당신은 주제를 찾고 있습니까 “paleo indian scrapers – Stone Tools 2b: Uniface scrapers of American Indians“? 다음 카테고리의 웹사이트 https://chewathai27.com/you 에서 귀하의 모든 질문에 답변해 드립니다: https://chewathai27.com/you/blog. 바로 아래에서 답을 찾을 수 있습니다. 작성자 Healthy Family Variety Channel 이(가) 작성한 기사에는 조회수 17,282회 및 좋아요 170개 개의 좋아요가 있습니다.
Table of Contents
paleo indian scrapers 주제에 대한 동영상 보기
여기에서 이 주제에 대한 비디오를 시청하십시오. 주의 깊게 살펴보고 읽고 있는 내용에 대한 피드백을 제공하세요!
d여기에서 Stone Tools 2b: Uniface scrapers of American Indians – paleo indian scrapers 주제에 대한 세부정보를 참조하세요
Part (B) of uniface Scrapers.
These will all be put into a playlist after I am finished with the series.
Thanks so much for watching!!
paleo indian scrapers 주제에 대한 자세한 내용은 여기를 참조하세요.
The Paleo End Scraper – Arrowheads.com
The Paleo End Scraper (PES) is an extremely important artifact because it is a temporal indicator, like the projectile. Dr. Frison has written that spurred end …
Source: arrowheads.com
Date Published: 8/7/2021
View: 7764
36 Paleo points and scrapers ideas | indian artifacts, native …
Oct 30, 2018 – Explore Nancy Farmer’s board “Paleo points and scrapers” on … eas about indian artifacts, native american artifacts, arrowheads artifacts.
Source: www.pinterest.com
Date Published: 12/7/2022
View: 7492
WORKING WITH WILMSEN: PALEOINDIAN END SCRAPER …
This study is an investigation of tool design and the organization of work. Here we further test Wilmsen’s (1970) conclu- sion that early Paleoindian tools- …
Source: www.jstor.org
Date Published: 5/11/2021
View: 3679
CGSS MIDDLE PALEOINDIAN PERIOD
Sometimes referred to as a Thumb Scraper, they are made from a unifacial flake that is intentionally flaked to a pointed triangular shape. A bulb of percussion …
Source: peachstatearchaeologicalsociety.org
Date Published: 1/4/2021
View: 3062
Paleo End Scraper – Complete Guide
Paleo end scrapers are stone tools that Native Americans used at the end of the ice age. People used these tools to cut wood, work bone, or …
Source: www.todayimoutside.com
Date Published: 1/28/2022
View: 5216
Paleo Indian Tools – Etsy
5308*, Hafted Paleo Scraper / Blunt, Indian Arrowhead, Indian Artifact, Arkansas, … Paleo Native American effigy artifacts, rare indian stone tools #126.
Source: www.etsy.com
Date Published: 3/22/2021
View: 8319
주제와 관련된 이미지 paleo indian scrapers
주제와 관련된 더 많은 사진을 참조하십시오 Stone Tools 2b: Uniface scrapers of American Indians. 댓글에서 더 많은 관련 이미지를 보거나 필요한 경우 더 많은 관련 기사를 볼 수 있습니다.
주제에 대한 기사 평가 paleo indian scrapers
- Author: Healthy Family Variety Channel
- Views: 조회수 17,282회
- Likes: 좋아요 170개
- Date Published: 2016. 7. 18.
- Video Url link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M75FDRVpdCI
What kind of tools did the Paleo-Indians use?
The artifacts generally consist of hunting tools such as stone spear points, scrapers, and flakes of stone produced in the production or repair of spear points and other tools. It is also likely that Paleoindian people made a variety of wooden and bone tools that have not survived for archaeologists to discover.
What is a paleolithic scraper?
For European and American Stone Age peoples, end scrapers served as heavy- duty scraping tools that could have been used on animal hides, wood, or bones. Once the hide was removed from an animal, an end scraper could take the hair off the skin’s outer layer and remove the fatty tissue from its underside.
What were Paleo-Indians called?
The Lithic peoples or Paleo-Indians are the earliest-known settlers of the Americas. The period’s name derives from the appearance of “lithic flaked” stone tools. Traditional theories suggest that big-animal hunters crossed the Bering Strait from North Asia into the Americas over a land bridge (Beringia).
Which stone tools are mostly closely associated with Paleo-Indians?
Paleo-Indian technology included knapped, or chipped, stone tools such as scrapers, knives, and projectile points, such as the Clovis point. Throughout the Paleo-Indian era, the spear was the most common weapon.
How do I identify my Native American stone tools?
Look for crudely chipped scrapers and hand choppers that may not look like tools. Compare the differences between full-grooved and 3/4 grooved axes. Determine if the tool was hafted or hand held. Look for a finely sanded cutting bit on the sharp edges of axes and celts.
What is a Native American pecking stone?
The form of a stone axe was created by pecking with a hard hammerstone. In North America, axes, celts, gouges, mauls, plummets, and bannerstones began to appear early in the Archaic period, made from hard igneous or metamorphic rocks.
What were scrapers used for?
Scrapers are working tools, made to help clean animals hides, butcher animal flesh, process plant material or any number of other functions.
What were Native American scrapers used for?
End scrapers were used to process and shape softer organic materials such as animal hides, antler, bone, and wood. But their most common use may have been for scraping animal hides. Plains Indian bison hunters were using end scrapers as skin dressing tools to clean buffalo hides of excess flesh, fat and muscle fiber.
What were scrapers made of?
Scrapers are typically formed by chipping the end of a flake of stone in order to create one sharp side and to keep the rest of the sides dull to facilitate grasping it. Most scrapers are either circle or blade-like in shape.
What religion were the Paleo-Indians?
It also seems likely that Paleoamericans practiced animistic religion, in which a spiritual essence is assigned to natural forces such as fire, water, thunder, mountains, and animals, sometimes giving them power over humans.
How old are Paleo-Indians?
The Paleoindian Period refers to a time approximately 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age when humans first appeared in the archeological record in North America.
What did Paleo-Indians believe in?
Archaeologists have yet to discover objects that can be attributed to Paleoindian beliefs. We can make educated inferences about their beliefs. Throughout the world, most hunters and gatherers believe in a spirit-filled world. Their lives include a variety of rituals to give respect to spirits and to learn from them.
What weapon was important to the nomadic Paleo-Indians?
Archaic Indians improved upon the crude stone tools of the ice age Paleo Indians. They developed lighter, faster darts launched with a spear thrower called an atlatl. Fish hooks, nets, baskets and the bow and arrow emerged as the tribal lifestyle became less nomadic.
What were stone flakes used for?
A flake generally has very sharp edges, making it useful for cutting, scraping, and carving. Some flakes are worked into projectile points for an atlatl or bow. Flintknappers primarily use two techniques to remove flakes: percussion (striking flakes) and pressure flaking (pushing flakes).
What did all Paleoindian tribes have in common?
…Native Americans are known as Paleo-Indians. They shared certain cultural traits with their Asian contemporaries, such as the use of fire and domesticated dogs; they do not seem to have used other Old World technologies such as grazing animals, domesticated plants, and the wheel.
What’s a scraper?
A scraper is a tool that has a small handle and a metal or plastic blade and can be used for scraping a particular surface clean.
What is scraper in wastewater treatment?
Rotating Circular scrapers are designed to remove sludge and scum mainly in final settling tanks. This sludge which has settled down at the bottom is collected by the scraper while floating solids on the surface are collected by the skimmer.
What was the first scraper?
The earliest scraper known to Allhands was the mouldebaert (also rendered as “mollebart” and “mollebaert”), a Flemish horse-drawn agricultural implement resembling a large shovel. The March 26, 1824, issue of American Farmer (Baltimore) explains its operation.
What is a scraper construction?
One of the largest pieces of equipment you’ll see on a construction site is a scraper. The purpose of this machine is to scrape the surface of the earth to prepare a site for a building project. It is often used for road work.
Stone Age Toolkit (non-Flash)
Blade Core
This artifact was used to provide stone blades. Blade cores provided a portable source of stone or obsidian for manufacturing different kinds of tools by flaking off pieces from the core. The basis of many Upper Paleolithic tool forms from both the Old and New Worlds was the blade flake, a thin, parallel-sided flake that is at least twice as long as it is wide. Blade flakes were “pre-forms” that could be fashioned into knives, hide scrapers, spear tips, drills, and other tools.
End Scraper
This artifact was used for scraping fur from animal hides. For European and American Stone Age peoples, end scrapers served as heavy- duty scraping tools that could have been used on animal hides, wood, or bones. Once the hide was removed from an animal, an end scraper could take the hair off the skin’s outer layer and remove the fatty tissue from its underside. End scrapers were sometimes hafted, or attached to a wooden handle, but could also be handheld.
Burin
This artifact was used for carving bone, antler, or wood. Burins are among the oldest stone tools, dating back more than 50,000 years, and are characteristic of Upper Paleolithic cultures in both Europe and the Americas. Burins exhibit a feature called a burin spall—a sharp, angled point formed when a small flake is struck obliquely from the edge of a larger stone flake. These tools could have been used with or without a wooden handle.
Awl
This artifact was used for shredding plant fibers. Awls were small, pointed hand tools employed in both the Old and New World to slice fibers for thread and fishing nets, and to punch holes in leather and wood. Stone Age peoples may also have sliced animal hides to make clothing using awls. These tools could be made from stone or bone and were highly sharpened for maximum efficiency.
Antler Harpoon
This artifact was used for hunting large marine animals. Upper Paleolithic cultures in Europe between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago hunted seals, whales, and even swimming land mammals such as reindeer using antler harpoons. In the New World, these harpoons appeared only around 6,000 years ago in the arctic cultures of Alaska and Canada. Experts believe antler harpoons were used in tandem with wooden launchers known as atlatls to help the harpoon penetrate prey with more force.
Clovis Point
This artifact was used for killing mammoths and other megafauna. Clovis refers to this particular style of stone spear point and to the culture of the North American people who used such weapons to devastating effect against large game. Clovis points are leaf-shaped and have a wide groove, or flute, on both sides of the base for fitting into short wooden or bone spear shafts. The largest spear point ever found, measuring nine inches long, was a Clovis point made of chalcedony, a kind of quartz.
Bone Flute
This artifact was used for playing music. Made of bone, this wind instrument dates to around 14,000 years ago in France. Hunters may have carried such flute-like instruments in their mobile toolkits or been buried with them, perhaps for the afterlife. Other artistic relics of Stone Age peoples, especially in the Old World, include carved figurines, cave paintings, and beaded clothing. France’s Solutrean culture of 23,000 to 18,000 years ago is noted for its artistic tradition.
Beads
This artifact was used for personal ornamentation. It’s impossible to know definitively, but experts think beads made of bone, ivory, shells, and teeth were decorative and might also have been traded as currency, based on what they know about the cultures of contemporary native peoples. They have unearthed necklaces, pendants, bracelets, and anklets at Stone Age weapons caches and burial sites in Europe and the Americas.
Needle
This artifact was used for stitching hides. Stone Age technology included delicate sewing needles made of bone with punched eyeholes. They were probably used in tandem with thread fashioned from plant fibers or animal sinew. Archeologists have found bone needles dating to within the past 20,000 years in Europe and North America, where they might have facilitated clothing and boat production.
Bone Point
This tool was used for launching at animals during hunting. Bone projectile points were flexible, light, general-purpose weapons for hunting large land animals. To be as lethal as possible, their tips were chiseled to exquisite sharpness. This is a North American point, but bone points hafted onto wooden or bone handles were also common in the Stone Age Old World. A deep groove cuts into the base of the point, where a hunter would have inserted a wooden thrower and secured it with resin.
Paleo-Indians
Classification term given to the first peoples who entered the American continents
This article is about Paleolithic people of the Americas. For Paleolithic people of India, see South Asian Stone Age . For other aspects of the prehistory of the Americas, see Pre-Columbian era
Paleo-Indians, Paleoindians or Paleo-Americans were the first peoples who entered, and subsequently inhabited, the Americas during the final glacial episodes of the late Pleistocene period. The prefix “paleo-” comes from the Greek adjective palaios (παλαιός), meaning “old” or “ancient”. The term “Paleo-Indians” applies specifically to the lithic period in the Western Hemisphere and is distinct from the term “Paleolithic”.[1]
Traditional theories suggest that big-animal hunters crossed the Bering Strait from North Asia into the Americas over a land bridge (Beringia). This bridge existed from 45,000 to 12,000 BCE (47,000–14,000 BP).[2] Small isolated groups of hunter-gatherers migrated alongside herds of large herbivores far into Alaska. From c. 16,500 – c. 13,500 BCE ( c. 18,500 – c. 15,500 BP), ice-free corridors developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America.[3] This allowed animals, followed by humans, to migrate south into the interior of the continent. The people went on foot or used boats along the coastline. The precise dates and routes of the peopling of the Americas remain subjects of ongoing debate.[4] At least two morphologically different Paleo-Indian populations were coexisting in different geographical areas of Mexico 10,000 years ago.[5]
Stone tools, particularly projectile points and scrapers, are the primary evidence of the earliest human activity in the Americas. Archaeologists and anthropologists use surviving crafted lithic flaked tools to classify cultural periods.[6] Scientific evidence links Indigenous Americans to eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to Siberian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and genetic composition as indicated by molecular data, such as DNA.[7] There is evidence for at least two separate migrations.[8] From 8000 to 7000 BCE (10,000–9,000 BP) the climate stabilized, leading to a rise in population and lithic technology advances, resulting in a more sedentary lifestyle.
Migration into the Americas [ edit ]
Further information on theories of Paleo-Indian migration to and throughout the Americas: Settlement of the Americas
Researchers continue to study and discuss the specifics of Paleo-Indian migration to and throughout the Americas, including the exact dates and routes traveled.[10] The traditional theory holds that these early migrants moved into Beringia between eastern Siberia and present-day Alaska 17,000 years ago,[11] at a time when the Quaternary glaciation significantly lowered sea levels.[12] These people are believed to have followed herds of now-extinct pleistocene megafauna along ice-free corridors that stretched between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets.[13] An alternative proposed scenario involves migration – either on foot or using boats – down the Pacific coast to South America.[14] Evidence of the latter would since have been covered by a sea-level rise of more than a hundred meters following the end of the last glacial period.[15]
Archaeologists contend that Paleo-Indians migrated out of Beringia (western Alaska), between c. 40,000 and c. 16,500 years ago.[16][17][18] This time range remains a source of substantial debate. Conventional estimates have it that humans reached North America at some point between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.[19][20][21][22] The few areas of agreement achieved to date are the origin from Central Asia, with widespread habitation of the Americas during the end of the last glacial period, or more specifically what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,000–13,000 years before present.[11][23] However, alternative theories about the origins of Paleoindians exist, including migration from Europe.[24]
Periodization [ edit ]
Sites in Alaska (East Beringia) are where some of the earliest evidence has been found of Paleo-Indians,[25][26][27] followed by archaeological sites in northern British Columbia, western Alberta and the Old Crow Flats region in the Yukon.[28] The Paleo-Indian would eventually flourish all over the Americas.[29] These peoples were spread over a wide geographical area; thus there were regional variations in lifestyles. However, all the individual groups shared a common style of stone tool production, making knapping styles and progress identifiable.[27] This early Paleo-Indian period’s lithic reduction tool adaptations have been found across the Americas, utilized by highly mobile bands consisting of approximately 20 to 60 members of an extended family.[30][31] Food would have been plentiful during the few warm months of the year. Lakes and rivers were teeming with many species of fish, birds and aquatic mammals. Nuts, berries and edible roots could be found in the forests and marshes. The fall would have been a busy time because foodstuffs would have to be stored and clothing made ready for the winter. During the winter, coastal fishing groups moved inland to hunt and trap fresh food and furs.[32]
Late ice-age climatic changes caused plant communities and animal populations to change.[33] Groups moved from place to place as preferred resources were depleted and new supplies were sought.[29] Small bands utilized hunting and gathering during the spring and summer months, then broke into smaller direct family groups for the fall and winter. Family groups moved every 3–6 days, possibly traveling up to 360 km (220 mi) a year.[34][35] Diets were often sustaining and rich in protein due to successful hunting. Clothing was made from a variety of animal hides that were also used for shelter construction.[36] During much of the Early and Middle Paleo-Indian periods, inland bands are thought to have subsisted primarily through hunting now-extinct megafauna.[29] Large Pleistocene mammals were the giant beaver, steppe wisent, musk ox, mastodons, woolly mammoths and ancient reindeer (early caribou).[37]
The Clovis culture, appearing around 11,500 BCE ( c. 13,500 BP),[38] undoubtedly did not rely exclusively on megafauna for subsistence.[39] Instead, they employed a mixed foraging strategy that included smaller terrestrial game, aquatic animals, and a variety of flora.[40] Paleo-Indian groups were efficient hunters and carried a variety of tools. These included highly efficient fluted-style spear points, as well as microblades used for butchering and hide processing.[41] Projectile points and hammerstones made from many sources are found traded or moved to new locations.[42] Stone tools were traded and/or left behind from North Dakota and Northwest Territories, to Montana and Wyoming.[43] Trade routes also have been found from the British Columbia Interior to the coast of California.[43]
The glaciers that covered the northern half of the continent began to gradually melt, exposing new land for occupation around 17,500–14,500 years ago.[33] At the same time as this was occurring, worldwide extinctions among the large mammals began. In North America, camelids and equids eventually died off, the latter not to reappear on the continent until the Spanish reintroduced the horse near the end of the 15th century CE.[44] As the Quaternary extinction event was happening, the Late Paleo-Indians would have relied more on other means of subsistence.[45]
From c. 10,500 – c. 9,500 BCE (c. 12,500 – c. 11,500 BP), the broad-spectrum big game hunters of the great plains began to focus on a single animal species: the bison (an early cousin of the American bison).[46] The earliest known of these bison-oriented hunting traditions is the Folsom tradition. Folsom peoples traveled in small family groups for most of the year, returning yearly to the same springs and other favored locations on higher ground.[47] There they would camp for a few days, perhaps erecting a temporary shelter, making and/or repairing some stone tools, or processing some meat, then moving on.[46] Paleo-Indians were not numerous and population densities were quite low.[48]
Classification [ edit ]
Different types of Projectile points , from the Paleo-Indian periods in southeastern North America
Paleo-Indians are generally classified by lithic reduction or lithic core “styles” and by regional adaptations.[27][49] Lithic technology fluted spear points, like other spear points, are collectively called projectile points. The projectiles are constructed from chipped stones that have a long groove called a “flute”. The spear points would typically be made by chipping a single flake from each side of the point.[50] The point was then tied onto a spear of wood or bone. As the environment changed due to the ice age ending around 17–13 Ka BP on short, and around 25–27 Ka BP on the long,[51] many animals migrated overland to take advantage of the new sources of food. Humans following these animals, such as bison, mammoth and mastodon, thus gained the name big-game hunters.[52] Pacific coastal groups of the period would have relied on fishing as the prime source of sustenance.[53]
Archaeologists are piecing together evidence that the earliest human settlements in North America were thousands of years before the appearance of the current Paleo-Indian time frame (before the late glacial maximum 20,000-plus years ago).[54] Evidence indicates that people were living as far east as northern Yukon, in the glacier-free zone called Beringia before 30,000 BCE (32,000 BP).[55][56] Until recently, it was generally believed that the first Paleo-Indian people to arrive in North America belonged to the Clovis culture. This archaeological phase was named after the city of Clovis, New Mexico, where in 1936 unique Clovis points were found in situ at the site of Blackwater Draw, where they were directly associated with the bones of Pleistocene animals.[57]
Recent data from a series of archaeological sites throughout the Americas suggest that Clovis (thus the “Paleo-Indians”) time range should be re-examined. In particular, sites located near Cooper’s Ferry in Idaho,[58] Cactus Hill in Virginia,[59] Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania,[60] Bear Spirit Mountain in West Virginia,[61] Catamarca and Salta in Argentina,[62] Pilauco and Monte Verde in Chile,[63][64] Topper in South Carolina,[65] and Quintana Roo in Mexico[66][67] have generated early dates for wide-ranging Paleo-Indian occupation. Some sites significantly predate the migration time frame of ice-free corridors, thus suggesting that there were additional coastal migration routes available, traversed either on foot and/or in boats.[68] Geological evidence suggests the Pacific coastal route was open for overland travel before 23,000 years ago and after 16,000 years ago.[69]
South America [ edit ]
In South America, the site of Monte Verde indicates that its population was probably territorial and resided in their river basin for most of the year. Some other South American groups, on the other hand, were highly mobile and hunted big-game animals such as mastodon and giant sloths. They used classic bifacial projectile point technology.
The primary examples are populations associated with El Jobo points (Venezuela), fish-tail or Magallanes points (various parts of the continent, but mainly the southern half), and Paijan points (Peru and Ecuador) at sites in grasslands, savanna plains, and patchy forests.[70]
The dating for these sites ranges from c. 14,000 BP (for Taima-Taima in Venezuela) to c. 10,000 BP.[71] The bi-pointed El Jobo projectile points were mostly distributed in north-western Venezuela; from the Gulf of Venezuela to the high mountains and valleys. The population using them were hunter-gatherers that seemed to remain within a certain circumscribed territory.[72][73] El Jobo points were probably the earliest, going back to c. 14,200 – c. 12,980 BP and they were used for hunting large mammals.[74] In contrast, the fish-tail points, dating to c. 11,000 B.P. in Patagonia, had a much wider geographical distribution, but mostly in the central and southern part of the continent.[75][76]
Archaeogenetics [ edit ] [77] Frequency distribution of haplogroup Q-M242.
The haplogroup most commonly associated with Amerindian genetics is Haplogroup Q-M3.[78] Y-DNA, like (mtDNA), differs from other nuclear chromosomes in that the majority of the Y chromosome is unique and does not recombine during meiosis. This allows the historical pattern of mutations to be easily studied.[79] The pattern indicates Indigenous Amerindians experienced two very distinctive genetic episodes: first with the initial peopling of the Americas, and secondly with European colonization of the Americas.[80] The former is the determinant factor for the number of gene lineages and founding haplotypes present in today’s Indigenous Amerindian populations.[81][unreliable source?]
Human settlement of the Americas occurred in stages from the Bering sea coast line, with an initial layover on Beringia for the founding population.[82][83][84][85] The micro-satellite diversity and distributions of the Y lineage specific to South America indicates that certain Amerindian populations have been isolated since the initial colonization of the region.[86] The Na-Dené, Inuit and Indigenous Alaskan populations, however, exhibit haplogroup Q (Y-DNA) mutations that are distinct from other Amerindians with various mtDNA mutations.[87][88][89] This suggests that the earliest migrants into the northern extremes of North America and Greenland derived from later migrant populations.[90]
Transition to archaic period [ edit ]
Atlatl weights and carved stone gorgets from Poverty Point
The Archaic period in the Americas saw a changing environment featuring a warmer, more arid climate and the disappearance of the last megafauna.[91] The majority of population groups at this time were still highly mobile hunter-gatherers, but now individual groups started to focus on resources available to them locally. Thus with the passage of time there is a pattern of increasing regional generalization like the Southwest, Arctic, Poverty, Dalton, and Plano traditions. These regional adaptations would become the norm, with reliance less on hunting and gathering, and a more mixed economy of small game, fish, seasonally wild vegetables, and harvested plant foods.[35][92] Many groups continued to hunt big game but their hunting traditions became more varied and meat procurement methods more sophisticated.[33] The placement of artifacts and materials within an Archaic burial site indicated social differentiation based upon status in some groups.[93]
See also [ edit ]
Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal
References [ edit ]
The Paleo End Scraper
THE PALEO END SCRAPER
By Tony Baker as Edited by Gene Hynek
The Paleo End Scraper (PES) is an extremely important artifact because it is a temporal indicator, like the projectile. Dr. Frison has written that spurred end scrapers (PES) are another possible Paleoindian diagnostic . . . (1991:128). From my experience, they are second only to the projectile point as indicators of the Paleoindian tradition.
Figure 1.
The PES is a triangular end scraper, about the size of a silver dollar, with a spur at the intersection of the lateral edge and the distal end. The spur is the most diagnostic attribute of the PES. Figure 1 shows spurs on both sides which is the case on approximately 50% of the PESs. Actually, many spurs are broken off the artifacts, presumedly through use.
A PES is made on a flake from a variety of sources, e.g. quarry sample, thin biface, etc. The bulb of percussion is located on the proximal end on approximately 90% of the artifacts. The lateral edges are usually retouched, as shown in Figure 1, on the left lateral edge. Retouch can also take the form of notches like the one located just back of the distal end on the right lateral edge. Lithic materials employed tended to be tough, but they were usually not quartzites. Jaspers and chalcedonies were the materials of choice.
Figure 2 is a classic PES with a prominent spur on the right side. There appears to have been another spur on the left side. The tiny spur on the left side, about .5 cm back from the distal edge, is the remains of that spur. Both lateral edges have been retouched and the right one appears to have done service as a spokeshave on a shaft of 1+ centimeters. This spokeshave is located just back of the spur. The distal edge is perpendicular to the long axis of the scraper.
Figure 2.
The PES begins its life as a flake knife. If it was hafted, the lateral edges were probably retouched to make it fit the haft, but not necessarily. As the PES was used, it became dull and was resharpened (Deller and Ellis 1992:56; Goodyear 1974:44; Witthoft 1952:16). Sometimes it was reshaped to perform a different function or sometimes it was damaged beyond repair and discarded before its time.
The process of use, resharpening, reshaping and reuse slowly modified the flake into an artifact that archaeologists can recognize and identify as a PES. However, the stage at which this recognition becomes possible is unknown. Function and resharpening creates a recognizable form in the PES and destroys the same in the projectile.
I am defining wear patterns as the visual appearance and feel of the usage edge when the PES is found in the archaeological record. There are at least three items that contribute to wear patterns. These are function, stage of exhaustion, and events that occur after the tool is lost or discarded by its user.
Function probably has the most impact on the wear pattern. Working hard materials such as bone or wood will leave wear patterns that are extremely different from the ones that are created by working soft materials such as hides. It is only after extensive use that the wear patterns of different functions become apparent. Both function and stage of exhaustion contribute to the wear patterns the archaeologist observes.
Most of the literature leaves one with the opinion that some of the PESs were hafted and that some were not (Fig. 3). Judge says just that in his Paleoindian Occupations of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico (1973:187).
Within any site there will be a mixture of PES with these hafted and unhafted characteristics. More importantly, there may be a mixture of the hafted and unhafted characteristics on the individual PESs.
I strongly agree with statistics that indicate PESs exhibit minimal variation in shape. In fact, the only other tool that has less variation in shape is the projectile point of a particular group of people. As they were resharpened the variation between points increased. The PESs, on the other hand, were manufactured with such great variation that they could not even be classified as such in the beginning. As they were resharpened in the haft, the variation between them decreased until they became recognizable as PESs.
As I stated earlier, the spur is the most diagnostic attribute (characteristic) of a PES. I believe and propose it results from lateral edge work to socket the PES, followed by resharpening that reduces the PES to an exhausted tool. The spur did not exist at the time of hafting—it is a natural result of the process of use and resharpening of the PES.
36 Paleo points and scrapers ideas
Paleoindian South Carolina – Google Search – we are no experts here but from the web it looks like a Paleoindian point (Redstone?). This generation of american Indians existed after the Clovis people and before latter ages, hunting on the retreating fringes of the great ice sheets and tundra of the last ice age.
CGSS MIDDLE PALEOINDIAN PERIOD
The Middle Paleoindian period (11,000 to 10,500 years BP)
The second subperiod identified by Anderson was the Middle Paleoindian period. This period was characterized by a number of fluted and unfluted points, both larger and smaller than Clovis points. During this subperiod, massive extinctions of such animals as elephants, horses, camels, and other megafauna took place, and plant communities shifted location and composition in dramatic fashion. In north Georgia a spruce/pine boreal forest was replaced by northern hardwoods (oak, hickory, beech, birch, and elm), which in turn gave way to modern plant communities. Southern Georgia had an oak-hickory hardwood canopy that may have been in place throughout much of the previous glacial cycle. By the close of the Paleoindian Period, around 9000 or 8000 B.C., sea level was within a few meters of its present elevation, and climate and biota approached modern conditions. Only during the mid-Holocene (ca. 6000-2000 B.C.), however, did southern pine communities and extensive riverine cypress swamps begin to emerge in the Coastal Plain.
Most likely, Paleoindians moved over large areas, on foot or by water, in small bands of twenty-five to fifty people. Their group ranges centered on stone quarries, shoals, or other particularly desirable environmental features. Of the more than 32,000 sites recorded in Georgia state archaeological site files by the year 2000, fewer than 200 have evidence for a Paleoindian occupation. These sites remain rare and, when found, should be protected. Although it is known they were hunter-gatherers, it is not known whether their diet primarily consisted of large game animals or a wide array of plant and animal species. In some parts of the country these people targeted elephants and other large game, but no evidence for this has yet been found in Georgia.
Concentration on specific zones and resources may account for the variation in the stone points of this subperiod. Mapping the distribution of the various types of projectile points may help us see how these various zones and resources were used. This has been done here on a limited scale using more than 1000 Paleoindian point examples documented by Jerald Ledbetter for the SGA as a source document.
The point types of this subperiod in the Southeast are Cumberland, Redstone, Suwannee, Beaver Lake, Quad, and Simpson. This subperiod is viewed as a time when the population was adapting to optimum environmental resource zones instead of randomly moving throughout the Southeast, perhaps following heards of mammoths or mastodons.
THE BEAVER LAKE POINT
Figure 1.9: Beaver Lake Points from Florida, Alabama, and Georgia
The Beaver Lake point was named for the Beaver Lake area of Limestone County, Alabama.[i] The name was applied to Florida examples by Ripley Bullen[ii] because of their similarities to the Alabama type.
While Florida and Alabama Beaver Lake points share a similar general appearance, size differences set them apart. The Florida Beaver Lake (Figure 1.9a-c) is a small to medium sized lanceolate blade measuring 1.5 to 2.25 inches in length and .6 to .75 inches in width. The blade is less than .25 inch thick. Alabama types are larger, measuring 1.75 to 2.5 inches long and are proportionately wider and thicker. Size is again important as it differentiates the Florida Beaver Lake from the yet smaller and narrower Manasota point used during the Early Woodland period. The blade of the Florida Beaver Lake is developed through controlled percussion and pressure flaking that forms a lenticular cross section.
The excurvate edges of the blade meet at an acuminate distal end and are widest at the blade’s midpoint. The blade edges continue through the hafting area that is slightly waisted just above the basal ear. Light smoothing is typical along the sides of the hafting area. The basal corners or ears are slight in most examples and point out straight to slightly downward. Basal thinning flakes, normally present, may appear to be one or several small flutes. The basal edge is straight to slightly concave and is normally lightly smoothed. The cultural context of the Alabama Beaver Lake is clear having been recovered from the lowest cultural-bearing levels of the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter dating to 10,000 years BP. Unfortunately, their context in Georgia has not been so clearly defined. Several examples have come from northwestern Georgia and the Oconee River area, but not from a secure context. Map 2A: Beaver Lake Distribution
Rick Dreves reported another recovery from the old shoreline of Lake Apopka in Orange County, Florida. The example was recovered from unit C6, stratum 2, lower portion. The soil was a blackened ash and sand mix that might correspond to hardpan. Mr. Ben Waller identified the example.[iv] Other recoveries have been primarily from a river context. One extremely patinated example was recovered from the Johnson’s Lake site in Marion County, Florida. Examples of later period points of similar material in the site were far less patinated, indicating the antiquity of the Beaver Lake. Finally, two examples in the Beilman collection were recovered from the Nalcrest site, which also produced a Suwannee point.[v]
The distribution pattern of the Beaver Lake may be evidence of its antiquity as it shares the same general distribution as other late Paleoindian and Dalton period points along the central Gulf Coast to the rivers of north-central and northwestern Georgia.
THE CUMBERLAND POINT
Rare Georgia Cumberland points
The Cumberland point was named for the Cumberland River Valley in Tennessee. These points were recovered with Big Sandy points and classic Dalton forms at the lowest levels of the University of Alabama site and are considered part of the Middle Paleoindian period dating sometime prior to 10,000 years BP. Cumberland points are characterized by their distinctive flute that extends from the basal edge to the distal end of the point. The blade edges are excurvate and meet at an acute distal end. The blade edges are pressure flaked. The hafting area is waisted similar to the Simpson point. The basal ears flare widely, at times almost to a shallow concave basal edge, while in other examples the basal edge is deeply concave. The basal edge is heavily smoothed. Map 2B: Cumberland Distribution
Cumberland points are rare in Georgia with less than a handful of examples that are normally found above Georgia’s Fall Line.
THE QUAD POINT
The Quad point was named by Frank J. Soday and James Cambron for examples found on or near the Quad site in Limestone County, Alabama. Soday and Cambron had done a survey of Paleoindian sites and related points in the Tennessee River Valley and Soday had done excavations at the Quad site, a Paleoindian village site, reporting his findings in the Tennessee Archaeologist, Vol.10, No.1 in 1954. The unfluted variety was described by Robert E. Bell in 1960.
Quad points from Alabama and Georgia
The Quad is a medium-sized, broad, fluted or unfluted point with an expanded-rounded, auriculate hafting area. Fifty-one examples were collected from thirty-one sites that measured between 86 and 47mm in length with an average length of 57mm and an average width of 23mm.The cross-section may be flattened or lenticular. The blade is developed by random or collateral flaking. Blade edges are often straight in the hafting area and convex above the hafting area to an acute distal end. Short, fairly deep flaking is found along the edges of the blade. The base is incurvate and may be fluted. Because of the thickness of these points, fluted examples have short flutes similar to Clovis points. The basal edge and especially the sides of the hafting are usually smoothed. Bell concluded from Tennessee and Ohio examples that the points dated between 6000 and 10,000 B.P. Cambron Map 2C: Quad Distribution
recovered examples from the University of Alabama site, Level 11, with Wheeler, Cumberland, Dalton and Paint Rock Valley points that led him to suggest a date of 10,000 B.P. or earlier.
Joffre Coe found similar points with Dalton points at the lower levels of the Hardaway site in Piedmont, North Carolina. Examples have also been recovered in northwestern Georgia, Kentucky and Ohio.
THE REDSTONE POINT
Edward C. Mahan named the Redstone point for Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama where examples were recovered from the Brosemer site. The Redstone is a medium to large triangular fluted point measuring between 67 and 117mm in length. The sides of the blade are slightly convex with its widest point at the basal corners. Flaking is random with a long flute that runs from the base of the point nearly to the distal end in most cases. Basal ears are typically rounded. Basal and lateral smoothing is present along the basal edge and about 1/3 the length of the blade.
Redstone points from Georgia
The Redstone is believed to be a variant of the Clovis type and would date accordingly. Cambron and Hulse suggested a date of 15,000 years, although dates as early as 42,000 have been recovered from assumed Clovis hearths.
The Redstone is believed to be a variant of the Clovis type and would date accordingly. Cambron and Hulse suggested a date of 15,000 years, although dates as early as 42,000 have been recovered from assumed Clovis hearths. There are a variety of differing opinions as to the age of this type. Many archaeologists place this type as a descendent of the Clovis that developed into the Beaver Lake point. Given its characteristics and its associations, this seems to be the most appropriate placement. The general area of distribution extends along the Tennessee Valley from northern Alabama and southern Tennessee. Examples in Georgia are rare, the majority of which are recovered above Georgia’s Fall Line. Map 2D: Redstone distribution
THE SIMPSON POINT
Ripley P. Bullen named the Simpson point[vi] for examples found in the J. Clarence Simpson collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, Florida
(Classic) (Bull Tongue) The Sunfish Simpson (cast)
Simpson subtypes
The classic Type 1 Simpson (Figure 1.4a) is a lanceolate style point measuring 2.5 to over 5 inches in length. The blade expands abruptly from the hafting area to its maximum width at the midpoint of the blade. The blade is formed by broad, random percussion flaking with fine pressure flaking along the edges that meet at an acute distal end. The blade cross section is thin in comparison to the Clovis or Suwannee types. The extreme flare of the blade and the auricle amplifies the waisted appearance of the hafting area. This feature has been described as “Mae West” in appearance.[vii] The sides of the hafting area are smoothed from the end of the auricle to the base of the blade. The auricle of the classic Simpson expands down and outward further and is much narrower than the Suwannee point. The expanding feature of the auricle does not appear in examples of the Type 2 Simpson (Figure 1.4b) sometimes referred to as the “Bull Tongue” type, giving the hafting area a very straight-sided appearance. The basal edge of all Simpson subtypes is commonly deeply concave and thinned. Thinning flakes in the basal portion of the basal edge may reach well up into the hafting area and resemble short flutes. The basal edge is typically heavily smoothed.
Regional variants of the classic type 1 Simpson from across the state have three major distinctions. The blade of the Chipola River examples is comparatively wider and thinner than those of other areas. Tampa variants frequently display a wider basal flare that other classic examples. The Santa Fe River variants tend to be more Clovis-like in appearance with a broader hafting area, thus reducing the appearance of the blade flare. The Type 3 or “Sunfish Simpson” (Figure 1.5) is extremely large, measuring almost 7 inches in length. Three of the six or so known examples in Florida are from the Chipola River Valley and were illustrated by H.L. Chason in his book Treasures of the Chipola River Valley. These large blades may represent the prototype for the Simpson point in an un-resharpened state. Rejuvenation seems to be present first at the widest point of the blade where, in an unrejuvenated state, they can equal almost half Map 2E: Simpson Distribution
the length of the point. These blades also compare to the Fishtail points of Central and South America as part of a non-Clovis Paleoindian tradition.[viii]
Generally considered to be part of the Middle Paleoindian period and dating to at least 10,800 to 10,500 years BP,[ix] the appearance of Simpson points with Suwannee points at sites in the Harney Flats area and at the State Road 593 site in Pinellas County[x] supports the antiquity of the type. One Sunfish example was recovered from St. Augustine, Florida where M. Lucian Gause recovered a large blade from a gopher tortoise burrow. The point was resting in a layer of dark, compacted organic soil that Carl Halbirt, City Archaeologist, interpreted to be 11,000 year old pond muck.[xi]
Like other late Paleoindian period Points, the Simpson type is predominately found along the rivers of northern Florida and southern Georgia to the central Gulf Coast. They have been recovered as far south as Charlotte Harbor along Florida’s southwest Gulf Coast. The Gause recovery in St. Augustine, Florida gives rise to a potentially much wider distribution of the Sunfish as the first stage form of the type. The technology of this extremely wide, flattened blade may yet appear across the United States as it has already been identified in the Fishtail point of Central America.
THE SUWANNEE POINT
John Goggin applied the name Suwannee to this point type, referring to the Suwannee River in north-central Florida.[xii] Goggin described the type as a “large stone point suggestive of Plainview forms.” It is difficult to determine if the name originated with him or was in common use at that time. Many examples have been recovered from the Suwannee River and throughout Florida.
Suwannee examples from Georgia
The Suwannee point (Figure 1.3a-d) is a large lanceolate style point measuring 3 to 5 inches long. Its larger size distinguishes it from the smaller Quad point of Alabama. The blade of the Suwannee is formed with random flaking with retouching along the edges that meet at a broad distal end. The blade cross section is lenticular. The hafting area is only slightly waisted just above the basal corner in contrast to the strongly waisted Simpson point. The hafting area of larger specimens is frequently laterally thinned with percussion flaking all the way to the basal edge. Suwannee blades frequently display very heavy smoothing in the hafting area in comparison to other points of this period.
The basal corner expands downward and outward to equal the maximum width of the blade, but is rounded in contrast to the more pointed basal corner of the Clovis, the more pointed auricle of the Simpson types, or the squared and enlarged auricle of the Quad point.
The basal edge is concave, though not typically as deeply as the Simpson point, and heavily smoothed. Some smaller, well balanced examples recovered from the Tampa Bay area to as far north as Citrus County (Figure 1.3a) can display a more deeply concave basal edge and may have been used as projectiles rather than blades. Ripley Bullen[xiii] placed the Suwannee point in the latter part of the Paleoindian period. He noted the possibility that it was present to a lesser degree in other states and might be considered by others to be a sub-variant of the Clovis or other Paleoindian types. Their recovery at numerous sites in The Harney Flats area of Tampa Bay, estimated to date to 10,000 years BP[xiv] further supports the antiquity of the Suwannee point. Suwannee points are fairly rare in Georgia and share the same geographical distribution as Clovis points. Map 2F: Suwannee Point Distribution
Tools recovered from sites that are associated with this period may include the Waller Knife, the Hendrix Scraper, Core or Turtleback Scrapers, Side Scrapers, Triangular End Scrapers, and Spoke Shaves, as well as the continued use of unifacially flaked as well as bifacially flaked knives, Gravers, Abraders, and other tools present in the Early Paleoindian period.
THE WALLER KNIFE
Ben Waller, an early diver instrumental in the unveiling of Florida’s Paleoindian history during the 1960;s and 1970s, discussed examples of this blade form taken from the Santa Fe River.[xv] Subsequently, the blade became known as the Waller Knife.
The examples above are courtesy of private collections.
The Waller Knife is a medium-sized, unifacially-flaked blade measuring 1.3 to 2.4 inches in length. The blade is made from a large percussion flake during an early stage of core reduction. The flake is modified with uniform pressure flaking on only the dorsa or outside face. The ventral, or inside face is unworked, creating a plano-convex cross-section. The hafting area was developed through bifacial notching, although the term “hafting area” is most likely inappropriate as these knives were probably hung from a lanyard. Smoothing of the hafting area is not a characteristic of this type. Waller’s association of these blades with early kill sites and Ripley Bullen’s inclusion of them as part of the Nalcrest site tool kit would place them from 10,000 and the latter part of the Middle Paleoindian period to 7,500 years old as part of the Early Archaic period. The Waller Knife is included as part of the Bolen tool kit, having been recovered from the Little River site (8J2603) on the Aucilla River.[xvi] Their consistent occurrence in early megafauna kill sites indicates their use in the butchering process, probably for both cutting and scraping.
Waller’s discussion associates these blades with the Santa Fe River of central Florida. Other examples have been recovered throughout the north-central and Gulf Coastal areas of Florida and southern Georgia.
THE HENDRIX SCRAPER
Barbra A. Purdy, Florida’s Prehistoric Stone Technology, University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, discussed the Hendrix scraper as having occurred in fairly large numbers in Florida’s Paleoindian sites and as having been reported as part of the Paleoindian stone tool assemblage at the Shoop and Bull Brook sites (Witthoft 1952; Byers 1954). Bullen (1958) and Bullen and Dolen (1959) picture these as part of the artifact recovery at the Bolen Bluff and Johnson Lake sites in Florida, indicating a span of use from perhaps the Middle Paleoindian period to the Early Archaic period. Warren (1973) discusses an identical specimen found at St. Petersburg, Florida.
The examples above are courtesy of the author.
The typical specimen weights 87.5 g and is 10.4 cm. long, 3.7 cm. wide, and is 2.2 cm. thick. Sizes ranged from 37 to 257.9 g in weight, 7.8 to 16.2 cm. in length, 3.1 to 6.1 cm. in width, and 1.7 to 4.0 cm. in thickness. All of the 33 examples studied showed use as scrapers, but 5 examples had also been used for piercing or cutting as well. Witthoft and Byers described these as side scrapers, but 24 of the Florida examples showed use around the entire circumference. The most intense use on 22 of the examples was along the left distal end of the tool. The tools took three basic shapes; ovate (4), ellipsoid (20), and triangular (9). All flaking had been percussion and the angle of the use edge was from 60 to 90 degrees. Eleven of the 33 examples had striking platforms, two of which were at the distal end of the tool. All examples were considered unifacial, but 14 examples had a small amount of flaking to thin the bulb of percussion or lessen the curve of the ventral face.
THE CORE OR TURTLEBACK SCRAPER
The core or “turtleback” scraper was also identified at the Stanfield-Worley site. H. Trawick Ward (1993) defined a core as a chunk of raw material from which two or more flakes have been purposefully detached. Cores may be the result of direct or bi-polar percussion. The examples of these cores that could be classified as scrapers from the Central Georgia Surface Survey were all the result of direct percussion. The core scraper is made from an exhausted core that has then had one or more sides modified through pressure flaking to create a scraping face. Core edges that remain unmodified retain their typical percussion flake scares.
The Central Georgia Surface Survey that included sites across 18 counties only produced 55 of these tools. The Pool Road Hill Top site that produced 17 of these examples contained predominately Early Archaic point types and pottery was virtually absent. The high number of these scrapers in a heavily Early Archaic context suggests that they, like other unifacial tools, were used extensively during the Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic periods. Gordon Willey[xvii] recovered a number of what he called “turtle-back” scrapers. While Willey did not define what he recovered, they were consistently recovered from sites that also contained Paleoindian and Early Archaic projectile points including the Safety Harbor site and the Parish Mound 3 site. Research done by James Cambron and David Hulse[xviii] on nine sites that included Paleoindian, Transitional Paleoindian, and Early Archaic materials and context along with examples of this scraper type support a Paleoindian and Early Archaic context.
SIDE SCRAPERS
Side scrapers were described at the Stanfield-Worley site as an otherwise unshaped flake that was worked to a scraping edge along one or more of its long edges. H. Trawick Ward, who recovered two of these scrapers from the Guthrie site in North Carolina, noted that these scrapers were used for hide scraping and cutting. In speaking of scrapers as a class of tools, Jerald Ledbetter further described scrapers as having deliberate unifacial retouch along an edge to produce a steep, convex working edge profile. He added that the shape of flake scrapers suggests that they could have been used as hand-held or possibly hafted tools that were meant for light-duty scraping. The location of scrapers in association to the Late Archaic pit house at the Mill Branch site suggested that they were used most often in a domestic setting. Other archaeologists have agreed with Ledbetter that these tools occur most frequently in household midden deposits.
These scrapers were recovered in the Central Georgia Surface Survey.
The earliest recovery of side-scrapers was from the pre-Clovis layers in area B of the Cactus Hill site in Sussex County, Virginia where one example was recovered that measured 5.4 cm. long. The pressure flaking along one edge suggested use as a cutting or scraping tool. The sites surveyed in central Georgia contained 109 examples of the side-scraper. The highest number of these blades came from the Deep Creek site in Glasscock County where 12 blades were recovered. The site contained 42 Early Archaic point types, 135 Middle Archaic points, 162 Late Archaic points, 20 Woodland points, and 28 Mississippian to Historic period points. This high number of points from each archaeological period may suggest a consistent use of these blades from Early Archaic to Historic times. Examples recovered by Gordon Willey from the Safety Harbor Mound site demonstrate that these tools were heavily used as late as 1700 A.D.
TRIANGULAR END SCRAPERS
The triangular end scraper was named at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter site by David DeJarnette, Edward Kurjack, and James Cambron (1962). Sometimes referred to as a Thumb Scraper, they are made from a unifacial flake that is intentionally flaked to a pointed triangular shape. A bulb of percussion may appear at the pointed end with a bit at the broad end of the scraper. The scraping edge is steeply chipped to a sharp, but reinforced edge. Jerald Ledbetter (1995) classified these and other scraper forms as formal unifacial scrapers that he recovered on the Mill Branch site (9WR4). Ledbetter described these “hafted Teardrop-shaped end scrapers” as being made from chert and quartz.
These scrapers are courtesy of Mr. Leon Perry.
Ledbetter likened them to tool forms commonly attributed to the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, some of which may have continued in use into the Middle Archaic period. The context of Ledbetter’s recoveries appeared to have been Early Archaic. There were 115 examples of triangular end scrapers recovered during the Central Georgia Surface Survey, 20 of them from the Deep Creek site in Glasscock County, Georgia. The site contained an Early Paleoindian period Clovis point, two Dalton points, and forty-two Early Archaic points. Gordon Willey listed Triangular scrapers among those recovered from the Safety Harbor period Safety Harbor Mound site in Pinellas County, Florida. This mound remained in use until near the end of the recorded history of the Safety Harbor culture that ended in about 1725. It is entirely possible that the large numbers of scrapers recovered from the mound may be the result of mound fill taken from earlier sites.
THE SPOKESHAVE
The original definition given by David L. DeJarnette, Edward B. Kurjack, and James W. Cambron at the Stanfield-Worley site was “a concave side scraper.” H. Trawick Ward further defined this tool at the Jenerette site as a large reduction flake that has been worked along at least one edge to form a broad (15 to 17 mm.), shallow (3 to 4 mm.) concavity that is steeply beveled. The consensus of most archaeologists is that spokeshaves are made for working wood in a manner similar to the way a wood plane or draw knife might be used.
These examples are part of the Author’s collection and courtesy of Mr. Leon Perry.
Ward recovered three examples of spokeshaves from the Jenerette site. The other five sites where he recovered these tools contained only one example, all of which dated between the Late Woodland and Historic periods. The Central Georgia Surface Survey recovered only eight examples of spokeshaves and no site contained more than two examples. The variety of materials in those sites made any cultural context indistinguishable. Bennie Keel (1976) recovered one example from the Warren Wilson site in a historic Cherokee context, but William Webb (1951) did not recover any examples of spokeshaves from the Middle Woodland Copena and historic Creek sites in the Guntersville Basin of Alabama. The spokeshave was not listed among the Clovis age tool kit at the Gault site in central Texas, but one example was recovered by Carl Yahnig at the Little River site in Christian County, Kentucky. The example was an additional feature flaked into the side of a Clovis age end scraper.
SURVEY SITES OF THE
MIDDLE PAILOINDIAN PERIOD
Mr. Perry’s survey identified seven sites that were scattered among five counties that contained Middle Paleoindian points. While most of these sites were associated with the creeks and rivers of Georgia, not all of the environments inhabited by these early people were so obvious.
The Rutland Field Site, Wilcox County, Georgia
The Rutland Field site is located on the Rutland farm along and east of Georgia highway 257 near Tippetteville, Georgia in Wilcox County. The field was plowed when Mr. Perry had permission to do his
surface collection. An intermittent waterway runs along the east side of the field and may have served as a water source for the site at earlier times. The only other waterway and source of fresh water was Ten Mile Creek which ran only a short distance northeast of the site. Mr. Perry’s surface survey of the site yielded 807 artifacts. Twelve of those artifacts dated to the Middle Paleoindian period. These consisted of the only point form, a broken Simpson/Suwannee-like preform (left) and eleven other tool forms that may have been associated with the site during that period. Map 2G: The Rutland Field site.
Seven of those were Core or Turtleback scrapers (center), an abrader (right), a Hendrix Scraper (row 2 left), a prismatic blade (left center), an End Scraper – note the flaking pattern commonly used during this period (right center), and a Waller Knife (far right). Not all of these tools may have been used during this period as some of them were used from the Paleoindian to the Early Archaic period; however, the tools listed here had heavy patination.
The presence of these tools suggests base camp activities such as hide preparation and tool production. The unfinished point or blade is a final state preform with pressure flaked edges that closely resembles a blade with the same characteristics recovered from Burke County (below). Abraders were used to smooth the basal and lateral edges of these early points. Prismatic blades and Waller Knives were expedient tools used during the butchering process.
The Sun Hill Creek Site
The Sun Hill Creek Site in Washington County mentioned above and that had produced a Clovis point during the Early Paleoindian period, had also yielded a Suwannee point from the Middle Paleoindian period and a single side scraper that also appears to have been associated with it from the same time period.
The Suwannee point (right) was identified by its horizontal thinning flakes across the hafting area and lateral and basal smoothing, although the blade lacked the typical concave basal edge. The blade measured about 2 inches in length and about 1.3 inches wide. Overshot flaking appears on at least one face of the point.
The Gum Swamp Creek Sites 1 & 2, Dodge County, Georgia
The Gum Swamp sites 1 and 2 were terrestrial sites located along Gum Swamp Creek in Dodge County, Georgia. The sites were plowed fields along the eastern edge of the swamp and west of Venson Power Road in the north-central part of the county. The surface collection from these two sites yielded 1,082 artifacts that represented archaeological time periods from the Paleoindian period dating as early as 10,800 RCYBP through the Mississippian period dating through A.D. 1650.
Map 2H: The Gum Swamp Creek sites.
The singular blade/point type (left) recovery appeared to be an unfinished and broken basal portion of a Simpson-like blade that appeared to have broken during the chipping process. The presence of the quartz crystal cavity in the stone seems to have weakened the blade causing the break. The broad, random flaking with some overshot flaking lacked any basal shaping or grinding or lateral smoothing and blade edge retouch, suggesting the unfinished Simpson form.
The presence of this blade took the earliest human occupation of the site back to somewhere between 10,800 and 10,500 RCYBC as part of the Middle Paleoindian period. The Simpson point is easily identified by its wide blade and incurvate hafting area. A recent survey identified nearly one hundred Simpson points throughout Georgia, or about one-third of the number of Clovis points. Like other Late Paleoindian period points, the Simpson type is predominately found along the rivers of Georgia and Florida.
The tool forms associated with the Middle Paleoindian period that were also recovered from the site include a Hendrix Scraper (left center) and two examples of Unifacial Knives (right). The scarcity of point types and tools is not uncommon among Paleoindian sites in Georgia.
The County Road 307 Site, Burke County, Georgia
Map 2I: The County Road 307 site A Suwannee-like point base perforator The site is located where county road 307 crosses Bull Branch Creek. Like so many other sites, the area had been clear-cut by loggers. The site contained only two identifiable artifacts, the Suwannee base pictured at the left and a dalton point. The basal portion of the Suwannee-like point that was recovered at the site had the typical lateral thinning along the basal edge. The point had been worked into a perforating tool, but measured 1.25 inches in length by about 1 inch wide.
The Deep Creek Site, Glasscock County Georgia
The Deep Creek site that had contained a Clovis point as mentioned above, also contained what appears to be a Simpson or Suwannee base belonging to the Middle Paleoindian period. The example had rounded ears and lateral thinning just above the basal edge. The basal edge was smoothed and the blade edges are rather straight.
The Pool Road Site, Washington County, Georgia
The Pool Road site in Washington County was located in a field that lay close to Buffalo Creek. The area had been clear-cut and was being prepared for planting pine trees. The site contained a Clovis point as mentioned above, but also contained a Beaver Lake point from the Middle Paleoindian period. The point measured about 2.25 inches in length and about .5 inches wide. The point is unusual in that its blade edges were serrated, a feature that is not typical on most Beaver Lake points. This feature may suggest a classification as a Greenbriar Dalton.
The Chalker Site, Washington County, Georgia
The Chalker site is located along Mayview-Chalker Road in Washington County. There is a cluster of three sites within just a few hundred yards of one another, the most productive of which was a site located near the property gate and very close to the banks of the Ogeechee River. That site yielded 390 artifacts. Among those artifacts was what appears to be a Simpson-like base that was part of the Middle Paleoindian period. The fragment measured 1.25 inches long and 1.5 inches wide at the tips of the basal ears. The fragment shows signs of being waisted and the basal ears are fairly pointed, which is typical of most Simpson points. Map 2J: The Chalker Property site
[i] Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse, Handbook of Alabama Archaeology, Part 1, Point Types, David L. Dejarnette, editor,. Revised edition, Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Birmingham, 1964 [ii] Bullen, Ripley P., A Guide To The Identification Of Florida Projectile Points, Revised Edition, Kendall Books, Page 47, 1975 [iii] Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse, Handbook of Alabama Archaeology, Part 1, Point Types, David L. Dejarnette, editor,. Revised edition, Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Birmingham, 1964 [iv] Dreves, Rick, Archaeological Investigations of 8-OR-17: An Early Aboriginal Campsite on the Shores of Lake Apopka, Florida, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol.27:2, 1974 [v] Bullen, Ripley P. and Lawrence E. Beilman, The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapkam, Florida, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 26:1, 1973:3 [vi] Bullen, Ripley P., A Guide To The Identification Of Florida Projectile Points, Revised Edition, Kendall Books, Page 56, 1975 [vii] Warren, Lyman O., A Possible Paleo-Indian Site in Pinellas County, Florida Anthropologist, 19:1, Page 40, 1966 [viii] Bonnichsen, Robson and Karen L. Turnmire, Clovis Origins. Clovis Origins and Adaptations, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Pages 316-317, 1991 [ix] Bullen, Ripley P., Some Thoughts on Florida Projectile Points, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 29:1, Page 33, 1976 [x] Warren, Lyman O., A Possible Paleo-Indian Site in Pinellas County, Florida Anthropologist, 19:1, Page 33, 1966 [xi] St. Augustine Herald, May 1995 [xii] Goggin, John M., Space and Time Perspectives in Northern St. Johns Archaeology, Florida, Academic Press, Inc., Page 64, 1952 [xiii] Bullen, Ripley P., Some Thoughts on Florida Projectile Points, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 29:1, Page 33, 1976 [xiv] Pollock, Phillip M., 300’ x 35 Mi. Corridor To The Past, Florida Department of State, 1986 [xv] Waller, Ben I.1971 Hafted Flake Knives, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 24:4, 1971:173-174
[xvi] Willis, Craig1988 Controlled Surface Collection of the Little River Rapids Site (8J2603): A Stratigraphically Deflated Site in the Aucilla River, North Florida, The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 41:4,
[xvii] Willey, Gordon R.1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution
[xviii] Cambron, James and David Hulse1960 Alabama Archaeology
Paleo End Scraper – Complete Guide
May 31, 2021
I have been collecting arrowheads for a long time and would not mistake a paleo end scraper for an arrowhead.
People who find artifacts in the woods often assume they were arrowheads, even if they are another type of tool. Spearheads, dart points, and even triangular end scrapers can be confused for arrowheads.
Many but not all end scrapers were attached to handles, and people used different kinds of scrapers in different places during the paleolithic period. These tools are not unique to the Americas or the prehistoric world. People used end scrapers on other continents and in later times.
Paleo end scrapers are stone tools that Native Americans used at the end of the ice age. People used these tools to cut wood, work bone, or scrape hides. Most of them are triangle-shaped, with the cutting edge on the bottom part and not one of the sides.
If you collect Indian arrowheads, you will surely find other stone tools in the ground occasionally. One of the more exciting finds is a paleo end scraper.
What are end scrapers, and what were they used for?
Scrapers are one of the most common stone tools. They were just as common as stone knives, gouges, and spades.
They appeared 40,000 years ago in the old world and were used until much more recently. In North America, they are at least as old as the Clovis period. Quite likely, they were used by the first people to reach the continent.
Scrapers usually have only one cutting edge, though some of them have two. A toolmaker would sharpen one edge of a stone flake by chipping or grinding and leave the other edges dull to make it easy to grip the tool. There are many categories of scrapers, defined by the shape and size of the tool and of specific parts of the tool.
Two broad categories are side scrapers and end scrapers. With side scrapers, one of the sides of the triangle is sharp. With end scrapers, the two sides to the scraper are dull, and the triangle’s base has the edge.
Not all scrapers are shaped like ovals or rounded triangles. There are also crescent-shaped and thumbnail-shaped scrapers. Some are rectangle-shaped or irregular, others hard for archeologists to classify.
Some scrapers are relatively large; some are so small that most people have difficulty using them with a finger and thumb. Smalls scrapers are more common – you can often fit more than one scraper on your palm.
Scrapers are also categorized by the type of work they were used for. A grattoir is for the rougher work of shaping wood and cleaning hides, and a nose scraper was for finer work.
Different scrapers are also made out of different types of stone. People developed the same broad types of scrapers on different continents, with some differences between the regions.
Scrapers from prehistoric North America, Europe, and the Middle East do not look the same but function similarly. They all have a teardrop shape with dull sides and a sharp bottom, despite the different shapes.
What are paleo end scrapers?
Paleo end scrapers are very ancient stone tools you can find in North America. Most of the scrapers you can find in the ground in North America are not paleo end scrapers.
If you find a scraper, it may not be an end scraper, and it may not be prehistoric. Scrapers were used until stone tools disappeared. These very well preserved Alaskan end scrapers were made only 600 years ago.
Even in the paleolithic period, scrapers were usually attached to handles for better leverage. While the handles rarely survive, you can tell that the scrapers once had wooden handles based on wear and tear on the tools.
The dull ends of the scrapers were also made narrow so that they could be attached to handles. Occasionally, archeologists find scrapers with intact handles. Archeologists find scrapers with handles made of wood, bone, antler, and even mammoth tusks.
Their most common use may have been to process skins rather than wood. The Inuit in recent centuries used them mostly to work with skins. People also used scrapers to cut up plants.
Most North American end scrapers from the paleolithic period are triangle-shaped. The narrow point of the triangle was put into a notch in the wooden handle. Only the base of the triangle was sharpened.
How did people make paleo end scrapers?
End scrapers were often made out of the same stones people used to make early projectile points. Chert that was good to make fluted dart points in the paleolithic was also good for making scrapers.
Scrapers were made using the same flintknapping techniques used to make other stone tools. Flintknapping takes practice – it is not easy to master, and it is not easy to learn either.
Flintknappers strike one stone against another. This breaks flakes off of the rocks, and if they put enough time and care into it, they create a sharp edge.
While it takes time to get good at flintknapping, stone tools do not take a long time to manufacture. It only takes half an hour or so to create a finished tool, and it may take much less time.
Were end scrapers used more than a few times?
Yes, there is evidence that people took care of and repaired their tools, including in the paleo period. When the edge became dull, people used flintknapping to create a new edge.
Eventually, the tool would break in half when someone tried to repair it. Sometimes, broken scrapers were made into other tools.
How can you tell a scraper is from the paleo period?
Paleo end scrapers often have spurs on the sides of the tool, which give away the tool’s age. About half of paleo end scrapers have these points at the sides of the tool.
Different materials were more common in different times. Jasper was a common material for paleo scrapers.
The distinctive shape of paleo end scrapers comes from use and resharpening. Most of the prehistoric end scrapers people find were repaired many times and look significantly different from fresh tools.
Archeologists can tell very much about what people used the tools they find for. If someone used an end scraper to work wood or bone rather than hide, experts can tell based on the wear and tear. They can also examine residue on the tool to discover what kind of animal hides the scraper was used to clean.
End Scrapers
End scrapers are by far the most numerous formal tools at the Nobles Pond site. Over 1700 of them were recovered from the site. This is the second largest number of end scrapers of any recorded site in North America, exceeded only by the Debert site, in Nova Scotia, Canada.
What were the Paleoindians doing with all those end scrapers?
What Is an End Scraper?
An end scraper is a unifacial tool (that is, flaked on only one side), with a scraping bit worked on one end (sometimes referred to as the “distal” end). An end scraper can be used for various scraping tasks (for example, for hide scraping, wood working, or bone shaping).
At Nobles Pond, the most common type of end scraper is the trianguloid type, which is characteristic of the period between 13,000 to 10,000 years before present.
A trianguloid end scraper is typically attached to a handle (called a haft), made of wood, bone or antler. At Nobles Pond, the haft end of the end scraper (the “proximal” end) is typically tapered to fit into a socket or a notch in the haft.
End Scraper Manufacture
Most of the end scrapers recovered from the Nobles Pond site were made elsewhere and brought to the site for use. The cherts (“flints”) used to make the end scrapers are roughly the same as those used to make the fluted points: half Upper Mercer and half Flint Ridge. There is also a small percentage of Attica, Wyandotte and other cherts.
Most Nobles Pond end scrapers were probably not a byproduct of fluted point production (as often occurs at fluted point sites in the southwestern U.S.), but likely resulted from their own, separate manufacturing path.
End Scraper Use
So, what were the Paleoindians doing with all those end scrapers? To determine the nature of the scraping done with these tools, we had edge-wear analysis and protein residue testing done on large samples of the tools.
Based on edge-wear analysis, hide-scraping was an important activity at the site. The end scrapers were used mostly for scraping wet, greasy, pliable hides (that is, fresh hides), with some dry-hide processing (stored hides), and some secondary use for woodworking and plant fiber processing.
Protein residue testing identified residues from a variety of animals. The most common animals identified were cervids (deer, elk, moose, caribou, stag-moose, or related: 12 hits) and rabbits/hares (8 hits). There was one specific identification of elk residue and two specific identifications of caribou.
These results suggest that the scraping of cervid hides (and possibly rabbit hides) was a major Paleoindian activity at Nobles Pond.
End Scraper Maintenance
Modern studies replicating hide scraping show that Paleoindian end scrapers are typically resharpened many times before being discarded. The large number of uniface resharpening flakes recovered from the site supports this idea.
Resharpening sometimes caused an end scraper to break between the bit and the haft. When this type of breakage occurred, a Paleoindian would sometimes salvage the tool by reshaping one or both pieces into new, smaller end scrapers.
End Scraper Afterlife: Recycling
At Nobles Pond, used-up end scrapers were often reshaped to use as other tools, especially gravers. Graver spurs could be worked onto one or both corners of an end scraper bit.
Discussion
It is not surprising to find a predominance of cervid residue on Paleoindian end scrapers. In particular, white-tailed deer and caribou would have provided Paleoindians with a lot of meat. In addition, their hides could be used for warm clothing (such as parkas), tent covers, snow-shoe webbing and more.
Rabbit residue has been frequently reported at other Paleoindian sites. Paleoindians might have used rabbit hides for clothing and meat, but rabbit sinews can also be used for lashing stone tools to hafts. Also, glue made from rabbit hides is useful in strengthening the bond between a stone tool and its haft.
Scraper (archaeology)
Prehistoric tool type
In prehistoric archaeology, scrapers are unifacial tools thought to have been used for hideworking and woodworking.[1] Many lithic analysts maintain that the only true scrapers are defined on the base of use-wear, and usually are those that were worked on the distal ends of blades—i.e., “end scrapers” (French: grattoir). Other scrapers include the so-called “side scrapers” or racloirs, which are made on the longest side of a flake, and notched scrapers, which have a cleft on either side that may have been used to attach them to something else.
Scrapers are typically formed by chipping the end of a flake of stone in order to create one sharp side and to keep the rest of the sides dull to facilitate grasping it. Most scrapers are either circle or blade-like in shape. The working edges of scrapers tend to be convex, and many have trimmed and dulled lateral edges to facilitate hafting. One important variety of scraper is the thumbnail scraper, a scraper shaped much like its namesake. This scraper type is common at Paleo-Indian sites in North America. Scrapers are one of the most varied lithic tools found at archaeological sites. Due to the vast array of scrapers there are many typologies that scrapers can fall under, including tool size, tool shape, tool base, the number of working edges, edge angle, edge shape, and many more.
Method of use [ edit ]
The edge of the scraper that is extremely angled is the working edge. This edge is often used to soften hides or to clean meat off of the hides, in addition to being used for wood work. As the term scraper suggests, this tool was scraped at the hide or wood in order to reach the end goal. Scrapers were also made in order to skin animals.
Scrapers tended to be large enough to fit comfortably in the hand and could be used without being mounted on wood or bone. However, it is very likely that scrapers were mounted on short handles even though it is very rare to find mounted scrapers. As scrapers are used they have to be resharpened in order to stay effective. This causes them to get progressively smaller as they are used, resharpened, used, resharpened, and used again. Consequently, the majority of the scrapers that are found on sites are ones that have been resharpened and used to the point of being no longer functional.
Categories [ edit ]
The two main classifications of scrapers are either end scrapers or side scrapers. End scrapers have working edges on one or both ends of a blade or flake, whereas side scrapers have a working edge along one of the long sides. There are a couple of types of scrapers based on their specific use when it comes to wood and hide or based on the shape and design of the scraper itself. The grattoir is a type of scraper made usually made of flint and its main uses were to work wood and to clean hides. This type of scraper has its working edge along the long axis of the blade. The nose scraper typically has a smaller working edge either at both ends or just one end. This type of scraper is made from a convex blade and is used in more fine tuning work. The hollow scraper is a type of scraper that has a notch worked into the side or end of the scraper.
Typologies [ edit ]
Convex transverse scraper
Tool size: This can be determined by either weight or dimensions and typically divided into either large or small scrapers. Tool shape: There are many different shapes scrapers can be, including rectangular, triangular, irregular, discoidal, domed, or keeled. In many cases it can be hard to determine the classification for the shape of the scraper. The shape of the scraper is often considered diagnostic. Shaping vs. Use Damage: Scrapers are often divided between ones that have been purposefully shaped for a specific use and ones that have been shaped due to their use. Tool base: Scrapers are classified based on if they originated from a blade or a flake. Number of working edges: Some scrapers have only one working edge while other scrapers have two working edges. It is extremely uncommon for there to be a scraper with three working edges. Edge angle: Some scrapers have vertical working edges while other scrapers have acute working edges. Edge shape: There is distinction between concave, straight, and convex working edges on scrapers. Location of functional edges: One of the main distinctions in scrapers, depends on if the working edge is on the end or the side of the scraper.
References [ edit ]
Paleo Indian Tools
Personalized Advertising
These are third party technologies used for things like interest based Etsy ads.
We do this with marketing and advertising partners (who may have their own information they’ve collected). Saying no will not stop you from seeing Etsy ads or impact Etsy’s own personalization technologies, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive. Find out more in our Cookies & Similar Technologies Policy.
키워드에 대한 정보 paleo indian scrapers
다음은 Bing에서 paleo indian scrapers 주제에 대한 검색 결과입니다. 필요한 경우 더 읽을 수 있습니다.
이 기사는 인터넷의 다양한 출처에서 편집되었습니다. 이 기사가 유용했기를 바랍니다. 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오. 매우 감사합니다!
사람들이 주제에 대해 자주 검색하는 키워드 Stone Tools 2b: Uniface scrapers of American Indians
- YouTube Capture
Stone #Tools #2b: #Uniface #scrapers #of #American #Indians
YouTube에서 paleo indian scrapers 주제의 다른 동영상 보기
주제에 대한 기사를 시청해 주셔서 감사합니다 Stone Tools 2b: Uniface scrapers of American Indians | paleo indian scrapers, 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오, 매우 감사합니다.
