Heres a question

[Adena_man]

Here's a question

I saw a post on another forum where the member asked about the possibilities of later cultures copying points styles from others. I thought I would put that on this forum and see what you guys think. If a master knapper from the Woodland culture found a clovis point from the Paleo culture, what would be the possibilities of him/her deciding that they liked that style and start knapping out points just like it? Wouldn't that mess up the culture classifications! Of course, we would never know. But it is something to think about! It is human nature to copy things. It's pretty doubtful, but possible.

 

[fossis]

Re: Here's a question

Food for thought,

Fossis...................

 

[Johnny X]

Re: Here's a question

Very nice, It's human nature to base thoughts, designs, patterns, off of previous ideas... Very possible.


xstevenx

 

[newnan man]

Re: Here's a question

I saw a pic once of a Clovis point a later culture found and had notched it to haft the way they were used to. I can't remember where I saw it though.

 

[Atlantis0077]

Re: Here's a question

Morning,

Interesting thought. Its a fact that Indians from one period tended to keep items from another...something like we do antiques now...though for the Indians it was probably more to do with religion...sacred items etc. I know there were some plummets found in the Gahagan mounds here in Red River Parish. Now Gahagan was a late Caddo ceremonial center. Plummets were many years removed.

Indians could have copied points from the past, no doubt. You must remember though that Indians used and created items based on need as well as aesthetics. The larger Clovis type points would not have been in as great a need for later Indians who were for example already using the Bow. No doubt, though there were some artisans even back then who might have tried their hands at copying older relics...perhaps as ceremonial items if nothing else.....sort of throws a monkey wrench in dating by point type alone...lol

Atlantis

 

[Cannonman17]

Re: Here's a question

IMO While it is possible and even likely that it happened I don't believe that it would have been a sustained occurance. The main reason I say this is that arrowheads, spears, etc, were really specialized to fit the job at hand. That's why we see a general shift in "types" of artifacts found over time. That's why we don't see much the same in the Paleo Indians tool pouch and the Woodland Indians tool pouch, they were living different lifestyles dependant upon different resources and their tools reflect that. Could a Woodland period Native found and copied a Clovis? Sure. Possible. Likely? Probably not. The Woodland periold Native wouldn't have found the clovis to be nearly as usable as the tools he already had.
I believe a much more likely scenario would be similar cultures/tribes etc trading and or just seeing what the other guy is using and having so much luck with hunting and then going home and tweaking his own style a little to better match the neighbor's. This multiplied over the generations and coupled with trading of materials and knowledge over the years would better explain the rise and fall of different point types. Also, as far as I know there isn't any documented or excavated evidence of points being way out of place like a clovis in an late archaic shell midden or anything like that...I could be wrong on that, I'm just not aware of any.

 

[Adena_man]

Re: Here's a question

"Of course, we would never know. But it is something to think about! It is human nature to copy things. It's pretty doubtful, but possible." Part of my original post on this thread.

Hey Cannonman, I meant that to be more of a possibility than a probability. Obviously, the different cultures lived in different enviornments and hunted different animals. Thus, their tool and point needs would definitely be different. I was just saying that maybe an artisan from one culture would find something from an earlier culture and decide to knap out a few just to see if he/she could make one like it, not for practical purposes, but for ceremonial use or to have for themselves in their personal kits.

 

[Cannonman17]

Re: Here's a question

I understand, was just throwing my two cents worth in that's all. You seem to have a good grasp of things but the elaboration on the point (no pun intended) that tools changed along with the culture and their resources was for others that may not have thought about it in those terms before.

 

[Adena_man]

Re: Here's a question

No problem at all Cannonman, I appreciate your input! I didn't want anyone to have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Good luck!

 

[coalfire]

Re: Here's a question

Guys and gals, I really like the ideas you write about. I thought I was the only one that thought about things like this. This forum is great.

IMO I would like to add a thought. Lets look at the Iroquois confederacy. You had 5-7 tribes under the "Longhouse". Now you have the Seneca along Lake Erie (keepers of the western door) to the west and Mahican to the East(keepers of the Eastern door), and the several tribe in between. The Seneca made points specific to lake and hunting, and the Mahicans more of a hunting. Since all tribes traded with friendly neighbors it is reasonable that as times changed (from older styles to newer and then to metal trade) points did.. I see from some photos that they traded up in style. By this I mean from highly perfect types like Clovis to the Woodland. Losing form for ease of function and production.

Could Clovis be reproduced by later tribes of another more modern tribe. Sure I would think so if the style was found. I am sure the first arrowhead hunters were the Indians themselves, especially at specific places that several Indian tribes used but at different times (cleared "Indian Fields"). I would also assume that the later Indians found the mounds and figured out what they contained. (grave robbers maybe not, but investigating the mounds would have been a probable action.)

Lets say that a woodland Native found a Clovis. I am guessing here. What would you use a thin blade for if you made a thicker style yourself. Me, I would use them as knives.

Each tribe had designs, each family might have had a sub design. Then when trade situations happened they traded points back and forth. Here is where types change slightly over years and tribes. Also the types of stone used.

I agree with Atlantis I doubt it was sustained for long. But then many of us find oddities in our fields.

When I say Type I apply this to ALL points and tools. There is only a few real Clovis, (found at the original Clovis site) and the others are Clovis types. Look identical to Clovis and from the same period but not actually from the Clovis area.

Sorry to ramble but I type slow and loose my train of thought. LOL
~Z~

 

[Johnny X]

Re: Here's a question

It could also have to do with time and efficiency. Personally, if I was living off of the land and everything I did, or used for that matter affected my life and the life of my family and tribe, for example if I was knapping points that took say 8 or 10 man hours to produce, and then I was walking through the field found a point from years past, realized it could serve the same purpose as the points i'm making and only take half the time and effort to make. I think I would start making/using the older style point.

I know this is choppy, I'm just trying to put my idea together as it's coming to me. The distance from my brain to my keyboard appears to have a lot of detours... lol.


xstevenx

 

[Cannonman17]

Re: Here's a question

Well I must say, this is a very interesting discussion. I have to throw in a little more also. Zeawolf, I'm not sure that I completely understand what you're saying. I'm guessing that more or less if a Native found an old point or blade they would probably use it. You would think so, I would anyways- but then again..... A long time ago I had a long sit down conversation with a member of the Ho-Chunk nation and this guy told me that some Native Americans had an almost spiritual type bond with their weapons, wether it be for warfare or hunting. The whole making of a point and then using it to take the life of an animal had a deep significance for many of them. I don't know, but given their type of lifestyle I would have to believe that this feeling or this kind of spiritual bond with the tools of their existence was probably fairly widespread. Anyways, getting side tracked here, this fellow also told me that at least to him picking up an arrowhead or other similar artifact was taboo to him. There was this type of spirituality involved with touching it, a connection if you will, to the person who made and used it. To him the problem was he didn't know that person, he didn't know what that person was like, good, bad, etc. so to him picking it up was really a risk to himself and one that his father had taught him not to take. Guess it's just more food for thought but it was something that I always thought to be interesting to say the least. I always remember that conversation when I look for artifacts, not because I'm worried about getting some kind of curse or something, but rather just about the spirituality that was probably involved in it and the connection that the hunter had with it.
All in all I think that the number of times points were picked and used hundreds or even thousands of years apart was probably somewhat limited in nature. There's no doubt at all that it did happen but I don't think it would be enough to skew the chronological information we have on the types of points and when they were used. If that was the case I think we would find more archaeological evidence to support it like finding some archaic corner notched point in a late Mississippian fire hearth and so on and so forth.
Zeawolf, I do have to disagree with you on one point however: "Losing form for ease of function and production. " There is this common myth that points somehow degenerated over time and the Indians became "lazy". Or like in this case there was some trade off where they sacrificed the nice looking and well made points for crappy ones simply because it didn't take as long. This just isn't the case at all. The types of points made, or the types of tools made I should say, during any given time period are simply a reflection upon what that culture was subsiding on in terms of their key resources. Here's my generic example: Paleo people and their tools. What do we find of them- precision made, thin, often long (at least when originally made although many clovis points are found shorter and have been resharpened) type points and large, pretty heavy duty cutting/butchering tools. And here we have a nomadic culture who is almost always on the move following seasonal movements of the mega fauna of the time, perhaps some of the most specialized hunters of all time! Let's compare that to say one of my typical late archaic sites here in Wisconsin: What do I find of them? For one, a wider variety of artifacts- why? Because they weren't dependant exclusively upon hunting, they utilized a number of resources that had become available to them. I often find fairly thick and really quite plain looking stubby little "knives" mixed in with some of the shell middens- I have no way of knowing for sure but my guess is that these sturdy little knives would have made quick work when processing large numbers of clams/mussels. So you see the later stubby and plain looking knife wasn't made by a "lazy" Indian but simply by somebody who was doing something different and living a different lifestyle. Anyways, that's a generic example and I don't know if you will follow what I'm trying to say or not, I apologize for being so long winded here! I'm almost done!
Another thing that goes along with this last point here. The types of points we find have a much closer relationship with the time period and the resources being used vs. tribes. There is no doubt in my mind that there may have been minor differences between tribes and really even individuals within a tribe for that matter but in general you're going to find very similar tools in any given resource basin no matter how many tribes live and trade there because they are all going to be utilizing the same resources and in need of the same types of tools to do so. If it were the other way around where tribes made and used their own unique types of arrowheads the archaeological recored would be a complete mess. Because tribes moved so frequently and merged with one another and sprang up here and there all the time for thousands of years we would expect then to find when excavating a complete mish mash of points in all layers. We could reasonably expect to find Cahokia points being used in one area a two thousand years ago and then springing up again in a different area of the country a thousand years later. That's no the case though- we find fairly uniform types of points and tools being used throughout the different regions during each time period, again, based on the resources being used vs. what tribe was where.
Johnny X- I have to tell you, there isn't all that much difference in the amount of time it takes to flake different types of points, fluting a clovis will only add a few minutes total on to the process for an experienced knapper. Most, if not all, points can be made in twenty minutes or less. Okay, maybe thirty minutes or less now that I think about it...excluding any huge ceremonial grade points and or knives. Anyways... sorry for rambl'n on. Happy hunting to all!

 

[Johnny X]

Re: Here's a question

Very nice post Cannonman, comming from someone who has never knapped a point before in his life I had no idea they were made that quickly. I've always thought about the spiritual significance of the points that I found but I didn't think to connect them to this specific discussion. Very nice point.

Thanks for the knowledge and the enlightenment my friend!

hh

xstevenx

 

[bean man]

Re: Here's a question

This stuff is very interesting, really makes the mind think back. I would think that most the ancient ones could knap to some degree, but I was thinking. What if there were just several members of each group that were expert knappers. Their knowledge of materials and tool manufacturing handed down thru apprenticeship to young boys or girls, who show the right desire. These folks might have also been long range scouts and traders for their tribes on their long trips for materials. Mastercraftsman of the stone and highly respected in the tribe. Knapping would be their life. I would think that they would be well aware of the different stone tools from earlier time periods. What Cannon learned from the Ho-Chunk member makes sense, because I think you would see more mixing of time periods at archaeological sites then you have.
bm

 

[Cannonman17]

Re: Here's a question

Bean man- I've thought about that to. Having a single person do the tool making is possible but I don't think it could have been a regular occurrence until relatively recently in the archaeological record. If we look at the types of things that are found through the different time periods we can learn a lot, including how/when people may have "specialized" in a particular area, like flintknapping. Early on in the Paleo period we would have found small groups of people moving about the country almost non stop who's entire survival depended upon their hunting ability (and of course indirectly their tool making ability) thus it is believed by most "scholars" that most adults were proficient knappers. Now that's not to say you might not have uncle Ed make yours for you cuz he's better at it but if need be you could too. The average lifespan during this time couldn't have been very high- it was a dangerous and harsh world to live in then. Having just one member of the tribe specialized in making all the points for a group could have been a death trap because if Uncle Ed gets stomped by a mammoth tomorrow and you and your brother don't know how to knap points you're in a lot of trouble.
Okay, now I'm going to skip way ahead past the Archaic and Woodland into the Mississippian period where for the first time different technological advances in farming, pottery, etc etc have allowed large populations to sustain themselves in a small area. They had finally "mastered" their environment, they no longer needed to follow herds of game, they could farm and store food much better, they had invented the bow and arrow, their crops were producing more as farming practices improved and so on... what does that mean, that means for the first time people here had "extra" time on their hands, I mean significant amounts of "extra" time. Because the crop was good this year Joe already has enough corn to last him and his family through the year, he won't have to spend every minute picking berries and hunting/fishing to sustain him through the winter- that leaves him time for other things...this is why in the archaeological record we see an explosion of creativity and art. People finally had the time to do it..now if you take it one step further you could have tribes/families produce enough food to sustain extra people... people who would thus be free to "specialize" in doing what ever it may be. If my father, mother, three brothers and two sisters could raise enough food easily enough I would be free to spend my time mass producing some points that I could in the fall take to the next village down the river and trade for other materials that I could bring back and share with my family, it would have been to everybody's advantage.
During the Archaic you may have had people start to specialize in certain areas but I don't think that there would have been full time specialist like we see later...perhaps more so in the Woodland but there's no doubt at all that it was happening in the Mississippian period- look at some of the mounds that were excavated at Cahokia- burials with hundreds and hundreds of identical points- in all probability made by one person who may have been "hired" by trading food or other materials to him to produce them. And of course it's not just with points...there was more than likely specialized potters, doctors, etc.. all the trimmings of a full fledged "civilization" missing only one key component- writing.

 

[bean man]

Re: Here's a question

Right on Cannon. I was thinking that the specialization started gradually and grew as populations did. As villages got to large, they had to split up and move sometimes because of dwindling resources or being run off by a foe. What if your group didn't get a specialist or your specialist went on a trip and didn't come back. It seems like there were great knappers from all periods but the average guys skills seems to have slowly gone down, sometimes almost to the point of being lost.

 

[Michael Karr]

Re: Here's a question

I'VE SEEN A CLOVIS PICKED UP BY ANOTHER CULTURE AND SIDE NOTCHES WERE KNAPPED IN IT,,,,,,,MIKE

 

[Cannonman17]

Re: Here's a question

My friend had one to- I don't say it never happened, in fact, I know it happened, it's just that it wasn't a common occurance. Also of interest was the one my friend had was also turned into a side notch. Not used as they found it but modified it to fit their needs-