uniface
Silver Member
There is a great series of weekly articles by Bill Young going on in the Corsicana (Texas) Daily Sun dealing with scraper forms in Texas across the ages. I'm posting excerpts from it here for two reasons : because newspaper archives aren't kept forever, and because the copyright law allows unhindered reproduction for educational use. (Seeing as we're about learning about indian artifacts here, the educational intent is pretty inarguable). While specifically about Texas, I would think a lot of it would apply to neighboring states as well.
When the Late Paleo cultures dating from around 9,000 to 10,800 years ago started changing into the Early Archaic time period, there were several dramatic changes in their lifestyles and the associated artifacts. One particular very prominent feature we can easily recognize is the beginnings of the burned rock middens commonly found all over Central Texas.
Scrapers were one of the tools commonly found in excavations of the burned rock middens. However, the size of the scrapers changed dramatically from the small Clovis scrapers made on the small end of a true blade measuring from about two to possibly three inches in length and maybe an inch in width and the even smaller thumbnail scrapers utilized by the Folsom people to a large heavy duty scraper. What brought about this change is not known today. The mammals hunted during the Early Paleo time periods were extremely large animals such as the mammoth and the huge bison Antiguus. When these animals went extinct and the smaller bison Bison came along, the scrapers doubled in size.
The large Archaic scrapers come in several different configurations. Probably the most common are the end scrapers. This term means the scraping bit is at the opposite end from the narrow end either held by hand or attached to a shaft. Generally speaking all scrapers look like a rain drop turned upside down. The wide end is usually turned into a scraping bit. Most scrapers are referred to as a uniface tool. This means the piece of stone was removed from a larger cobble in one single blow with a hammer stone or a hard antler. The opposite side will be smooth and not have any evidence of flaking while the top side will show numerous thinning flakes have been removed in an effort to make the tool more even and level. Then the scraping bit will be formed whereby the maker trimmed away very small flakes almost perpendicular to the long axis of the piece. Typically the angle of the scraping bit is around 70 to 80 degrees and in some cases almost 90 degrees. One thing very critical when they made the scraper was to not leave any sharp point, regardless of how tiny it might be, protruding out from the bit. This point would cut into the hide during the scraping process and render the hide useless.
Generally speaking most of the Archaic scrapers range in thickness from slightly over a quarter of an inch to more than a half inch in thickness. This thickness allowed the user to apply a lot of downward pressure when he or she was removing the membrane from the inside of a hide. As to what the process was when someone created a scraper is still debated. Any oval shaped cobble could be struck with a hammer stone in one single blow thereby removing a relatively round or oval shaped piece of chert. This may have been done during the beginning process of removing the cortex for the purpose of creating a thin biface and in turn, a finished projectile point. Whether the maker intentionally broke off a piece with which he could make a scraper is not known. However, many of the formal Archaic scrapers look as if they were specifically created from a larger piece of material solely to be utilized for scraping purposes.
Since most of the Archaic scrapers are fairly large and thick, the maker had the option of either holding the scraper with the thumb and first two fingers or attaching the scraper to a handle. Since the handles must have been made out of wood, none have survived in the open area archeological sites. A few have been found in dry rock overhangs and caves exhibiting some type of short handle but whether this was the norm is not known.
For the past few weeks, I have been discussing the various scrapers associated with either the Paleo people or the Early, Middle and Archaic time periods. Now we get down to the Late Prehistoric and also the contact period and everything changes. The Folsom people approximately 11,000 years ago produced a small thumbnail type scraper which commonly had a protruding spur sticking out from one corner. Then the various Archaic groups starting utilizing large, thick, well made scrapers which were thick enough to take on almost any scraping task. In our area around 3,000 years ago, one or more groups, likely just the one, starting making what we call the Bristol Biface. Many of you may know where Bristol is located northeast of Ennis and this small community provided the name for this specific tool because of a site nearby which was excavated years ago.
Examination of a Bristol Biface under a high powered microscope definitely shows polish or wear on one side of the artifact indicating the artifact was utilized as a scraper. However, of all of the scrapers produced before or after the Bristol pieces, the Bristol scraper looks to be extremely inefficient, yet several thousand of these tools have been recovered from many sites in the Trinity basin. If someone were to go to Navarro College and visit the Reading Arrowhead collection, he or she would see several frames which contain nothing but Bristol Bifaces and others are scattered about with other points and tools in many of the shadowbox frames. I am including an illustration of a Bristol Biface but I need also to give a brief description. The term “biface” means the piece has been flaked or chipped on both sides just like the majority of projectile points, knives or preforms. The average Bristol Biface is almost completely round and about the size of a silver dollar although a few are either smaller or larger. The center section is the thickest and the flaking generally has thinned the piece on all edges. Somewhere on each one will be a polished area indicating the use as a scraper but this polished area is not visible without the aid of a microscope. The number one projectile points associated with the Bristol Biface are medium size Gary points, not the bigger, earlier style nor the smaller size found in association with arrow points and pottery. And they are very commonly found locally.
I mentioned the fact the Folsom people 11,000 years ago utilized a thumbnail scraper and no other culture did this until after the Archaic time frame ended and the bow and arrow came into use. All of a sudden, these late groups brought back the thumbnail scraper but the spur found on the Folsom scrapers did not appear. Large village sites like all of the Caddoan mound sites have yielded in some cases hundreds of small thumbnail scrapers. Thirty years ago, the grandfather of a good friend of mine owned part of one of these sites which allowed us access to the location. There were two mounds located on the site but both of these had been excavated by the University of Texas back in the 1940s. In the surrounding field were areas which were part of the original village along with another much later occupation probably related to the Wichita Confederation. Back then much of the area was under cultivation and it was very easy to find a hand full of those small thumbnail scrapers. However, we will never know which group these scrapers were associated with, possibly both. The majority of the scrapers were made out of a charcoal colored chert found around Stringtown, Okla., but a few were made out of Alibates stone from the Alibates Flint quarry near Amarillo.
When the Late Paleo cultures dating from around 9,000 to 10,800 years ago started changing into the Early Archaic time period, there were several dramatic changes in their lifestyles and the associated artifacts. One particular very prominent feature we can easily recognize is the beginnings of the burned rock middens commonly found all over Central Texas.
Scrapers were one of the tools commonly found in excavations of the burned rock middens. However, the size of the scrapers changed dramatically from the small Clovis scrapers made on the small end of a true blade measuring from about two to possibly three inches in length and maybe an inch in width and the even smaller thumbnail scrapers utilized by the Folsom people to a large heavy duty scraper. What brought about this change is not known today. The mammals hunted during the Early Paleo time periods were extremely large animals such as the mammoth and the huge bison Antiguus. When these animals went extinct and the smaller bison Bison came along, the scrapers doubled in size.
The large Archaic scrapers come in several different configurations. Probably the most common are the end scrapers. This term means the scraping bit is at the opposite end from the narrow end either held by hand or attached to a shaft. Generally speaking all scrapers look like a rain drop turned upside down. The wide end is usually turned into a scraping bit. Most scrapers are referred to as a uniface tool. This means the piece of stone was removed from a larger cobble in one single blow with a hammer stone or a hard antler. The opposite side will be smooth and not have any evidence of flaking while the top side will show numerous thinning flakes have been removed in an effort to make the tool more even and level. Then the scraping bit will be formed whereby the maker trimmed away very small flakes almost perpendicular to the long axis of the piece. Typically the angle of the scraping bit is around 70 to 80 degrees and in some cases almost 90 degrees. One thing very critical when they made the scraper was to not leave any sharp point, regardless of how tiny it might be, protruding out from the bit. This point would cut into the hide during the scraping process and render the hide useless.
Generally speaking most of the Archaic scrapers range in thickness from slightly over a quarter of an inch to more than a half inch in thickness. This thickness allowed the user to apply a lot of downward pressure when he or she was removing the membrane from the inside of a hide. As to what the process was when someone created a scraper is still debated. Any oval shaped cobble could be struck with a hammer stone in one single blow thereby removing a relatively round or oval shaped piece of chert. This may have been done during the beginning process of removing the cortex for the purpose of creating a thin biface and in turn, a finished projectile point. Whether the maker intentionally broke off a piece with which he could make a scraper is not known. However, many of the formal Archaic scrapers look as if they were specifically created from a larger piece of material solely to be utilized for scraping purposes.
Since most of the Archaic scrapers are fairly large and thick, the maker had the option of either holding the scraper with the thumb and first two fingers or attaching the scraper to a handle. Since the handles must have been made out of wood, none have survived in the open area archeological sites. A few have been found in dry rock overhangs and caves exhibiting some type of short handle but whether this was the norm is not known.
For the past few weeks, I have been discussing the various scrapers associated with either the Paleo people or the Early, Middle and Archaic time periods. Now we get down to the Late Prehistoric and also the contact period and everything changes. The Folsom people approximately 11,000 years ago produced a small thumbnail type scraper which commonly had a protruding spur sticking out from one corner. Then the various Archaic groups starting utilizing large, thick, well made scrapers which were thick enough to take on almost any scraping task. In our area around 3,000 years ago, one or more groups, likely just the one, starting making what we call the Bristol Biface. Many of you may know where Bristol is located northeast of Ennis and this small community provided the name for this specific tool because of a site nearby which was excavated years ago.
Examination of a Bristol Biface under a high powered microscope definitely shows polish or wear on one side of the artifact indicating the artifact was utilized as a scraper. However, of all of the scrapers produced before or after the Bristol pieces, the Bristol scraper looks to be extremely inefficient, yet several thousand of these tools have been recovered from many sites in the Trinity basin. If someone were to go to Navarro College and visit the Reading Arrowhead collection, he or she would see several frames which contain nothing but Bristol Bifaces and others are scattered about with other points and tools in many of the shadowbox frames. I am including an illustration of a Bristol Biface but I need also to give a brief description. The term “biface” means the piece has been flaked or chipped on both sides just like the majority of projectile points, knives or preforms. The average Bristol Biface is almost completely round and about the size of a silver dollar although a few are either smaller or larger. The center section is the thickest and the flaking generally has thinned the piece on all edges. Somewhere on each one will be a polished area indicating the use as a scraper but this polished area is not visible without the aid of a microscope. The number one projectile points associated with the Bristol Biface are medium size Gary points, not the bigger, earlier style nor the smaller size found in association with arrow points and pottery. And they are very commonly found locally.
I mentioned the fact the Folsom people 11,000 years ago utilized a thumbnail scraper and no other culture did this until after the Archaic time frame ended and the bow and arrow came into use. All of a sudden, these late groups brought back the thumbnail scraper but the spur found on the Folsom scrapers did not appear. Large village sites like all of the Caddoan mound sites have yielded in some cases hundreds of small thumbnail scrapers. Thirty years ago, the grandfather of a good friend of mine owned part of one of these sites which allowed us access to the location. There were two mounds located on the site but both of these had been excavated by the University of Texas back in the 1940s. In the surrounding field were areas which were part of the original village along with another much later occupation probably related to the Wichita Confederation. Back then much of the area was under cultivation and it was very easy to find a hand full of those small thumbnail scrapers. However, we will never know which group these scrapers were associated with, possibly both. The majority of the scrapers were made out of a charcoal colored chert found around Stringtown, Okla., but a few were made out of Alibates stone from the Alibates Flint quarry near Amarillo.
Upvote
0
Now you really have my attention.
