Getting to the Point: Flaked Technology. By Blayne R. Brown, GRCA Archaeologist February 7th, 2015 Presented at the Grand Canyon Field Institute Hiking Guides Training Seminar, February 8th, 2015.

Blayne R. Brown is a skilled archaeologist, lithic tools specialist, and prehistoric technologies expert whose full range of expertise spans more than 15 years, 6 years of which he served as a seasonal Archaeologist for Grand Canyon National Park. His extensive knowledge covers all aspects of field work, from conducting research and survey to large‐scale excavation and report preparation. Blayne has worked as both crew and supervisory positions on well over 300 projects throughout the state of Arizona, as well as Southern and Central California, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and Egypt. During this time, he developed a strong interest in flaked stone technologies, ultimately leading him to begin producing replicas and reproductions of completed prehistoric tools using traditional methods of collection and manufacture initially taught to him by friends from the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Blayne spends countless hours working with stone, shell, bone, antler, wood, leather, and other natural materials to achieve reproductions that are both authentic and fully functional. His reproductions have been commissioned by both Aztec and Walnut Canyon National Monuments for use as teaching aids during interpretive programs and school functions. While his focus is on Southwestern tool technologies, Blayne is highly interested in prehistoric technologies from all around the world. Blayne’s knowledge of prehistoric tools is often sought to solve questions of artifact morphology, use, and authenticity, or to conduct detailed analysis and write‐up of flaked stone , lithic tools, ground stone, ceramics, shell, faunal remains, and perishables in both the Hohokam and Grand Canyon regions. His skills also include artifact, osteopathology, and human remains illustration, and digital photography of artifacts, petroglyphs panels, and prehistoric and historic architecture. Currently, he serves as a Project Director with EnviroSystems Management in Flagstaff, Arizona, and remains on‐call for the Grand Canyon National Park as aFire Archaeologist and Resource Advisor.

1 •When people hear the words flaked stone technology, probably most think of projectile points; •However, there are many different types of flaked stone tools. •In addition, projectile point tips were manufactured in many different forms out of many different material types… •wood, bone, shell, and stone being the most common materials. •So why were stone points used,andwhenwethinkofprojectilepoints, why are stone tips the most dominant type in the archaeological record? •Are there benefits to using stone tips over other material types? •What other flaked stone tools are found? How are stone tools made, and how were they used? •Has the form and function of basic tool technology really changed?

2 •There are many projectile point tips that are not made of stone. •A few of the more common ones include: Sharpened wood and Wooden bird points, blunts, harpoon‐style tips and spear/bow fishing ends, and carved bone, shell, and antler.

3 •Fire‐hardened wooden tips were likely one of the most common projectiles; •However, they generally do not survive in the archaeological record because of decomposition. •Why would these be the most common? Because it’s the simplest and quickest to manufacture, •And several ethnographies suggest that they were used more frequently than stone tips.

4 •This type of arrow tip was used to hunt small birds for their feathers. •If the bird was nearly missed, the crosspieces would strike and stun the bird long enough to be dispatched (Kluckhohn, Hill, and Kluckhohn, 1971: 34, 38, 41). •Also, the cross‐bars keep the point from being lost in thick brush when hunting smaller game such as rabbits. •These points were made of wood and therefore also rarely survive in the archaeological record.

Reference: •Kluckhohn, Clyde, W.W. Hill, and Lucy Wales Kluckhohn. 1971. Navajo Material Culture. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

5 •Blunt tips were often used for hunting small game such as rats and mice. •When struck, the blunt would stun the animal long enough to be dispatched (see Kluckhohn, Hill, and Kluckhohn, 1971: 34, 39, 41). •These ends were generally made from wood and bone. •While they have been found in the archaeological record, due to the materials used, they do not survive in quantity.

6 •Harpoon‐like styles were used in the Southwest to catch prairie dogs whose burrows were often too deep and too complex for smoking out and catching with pronged tips. •These tips were used to spear prairie dogs while at or near the burrow entrance and then “fish” them out of their burrows. •The arrow shaft was typically longer in length than that of a normal arrow (see Kluckhohn, Hill, and Kluckhohn, 1971:34, 38, 40, 42). •These types are usually made from bone, shell, and wood; •However, barded stone points were sometimes used after removal of one of the shoulders.

7 •Some pronged fishing tip styles are also used to catch small game such as rodents and lizards. •These ends were typically made from wood, bone, or shell. •River cane is one of the more common material choices.

8 •Bone points were often made in a manner that is most similar in shape to stone tips (see Kluckhohn, Hill, and Kluckhohn, 1971: 38); •However, bone was also used in the manufacture of blunts, fishing tips, and harpoon‐like barbs. •Shell points could be fashioned in a similar manner and have been found along coastlines (ex., Jones 1988).

Reference: •Jones, Terry. 1988. A Shell Projectile Point from the Big Sur Coast, California. In Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 10(1):100‐103.

9 •Like bone, antler was also shaped and used. •The antler tines could also simple be removed and hafted to a dart or arrow shaft, often with a barb carved at the base.

10 •An interesting side note, in some regions of the United States, certain cultures later appear to have possibly mimicked antler “cone” tips using copper cones. •These types appear to have been attached to the arrow shaft and functioned in a very similar manner; however, I know of no direct correlation.

11 •So why did prehistoric people all over the world use stone?

12 •Stone points are so prevalent in the archaeological record primarily because they do not deteriorate due to exposure like all of the other common materials used for tool making do. •Wood, bone, and shell artifacts are generally only encountered in areas that are left un‐exposed to the natural elements. •Another advantage of using stone over bone, shell, and wood may be that useable rock is found almost everywhere. •Materials such as wood and shell can be limited or non‐existent in some locations, and in general bone requires that a hunt has already been successful. •In other words, these alternate materials can take more effort to procure; however, this is true of the BEST stone materials as well. •So what are some other advantages that stone may have? •The depth of a tipped arrow is approximately 10% greater than that of a non‐tipped arrow (Holmberg 1994, Waguespack, et. al. 2009). •Likewise, tipped projectiles can penetrate bone and hard tissue that non‐tipped projectiles cannot. •The shape of a projectile point, especially triangular points with shoulders and tangs, keep the point from falling out of the wound. •Any movement causes the point to move, creating more damage, and a point in general creates a larger wound, causing the hunted game to bleed‐out quicker (Anderson 2010, Holmberg 1994); •Whereas, a non‐tipped point essentially plugs its entrance, causing less damage and slower bleed‐out. •Some studies have suggested that the beveled cross‐section of a many prehistoric points aids in rotation of the projectile, increasing its accuracy (Lipo, et. al 2012), •And the forward weight of a stone point may increase aerodynamics. •You may think stone tips are more durable, but many studies have shown that this does not seem to be the case (see Cheshier and Kelly 2006).

References: •Anderson, David. 2010. How to Make a Bigger Hole: An Experimental Analysis of Projectile Point Morphology in Wound Creation. In Furthering Perspectives, Vol. 4. •Cheshier, Joseph, and Robert L. Kelly. 2006. Projectile Point Shape and Durability: The Effect of Thickness:Length. In American Antiquity, 71(2):353‐363. •Holmberg, Daniel. 1994. and Spear Points, An Experimental Study of Projectile Points. Masters Thesis, submitted to the Department of Anthropology, Simon Fraser University. •Lipo, Carl P., Robert C. Dunnell, Michael J. O’Brien, Veronica Harper, and John Dudgeon. 2012. Beveled Projectile Points and Ballistics Technology. In American Antiquity, 77(4):xx‐xx [“Lipo Layout 1” Draft]. •Waguespack, Nicole M., Todd A. Surovell, Allen Denoyer, Alice Dallow, Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman, and Dan Tapster. 2009. Making a point: wood‐ versus stone‐tipped projectiles. In Antiquity 83:786‐800.

13 •Paleo points were comparatively larger than later point types and were often made out of stronger stone materials such as basalts and . •These types were often fluted to make of these large points easier. •These points were used to hunt large game animals such as Mammoth and Bison Antiqiuus.

14 •Dart points are larger than arrow tips, but are not a large as most spear points. •The point and the shaft are smaller because the atlatl projects the dart at a greater velocity. •In addition, these points were being used to hunt smaller game.

15 •Arrow points were relatively small and generally made out of more fragile materials such as chalcedony and ; however, and other more solid stone types were still in general use. •They more or less represent a complete shift in hunting technology. •There is some research that suggests that more fragile materials were not only selected because of their ease in knapping, but because the points would often shatter when a target was struck (or come off if un‐ notched or poorly hafted) causing more damage and greater bleed‐out. •When used in warfare, fragile or loose points would increase infection when shattered or dislodged in the wound causing enemy losses even after battle (ex., see Christenson 1997).

Reference: •Christenson, Andrew L. 1997. Side‐Notched and Unnotched Arrowpoints: Assessing Functional Differences. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht Platinum Press, New York.

16 •So, how are flaked stone tools made and what tools are used to make them?

17 •There are two general strategies for creating a projectile point… or similar flaked stone tool. •These strategies are bifacial core reduction and preparation of a flake blank. •Bifacial core reduction is typically associated with older, larger spear and dart point technologies; •Whereas, flake blanks are typically associated with later, smaller arrow‐ point technologies. •It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the two strategies in the final tool; however, those made from flake blanks are typically much thinner than the final tools made from bifacial core blanks.

18 •Flakes can be distinguished from other naturally broken rock through several characteristics that require a force of percussion greater than that which would occur under most circumstances in nature. •The most telling traits are a prepared platform and the presence of a bulb of percussion.

19 •Cores are the “parent” rock from which flakes are removed. •With some knapping strategies, the core itself may become a tool. •Bifacial core reduction is a good example of this strategy. •In addition, there are many core forms, each of which gives archaeologists clues as to the reduction strategy being used, and likewise the types of tools being produced, which can therefore be an indicator of the activities taking place at a site.

20 •Primary flakes are the first flakes removed from a core. •They contain 50% or more cortex along at least one face. •Cortex is the original naturally weathered surface of the cobble before it is worked.

21 •Secondary flakes are those flakes removed immediately after the primary flakes and contain less than 50% cortex. •Because primary and secondary flakes contain cortex, they are also known as cortical or decortication flakes. •In general an abundance of cortical flakes at a site suggests that material procurement and core reduction is taking place. •This is also known as initial‐ and early‐stage lithic reduction.

22 •Tertiary flakes can be thought of as flakes removed from the interior of the core… In other words they contain no cortex. •These flakes are often referred to as non‐cortical flakes. •Non‐cortical flakes at a site suggest biface manufacture may be taking place. •This is also known as mid‐stage lithic reduction or bifacial reduction.

23 •Bifacial thinning flakes are generally very thin tertiary flakes removed from the surface of a biface. •These flakes are distinguished by the presence of a prepared platform. •A higher ratio of bifacial thinning flakes at a site suggests tool manufacture is occurring. •This is also referred to as late‐stage lithic reduction. •At this stage the tool is almost in its final form… although the biface itself can in fact be a useable tool.

24 •Pressure flakes are very small tertiary flakes pushed off of the edge of a tool. •The presence of pressure flakes at a site is a good indicator of the shaping of the final tool, sharpening and upkeep/rejuvination.

25 •Angular shatter are fragments of stone that break during the knapping process, generally because of irregularities in the stone or due to bad knapping techniques. •This category of flaked stone debitage may also include flakes that have broken, making it impossible to determine if the flake was cortical or non‐cortical. •Because rock may shatter due to natural causes, typically shatter without other obvious cultural artifacts is not used as an indicator of cultural activities.

26 •The basic flaked stone tool kit generally includes: •hard percussion tools such as and unmodified copper nodules; •soft percussion tools such as antler and wood billets; •pressure flakers made from antler tines, bone, shell, or shaped copper tools (in some regions); •and abraders for platform preparation. •A leather pad is used to protect the knapper from cuts and bruises, support of the stone, and shock dampening. •In general, any type of leather can be and was used. •However, bison hide was traditionally preferred because of is thickness, offering more padding and protection, and for it’s ability to remain flexible despite its thickness.

Photo Credit: •Charlie (aka Stonefacescar). 2011. Pictures of Modern Tools from Primitive Materials. In Flintknapping: Tools, pp.5‐11. Compiled and edited by Michael Lynn. Self‐published e‐book.

27 •Other more specialized tools and techniques include: •Bone or stone hammered‐punches, used to drive flakes from difficult locations, •Rocker punches, used to create more leverage with punching techniques, •The “Ishi stick”,named after the last living descendant of the Northern California Yahi Tribe who introduced the tool to anthropologists sometime between 1911 (when emerged into modern culture) and 1916 (when he passed away), used to run long pressure flakes, •And thermal alteration/ “heat‐treatment” of certain parent materials, most commonly chert, used to create glassier, more workable stone. •Heat‐treated stone can be distinguished by •Spalling/pot‐lidding, •Crazing (internal fractures), •And changes in color and luster, •Among many other characteristics (Firearchaeology.com).

References: •Firearchaeology.com. 2011. Chert: Thermal alteration of Chert. Electronic document, www.firearchaeology.com/firearchaeology/Chert.html. Accessed 1/29/2015. •Tylzynski, Mike. 2010. Making a Calf Creek. In Flintknapping: Making Specific Point Types, pp. 9‐12. Compiled and edited by Michael Lynn. Self‐published e‐book.

28 •How are these points used? •What is the final function/morphology of the tool and what other tools are used to complete them?

29 •Like modern arrowheads, stone projectile points are hafted onto foreshafts or directly onto the main‐shaft. •Spears are larger and longer with big, heavy stone tips used for piercing the hide of larger game animals such as mammoth and bison. •Darts can be anywhere from 5 feet long to 8 or more feet in length, but generally have narrow shafts and significantly smaller points that spears. •Arrows are the smallest of the three types, generally about as long as the users arm with small, lightweight points used to hunt much smaller game such as deer, elk, and sheep.

*These photos illustrate the trend from larger to smaller projectile points*

30 •The spear is thrown by hand with no other means of mechanical propulsion. •The dart uses an atlatl to create more leverage when thrown by hand, significantly increasing range, and more importantly, velocity. •The arrow is propelled using a bow. •The bow string creates tension which propels the arrow forward. •This technology requires less (smaller materials, is easier to use in tight spaces (such as forests and woodlands), and generally has increased accuracy, range, and velocity over the atlatl. •However, accuracy, range, and velocity can be equal to, or even less than, the atlatl depending on the type of bow used.

*These photos illustrate the tools used to propel spears, darts, and arrows*

31 •Other flaked stone tool types can include: •Scrapers • •Gravers •Tabular knives…

32 •Biface knives…

33 •Drills •Punches •And awls. •The type of use‐wear and general form of the tools are indicators of the tool’s function. •Generally, like projectile points, wooden and bone elements of the complete tool such as handles, hafting materials, and organic decorative items rarely survive in the archaeological record.

34 •The tools used to create the final projectile include: •Shaft straighteners and smootheners, •Stone scrapers, drills, awls and gravers, •Sandstone abraders and grinding slabs, •Ochre and other pigments, •Polishing stones and leather polishing straps, •Plant and other natural fibers such as yucca, agave, willow and juniper bark cordage, leather cordage, and sinew, •Hides and furs, •And pine pitch mixed with charcoal or rabbit scat.

35 •In the manufacturing of most tools, both formal and informal/”expedient” tools are needed to create new tools. •For example, (and somewhat ironically) it is often necessary to have a drill to make a drill… for the creation of a spindle whorl. •This is basically why every formal tool has an informal/”expedient” counterpart. •True “expedient” tools are made for use as a moment dictates and then discarded immediately after use. They are disposable! •In my opinion trying to distinguish formal vs. informal is very subjective... Some of the tools I use most would be classified by archaeologists as expedient.

*The above photos exhibit some of the tool making processes and the tools used to make them*

36 •It is interesting to note that while the materials used to make various projectile points and other stone tools has changed, the general form and function of these tools for the most part has not.

37 •Fire‐hardened wooden tips… and modern field points.

38 •Wooden bird point… and modern small game tips!

39 •Prehistoric blunts made of wood or bone… and modern rubber and metal tipped blunts.

40 •Harpoon type tips… and modern harpoon tips.

41 •Prehistoric fishing tips made of wood, cane, and bone… and modern metal bow‐fishing tips.

42 Prehistoric stone tips… and modern razor broadheads.

43 •Stone scrapers… and modern metal and gouges.

44 •Stone drill tips… and modern metal drill bits.

45 •Stone punches and gravers… and modern metal punches and gravers. •It is worth noting that while stone punches were used prehistorically, more often they these tools were made from bone and antler.

46 •So, what is the point? •There is so much more to flaked stone tools than just points!

Photo Credit: •Clarke, P. 2012. Australian Plants as Aboriginal Tools. Rosenburg. The photo is of a Native Australian demonstrating the use of an aboriginal three‐piece dart.

47 Getting to the Point: Flaked Stone Tool Technology. By Blayne R. Brown, GRCA Archaeologist February 7th, 2015

Presented at the Grand Canyon Field Institute Hiking Guides Training Seminar, February 8th, 2015.

48