired tip is evident, but the 
impact fracture is on the other face.     

Most Paleoindian flintknappers ground or polished the edges of their projectile points to ensure the razor-sharp rock did not slice through and damage the animal sinew they used to bind the projectile point onto a spear or dart foreshaft. In studying hundreds of projectile points, it is my experience that when Paleoindians ground or polished the basal edges, they did so for at least one-third to one-quarter of the total length of a freshly made projectile point. When those Paleoindians resharpened their projectile points, the ground or polished edge length increased as a percentage of the total projectile point length. Based on that, I am guessing that the original, undamaged Midland projectile point in Figures One and Four was quite a bit longer prior to the tip damage that occurred.  

This Midland projectile point from Texas saw some action, hunting or otherwise. Something happened to damage the distal end or tip of the projectile point. Perhaps, the projectile point slammed into a bison bone or a rock or something hard enough to shatter the original tip and one edge. The Paleoindian then hastily repaired the tip of the projectile point. Figure Five shows another view of the impact fracture at the tip. Based on the direction of the compression rings, the red arrow indicates the direction that the impact came from. The collision fractured the tip of the projectile point and the fissure advanced through the projectile point like a wave moving through water. Compression rings radiate away from the direction of impact much like ripples on a calm lake after a rock splashes in the water. The fissure began at the tip of the projectile point and traveled through the rock until its energy was dissipated or escaped out of the sides of the rock.  

Figure Five - Side A showing the impact fracture at the tip and the direction
that the force came from that damaged the tip.   

Impact with something hard caused the compression rings and ripples on the damaged tip. Oftentimes, the greater the impact or disturbance, the more severe the ripples and undulations are. Choppy ripples on a Folsom flute or even on an impact fracture indicate erratic bending forces in the rock at the time the fracture was initiated. The amplitude and frequency of the ripples are a rough measure of the amount of energy at the time of fracturing. Of course, flaws or inconsistencies in the raw material can also enhance ripples, but in the case of our Midland point, the ripples came from a front-end collision with a tough material.  

Figure Six - "B" marks the transverse break along the edge.  

The Midland projectile point has more damage from the collision than just the impact fracture. In Figure Six, I labeled a section along the projectile point edge with a "B". That "B" represents a transverse break or burin-like feature that I am convinced was the result of the projectile point's collision.  What is a burin and burination? 

Burination is a process used by prehistoric people to intentionally remove a small, relatively thick flake from another flake, blade, or biface using a snapped termination or a previous burination scar as the striking platform. Burin flakes or spalls run along an edge, rather than on the surface of the artifact's face. The scar left by the removal of the edge often intersects the artifact's face at a right angle, leaving a strong, but sharp edge for scraping or grooving hard materials. 

In the case of the Midland projectile point, I believe the burin-like feature along the edge was a transverse break caused by the same collision that created the impact fracture. Caution is always necessary when differentiating between an impact fracture, a transverse break, or an intentionally-crafted burin. However, on this Midland projectile point, the burin-like feature was not intentional, in my opinion, it was accidental.   

       

The historical fiction novels written by John Bradford Branney are known for their impeccable research and biting realism. In his latest blockbuster novel 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 Pentalogy.

John Bradford Branney holds a geology degree 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.

Knapping a FOLSOM POINT with Chayton!

FIGURE ONE. A perfect 2.2 inch long Folsom projectile point found by
Lee Pinello Jr. on November 10, 1968 on a family farm in northern Colorado.
Note the flute or channel running up the middle of the point. John Branney Collection..   

My prehistoric adventure series titled the SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL QUADRILOGY took place around 10,700 years ago in what we now call Texas and Colorado. The SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL QUADRILOGY is about the challenging survival of a group of Paleoindian hunters and gatherers called the Folsom People. What makes the SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL QUADRILOGY different from your ordinary fictional adventure is that the Folsom People actually existed in North America’s prehistoric past. How do we know the Folsom People existed? Easy, they left behind a very distinct calling card, a culturally diagnostic stone projectile point that was named Folsom for the place it was first documented; Folsom, New Mexico. 

FIGURE TWO. 
Click for SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL  

Folsom points (Figure one) are thin, small to medium size, well-made projectile points with convex sides, a concave basal edge, sharp basal corners and ground stem edges. What makes Folsom projectile points distinctive from other prehistoric stone projectile point types? Besides the remarkable workmanship, the most distinctive characteristic of Folsom projectile points are the flutes or channels that run most of the length up the middle of the projectile point, starting at the base. The knapping skill required to create flutes on a Folsom projectile point is without equal in America’s prehistory. Even modern day knapping experts are challenged in making replica Folsom projectile points using the same tools and materials that were available to Folsom People in the Pleistocene.

When the Folsom People created these thin, fluted, projectile points, they not only created an important component in their weaponry, but they also created works of art. Folsom projectile points are arguably the finest projectile points ever made in North America. No one has yet confirmed the exact manufacturing process that Folsom People used to make these fluted projectile points. This is not to say that people do not have their pet theories. In fact, you can add me to that list of having a pet theory on how Folsom People made their projectile points.

In the first book of the QUADRILOGY titled SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL, I wrote about the

FIGURE THREE. Folsom point surface found on 

private land in Natrona County, Wyoming. 

John Branney Collection.  

manufacturing process the Folsom People may have used to make fluted projectile points. Since there has never been any exact evidence as to how the Folsom point makers made fluted projectile points, we have to make some assumptions. 

In the scene below from SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL, a young Folsom hunter named Chayton was learning how to make fluted projectile points from Tarca Sapa, a salty old tribal healer. In this scene Chayton shows up and wants Tarca Sapa to tutor him on the finer points of making fluted projectile points. 

“I have spear points for our journey, but I need you to help me flute them,” Chayton requested.

“I have shown you how to flute before. Why have you not learned what I have taught you?”

“I do not want to ruin these spear points since we leave the canyon tomorrow.”

“Do you think I have nothing better to do than to teach you something I have already taught you?” Tarca Sapa queried. “I will watch you flute only one. The rest you must do yourself.”

Chayton had expected this reaction from Tarca Sapa. It was the old man’s way. Tarca Sapa always complained, but always found the time to ensure Chayton learned properly. Chayton handed Tarca Sapa the spear points, one at a time. Each spear point was approximately the length of a finger and wider than a thumb. The tip of each spear point was slightly rounded, but still dangerously sharp while the base of the spear point, where the spear point attached to a wooden shaft, had two sharp ears. In the middle of the spear point’s base, between the two ears, Chayton had knapped a small square platform. When hit with an antler hammer precisely in the right place, the rock would crack and a long thin flake would detach from the middle of the spear point. A flute channel would remain where the long thin flake detached. How well this square platform was constructed and then struck with the antler hammer meant the difference between a good spear point and a broken spear point.

The platform was where Tarca Sapa focused his eyes. Tarca Sapa looked at each spear point carefully and put each inspected spear point in one of two piles. Once his inspection was over, Tarca Sapa touched the pile with seven spear points and said, “These points are good, the others need work. Now, let me see you drive a flute channel into the spear point.”

With his hands shaking, Chayton opened up his leather pouch and pulled out two thick pads made from buffalo hide and two elk antler hammers. He sat down on a nearby rock and covered his legs with the thick pads. He placed a spear point, tip down, along the inside of his left thigh and then placed an elk antler hammer horizontally on top of the platform at the base of the projectile point. He braced the other end of the elk antler hammer against the inside of his right thigh. When Chayton had the hammer precisely lined up with the small square platform, he took the second elk antler hammer in his right hand and swung down hard on top of the first elk hammer. Nothing happened.

Flustered, Chayton looked over at Tonkala hoping that she was not watching. Chayton then looked at Tarca Sapa hoping for some words of encouragement, but Tarca Sapa only stared straight ahead at the spear point still resting in Chayton’s lap. Chayton nervously lined up the spear point, this time swinging the hammer even harder, striking the spear point with much more force. A solid cracking sound came from the spear point and Chayton looked down and saw the long thin flake that had detached from the spear point. To Chayton’s delight, the spear point had a beautiful flute channel running its entire length.

"It looks like you don’t need me after all.” Tarca Sapa said with a smile. “Take the rest of the spear points and finish them.”

FIGURE FOUR. 2.5 inch long
Folsom preform certified by 
Greg Perino*. 
John Branney Collection.    

FIGURE FIVE. Striking platform to
create flute on projectile point.

FIGURE SIX. Rounded and beveled tip
of projectile point.

     The fluted points that Chayton took to Tarca Sapa were not finished and looked like the unfinished Folsom preform projectile point in FIGURE FOUR. An anonymous collector found this Folsom preform projectile point in Mecosta County, Michigan. The material is Norwood Chert. This particular preform was ready for fluting. The Paleoindian knapper had pressure flaked both faces of the preform leaving closely spaced flakes terminating near the middle of the biface. He or she rounded, beveled and abraded the distal end or tip of the preform which aided the fluting process (FIGURE SIX).  ight abrasion and grinding on the tip. Isolation of the central portion of the preform base or proximal end took place, leaving a platform nipple in the center of the base. Two pressure flakes were removed from either side of the platform nipple to allow the maker's antler punch to follow the channel flake easier. The platform nipple was beveled, ground, and polished. It was ready for Side A to be fluted. Age somewhere between 10900 and 10200 years ago. Finder unknown. Perino certification. Ex John Baldwin and Ron Van Heukelom Collections. John Branney Collection.

FIGURE SEVEN. Expert knapper Bob
Patten's pet theory of the way Folsom
People fluted their projectile points.
From Mr. Patten's book
Old Tools - New Ways..

* One or two knowledgeable people have called

this preform a Barnes Clovis, an older and

possible ancestoral point  to Folsom. They called

it a Barnes Clovis based on provenance. It

is impossible to determine whether this

point is Folsom or Barnes, I am going with 

my and Greg Perino's opinion

To assist the flutes, the Paleoindian knapper isolated a striking platform in the center portion of the projectile point base or proximal end. The Paleoindian knapper accomplished this by creating a small nipple or striking platform in the center of the preform base (FIGURE FIVE). Then, he or she removed two pressure flakes from either side of the striking platform so that the maker’s antler punch could reach the striking platform without interference from the rest of the point. The Paleoindian knapper stabilized the striking platform or nipple by beveling, grinding, and polishing it.

This Folsom preform would have made Tarca Sapa very happy! Read the SHADOWS ON THE TRAIL QUADRILOGY for all the stories!