Arrowheadology.com: Arrowheads, Indian Artifacts and Early Man

Why Did They Do That – Grinding?

Posted on 28. Jul, 2010 by Shannon Graham in Clovis, Europe, Flint Artifacts, Old World, Paleo, Projectile Techonolgoy, Uncategorized

This article was authored and kindly submitted by John Garrett, a.k.a. ‘Mojave’. We appreciate John’s many contributions to Arrowheadology as well as to the greater collecting community.

By John Garrett

This commentary examines one of the more curious peculiarities in the technological habit patterns of earliest Americans, generally referred to as Paleo-Indians; marginal grinding of projectile point edges.

What is Grinding???
First, a definition of exactly what constitutes edge grinding is in order. Many observers have noted that a majority of stone projectile points in North America made during the Pleistocene (generally considered to be prior to 10,000 radio carbon years ago) had one attribute in common; deliberate marginal and/or basal grinding. Grinding is a technique of abrading the edge of a stone tool for the purpose of removing its “sharpness.” This results in an edge that is frequently straight and smooth to the touch. Differentiating from minor abrading to edges for the purpose of flake platform preparation, this specific grinding, sometimes described as polishing (Titmus and Woods; 1991) was most commonly done along the marginal edges of a point on the proximal (base) end where hafting most likely occurred. Figures 1-5 depict early western US obsidian and basalt paleo projectiles that show intentional edge grinding.

Figure 1 Haskett

Figure 2 Clovis

Figure 3 Clovis

Figure 4 Lake Mojave

Figure 5 Lake Mojave

Other materials include another Clovis (Fig 6) which shows lateral and basal grinding, a Lee County, TX Golondrina (Fig 7) and an Edwards County, TX Angostura (Fig 8 ) each with extensive lateral grinding.

Figure 6 Clovis

Figure 7 Golondrina

Figure 8 Texas Angostura

Why???
The real question is ‘why did they feel it necessary to do this?’ Delving into this question, several interesting observations are important to note. First, virtually all Paleo-Indian projectile points show at least some lateral grinding regardless of the configuration of what is perceived to be the haftable stem area (tapered, expanding, or recurved edges, thin or thick cross section, etc.) Second, although rare, some archaic points illustrate grinding that is virtually identical to the paleo method of grinding. (See Figure 9 Nevada Humboldt Concave Base point)

Figure 9 Humboldt

For years it was assumed by many that lateral grinding was performed to protect the binding or sinew wrapping that held the point firmly in a wooden haft from the sharp edges of the point. (Wormington 1957:23; Young and Bonnichsen 1985; 119) Wide acceptance of this theory is not supported by the successful use of non-ground points and tools throughout prehistory all over the world however. A vast majority of archaic points have little or no grinding. Other experimentation (Woods 1987, 1988) has shown that un-dulled edges of stone projectiles do not damage sinew wrapping during tests designed to induce breakage in simulated use. Nevertheless it is possible early craftsmen perceived the practice as avoiding reduced haft integrity.

Judge offers another theory on Folsom points:

“… grinding of the Folsom lateral edges was to permit the relatively easy insertion and extraction of the point base into the socket haft” (Judge 1973:176.)

Baker reinforces this with:

“Lateral edge grinding would remove any high spots on the edges of the point and permit it to be inserted further into the foreshaft, and therefore create more contact between the point’s edges and the foreshaft. Also, if the high spots were not ground down they would create stress concentrations in the hafted point that would lead to a weakened hafted point. Lateral edge grinding would greatly improve the hafting process if socketed foreshafts were used.” (Baker 2009)

While compelling evidence suggests this is the case, it does not explain the many paleo point type forms that have expanding stems or hafting elements that flare out as is the case with this laterally ground Cumberland. (Fig 10)

Figure 10 Kentucky Cumberland (courtesy Kent Langreder)

It hardly seems likely that this configuration would lend itself to bone/antler forshaft hafting. It is possible the tradition of grinding was a habit pattern that lingered on past the point where a general transition from socketed foreshafts to bound hafts took place. The temporal relationship between the socketed/non-socketed transition and the ground/un-ground evolution possibly represents a testable hypothesis.

What about Europe and Asia??
Many theories exist on the original peopling of the Americas. Did they come from Siberia via the land bridge? (Fagan 1991: 67). Perhaps they came from Europe where similarities between the Clovis culture and the European Solutrean culture have led to suggestions that a “Solutrean Paleolithic maritime tradition gave rise to pre-Clovis and Clovis technologies”. (Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford 2004:473) The main arguments against this theory are the several thousand years that separate the two cultures in time and the apparent lack of archaeological depth for the intervening period. The question arises however, is there evidence of a widespread use of lateral grinding on points in the Upper Paleolithic or anywhere else before 10,000 years ago?

First, it is important to point out that much of the European and west Asian projectiles throughout the Upper Paleolithic to 10,000 years BP were composite points made with small inset bladelets, not the single hafted stone projectiles associated with Paleo-Indians. Many other tools from the Solutrean period were unifacial. It is possible that many of the large well known Solutrean tools were not projectiles at all but rather knives. The existence of well made Bifacially reduced points/tools are well established from eastern Siberia just after 15,000 BP at the same time they were NOT known from the Asian regions west of the Urals. (Abramova 1995: 235) Although no definitive evidence has linked specific point types between Asia and North America, parallels between the lithic technologies in the terminal Pleistocene from northeastern Asia and New World Paleo-Indian assemblages are noted. (Shea, Sisk 2010: 114) It is somewhat of a mystery that Middle Paleolithic Mousterian bifacial techniques were abandoned in later times over such wide areas. It is curious that Duktai culture bifacial tools of eastern Siberia resemble some Northwest North American Paleo-Indian tool styles however. Possible linkage between the two manifestations is compelling although definitive relative dating evidence is lacking so far.

It is apparent that marginal grinding was not a purely American invention. Although not employed nearly as much as in the Americas, grinding was performed to various degrees on Upper Paleolithic stone tools in Europe. Roughly one-third of Solutrean Laurel Leaf points do exhibit some edge grinding on the proximal end. (Alan Slade, Centre of Ancient Human Origins, University of Southampton, personal communication)

Summary
Lateral edge grinding on Paleo-Indian projectile points was very nearly a universal practice in North America, to the extent it is used as a discriminating attribute in defining and identifying points of the period. The reason(s) for it are a mystery. Although the method was used in the Old World, it was not used as extensively as here. Currently no explanation is satisfactory. Was it because a perceived mechanical advantage to prevent breakage of the haft or binding? Was it to facilitate bone/antler socket hafting? Why was the practice largely abandoned in the Holocene? All interesting questions to ponder.

References:

Abramova, A. Zoia

1995 D’Asie en Amérique : l’industrie bifaciale soviétique au Paléolithique. In: Paléo. Supplément. N. 1, pp. 235-240.

Baker, Tony

2009 “The Antler Foreshaft — The Original Shrink Wrapped Package” http://www.ele.net/antler/foreshaft.htm

Bradley, Bruce, and Stanford, Dennis

2004 The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor: a possible Palaeolithic route to the New World. World Archaeology Vol. 36(4): 459 – 478

Fagan, B.

1991 Ancient North America, the Archaeology of a Continent. London: Thames and Hudson.

Judge, W. James

1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shea, John J and Sisk, Matthew L.

2010 Complex Projectile Technology and Homo sapiens Dispersal into Western Eurasia. PaleoAnthropology 2010: 100−122.

Titmus, Gene L. and James C. Woods

1991 A Closer Look at Margin “Grinding” on Folsom and Clovis Points. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2): 194 –203.

Woods, James C.

1987 Manufacturing and Use Damage on Pressure-Flaked Stone Tools. Master’s thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello.
1988 Projectile Point Fracture Pattems and Inferences about Tool Function. Idaho Archaeologist ll(l):3-7.

Wormington, H. Marie

1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series No. 4.

Young, David E., and Robson Bonnichsen

1985 Cognition, Behavior, and Material Culture. In: Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree. Mark G. Plew, James C. Woods, and Max G. Pavesic, eds., pp. 91-131. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press

Related Posts

1. An Early Multi-Purpose Tool from the Great Basin
2. A Paleo Mystery from Illinois
3. An Agate Basin Point from Texas