Heck of a Creek - A Shadows on the Trail Adventure

Figure One - The Ranch. 

Over the years, I have stopped at dozens of ranch houses to ask permission to hunt artifacts. Most of the time the landowners don’t care if you hunt as long as you treat their land with respect, in other words, keep your vehicle on existing roads and, above all things, close the gates behind you! Out of the many landowners I have asked permission, only a handful have denied me permission to hunt artifacts and it was always because sometime in the past some goofball did not follow the simple rules. They trespassed, left a gate open, drove through the landowner’s hayfield, or did something equally stupid. They did something to torque the landowner off and one thing I have learned about every landowner, they have very long memories.

I will never forget meeting one particular landowner. It was June 1, 2002, and I was heading back to Cheyenne from the southwestern part of Wyoming. I went hunting artifacts in that neck of the prairie, but I spent more time dodging rainstorms and mud than hunting artifacts. 

Figure Two - Mule deer buck on the ranch with his antlers still in velvet.
Photograph taken on May 28, 2014.  

Early June in Wyoming is an unsettled time for weather. In some parts of Wyoming, June can be spring while in other parts of Wyoming, June is still winter. I learned a long time ago to always pack extra clothes and waterproof items on my expeditions into Wyoming because June can be cold, windy, wet, and muddy.

So, there I was driving eastward down the interstate highway feeling like a whipped puppy dog. All I saw on my trip to southwestern Wyoming was rain, rain, and more rain. I felt lucky to even make it back to the main highway with all the gumbo mud on the backroads I traversed. I sure didn't want to drive back to Cheyenne empty-handed, so I decided to check out an area I had been eyeballing for some time on my topo maps. The place looked quite interesting, and it helped to pique my interest when the mapmakers named several topographic features after Native Americans. How could that go wrong?

 

Figure three – lichen-covered metate with inscribed lines on the surface.
Metate is 7.5 inches long. Found along the creek on May 30, 2013.  

I arrived at that spot on the map and started looking around for a ranch house. I wanted to ask permission before traipsing off onto someone’s private land. I found the closest ranch house and knocked on the door. After several dogs announced my presence, the rancher answered the door and peered down at me through a rusty screen door. The way he stared at me, you might have thought I was trying to sell him a vacuum cleaner or a set of encyclopedias. I introduced myself and explained to him why I was there. I always squeeze into my introduction that I am a native Wyomingite which most of the time scores a few brownie points. I ask permission and tell them I will only drive on the roads and the only thing I leave behind are my footprints (and hopefully fewer artifacts).

While the rancher sized me up, we talked about the weather and cattle prices. Before I knew it, the screen door flew open, and the rancher invited me into his home. As soon as I walked through the door, three cattle dogs surrounded me, investigating every scent I accumulated on my boots over the past three years. I smelled bacon as the rancher directed me to a chair at the kitchen table. After taking a brief detour to the stove to introduce myself to the rancher’s wife, I sat down at the kitchen table. I watched the rancher digging around on some shelves in the living room and the first thing my warped mind thought was he was looking for bullets for his Ruger pistol. While I kept an eagle eye on the rancher, in case I needed to make a hasty exit, his wife brought me a steaming cup of black coffee. The rancher walked back to the kitchen table and plopped down a bunch of rocks in front of me.

Figure Four - Pronghorn antelope checking me out along the creek.
Photograph taken on September 27, 2014. 

“What do you think of these?!” the rancher asked me with the confidence one has when laying down a winning hand at poker.

Wow, I thought to myself.

On the table in front of me were several broken prehistoric arrow points, the base of a large Besant dart point, a broken Pelican Lake knife form, and a perfect, tiny Hogback bird point. I started talking about what the artifacts were. I couldn’t help myself.

The rancher’s eyes lit up when he said, “I didn’t know that.” 

When I told the rancher and his wife the age ranges for some of their artifacts, they looked at me like I was from another planet. I am not sure they believed me. The rancher told me that his folks and grandparents hunted arrowheads on the property since the late 1800s. My heart sank a bit when I thought about all of the artifacts the family picked up in the last hundred years or so. As a side note, I prefer ranchers who couldn’t care less about artifacts and they leave the hunting up to me, but after all, it is their land.  

Figure Five – In situ photograph of a 3.3-inch-long Pelican Lake knife form made from Big Horn Chert. It was found on June 2, 2020, along a tributary to the main creek.    

After taking me to the basement to show me a fossilized skull of a very large Bison antiquus bull that the rancher found eroding from a riverbed, we went back to the kitchen table. By that time, the wife brought out two shoeboxes and set them down on the table. Well, I would never claim to be the brightest light bulb in the box, but I was pretty sure she was not going to show me any brand-new shoes in those shoeboxes.

The rancher’s wife meticulously unwrapped each artifact from paper towels and laid each one carefully down on the kitchen table. There were dozens of dart points, arrow points, knives, drills, and scrapers. I noticed a beautiful Goshen knife in the middle of a bunch of Late Archaic dart points. When I asked her about the Goshen knife, she told me the rancher’s brother found it in the sandy bottom of a nearby river when the water level was down. I then spotted another killer artifact hiding amongst the scrapers, a paper-thin Folsom point, made from a ghostlike, semi-translucent chalcedony. I would have loved to have found that Folsom point. By that time, I was thinking to myself that I wished that family would have taken up stamp collecting instead of arrowhead hunting. 

  

Figure Six - A 22.7-inch-long metate that I found half-buried with 
two manos along a tributary of the creek on August 22, 2022. 

Then, the rancher’s wife plucked out what appeared to be a large cotton cocoon from the bottom of the shoebox. She held it up for me to see as if my X-ray vision could see through that thick glob of cotton. She unwound the cotton with the same delicate touch you might expect if she was unwrapping a priceless Faberge egg. When she was done, she teasingly held the artifact away from me so I could not see it. Then, with her cupped hand, she held the artifact in front of my nose. Nestled in the palm of her hand was a beautiful corner-notch tang knife. I am quite sure my jaw smacked the kitchen table. I most likely drooled out of the corner of my mouth. I lost all feeling in my brain as I stared at that glorious tang knife. You see, corner-notch tang knives may be more common in other parts of the country, but in dear old Wyoming, they are as rare as moose feathers. Then again, moose feathers might be more common in Wyoming than corner-notch tang knives.  

I was a bit speechless. I stared at the tang knife, then the wife, and finally the rancher. I wanted to know more about that artifact. They kept me in suspense with their smiles. Eventually, my mouth worked, and I formed two words as if I had never spoken English before.

“Tang knife,” I declared the obvious.

“Yes,” the wife replied with a giggle.

“Whe-where did you fi-find it?” I stuttered for the first time since third grade.  

“Here on the ranch,” the wife disclosed as nonchalantly as describing the weather.  

I wanted to ask them where on the ranch, but the rancher beat me to it. 

“She found that along the creek,” he said. “That’s one heck of a creek for finding arrowheads.”

“Eighteen years ago,” the wife added, “The year of the flood.”

“Seems like yesterday,” the rancher remarked. “That’s one heck of a creek.”

I already knew where I wanted to hunt if I could only get their permission.

“Have you ever found one?” the wife asked me.

I thought about that question. Over the years, I found what I thought were pieces of tang knives and perhaps some variants of tang knives, but a perfect corner-notch like that one? 

“One,” I answered. “I’ve found one.”

Yep, in all those decades and thousands of miles hiking, I had only found one measly, but nearly perfect, corner-notch tang knife.

 Note: since that visit, I have been fortunate to find several tang knives. Mostly from private land in Colorado.

After examining the rancher’s wonderful collection, I told them that I would like to check out ‘Heck of a Creek’. The rancher told me how to get there and we said our goodbyes, and I was off. I drove to that creek to find a corner-notch tang knife or a Folsom. That did not happen, but I found a bunch of chipping debris and some broken artifacts. The day was a success.  

Figure Seven - What have I got here? June 27, 2012, at the creek. 

I fast forward ten years and twenty-six days to June 27, 2012, and I am still finding artifacts along that “Heck of a Creek”. No, I haven’t found any Clovis caches or Folsom dart points, but I can’t complain about the hundreds of artifacts that I have found. I arrived at the creek that morning and started my search along the floodplain along the west side. Prehistoric people liked that side of the creek for some reason, and so did erosion. Back and forth I meandered across the plain like a tractor preparing the ground for planting. My eyes scoured the ground with the objective of not missing one single flake.

I remember that glorious day with its blue sky, brilliant sunshine, and northerly breeze as if it were yesterday. Even though it was late June, it was chilly and I wore a hoodie with the hood pulled snugly over the top of my noggin. The first interesting artifact I found was an odd-looking metate. I walked farther and found several more broken artifacts, but nothing to write home to Mother about. I was beginning to think that this was going to be one of those days when the hike was the most productive event of the day. Then, I spotted it, a buried artifact (figure seven). I didn’t know what kind of artifact it was or its condition, but I saw the tell-tale flaking and the beautiful material. Soon, I would set that artifact free from its grave.

Figure Eight - Pulled from the ground on June 27, 2012,
a 2.8-inches-long corner-notch tang knife.   

I reached down and pulled the artifact from the ground. I was as quiet as a closed coffin as I stared at the artifact. Then, I yelled into the wind something like, “Glory, hallelujah!”, but much less pious words popped out of my mouth. 

The freed artifact was a corner-notch tang knife (figures seven, eight, and ten). My hands shook as I photographed one of the rarest artifacts I have ever found. Then, I thought about the rancher’s wife and her tang knife. Two corner tang knives on the same creek, nearly impossible to fathom, but man that is one Heck of a Creek!

Although we do not know for sure how prehistoric people used or hafted corner-notch tang knives, Bob Patten (1999) provided an interesting possibility in figure nine. Since the hafting element is offset to one corner of a tang knife, people have come up with various possibilities as to how the knives were attached to a wooden or bone handle. I believe Patten’s theory is as reasonable as any solution, but we will never know for sure until a corner-notch tang knife is found with the hafting mechanism still intact.  

 

Figure Nine - Patten (1999)  

In addition to some great artifact hunting, the creek offers some fantastic scenery and lots of wildlife sightings. So, if the artifacts aren’t biting, there are always other diversions. Even today, I am walking the creek a couple of times per year in search of artifacts. Occasionally, I find a good one. Some time ago, the rancher lost his interest in artifacts. He definitely has his hands full running his cattle ranch.

The landscape in the area has dramatically changed in the last decade. It is no longer the pristine place it once was. The rancher and his neighbors received offers that they could not refuse. Hundreds of wind turbines tower over their ranchland for tens of miles in every direction. The landscape has forever changed and not for the better. As I listen to the whirring and humming of wind turbine blades, I have to conclude that yes, it once was a “Heck of a Creek”.

Figure Ten - The Find of the Day. 

References Cited

Patten, Bob

            1999    Old Tools – New Eyes, Stone Dagger Publications, Denver.            

 

About the Author

John Bradford Branney is a geologist, prehistorian, and author. Born in Wyoming, he currently lives in the Colorado mountains. He has published eleven books (working on twelve) and many magazine articles about archaeology, wandering, and geology. He has collected prehistoric artifacts his entire life and has documented an extensive artifact collection.    

      

  

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.

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.

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

1982    The Agate Basin Site. Academic Press. New York.

Frison, George C., and Lawrence C. Todd
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.

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.      

About the Author

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.