One of the characteristics of a Belen point is the base is often plano-convex in cross-section (above line drawing). The flat face was usually a result of not removing some of the large soft-hammer biface thinning flakes with finishing pressure flakes. This asymmetrical cross-section is the exception to my rule that original points were symmetrical in cross-section. This is discussed in more detail at the end of the measurement section.
Image 1 This is the black & white point on the
introductory page. It is complete, but resharpened. More than likely it was
originally twice as long as it is now. The outside edge (in either image)
has been reworked. This is evident by the lack of lateral edge grinding
on this edge, but grinding is present on the other edge and basal
concavity. Additionally, the medial ridge is on the left side of center
in the right image. It has been moved to the left of center by the
resharpening process which also created the diagonal flake scars on the
blade. Diagonal scars are not characteristic of Belen points. In the
center of the blade in the left image are remnants of the bifacial work
that was not removed by the final pressure shaping flakes. This makes the
point plano-convex in this area of the point, however, the base is
symmetrical in cross-section. The point was made from Cumbres Pass chert.
Image 2 This is the base of one of the wider Belens. It
is also a classic example of the plano-convex cross-section. Note the
large, percussion, biface thinning flakes in the right image in the lower
left hand corner. This is the flat face. Notice how the small pressure
flakes just shape the edge and do not penetrate into the larger percussion
scars. The lateral and proximal edges are ground on this point, with the
grinding extending all the way to the break. The break was an impact
break. I do not recognize the lithic material.
Image 3 This base is also plano-convex in cross-section,
but not to the extent of the previous base. The left image is the flat
face. The flake scars originating from the right edge of the left image
are percussion while the ones coming in from the left edge are pressure.
The wide, right edge scars hinge out and cut more into the base. These
right edge scars create the flat face. The lateral edges are ground all
the way to the break and the proximal edge is also ground. The proximal
edge is slightly concave, shaped by two very small ears and then a flat
portion across most of the edge. This is also a Belen characteristic, but
not seen on every point. The point appears to have been destroyed by
impact partially evidenced by the one flake scar originating from the
break and moving toward the proximal edge in the left image. The material
is a translucent, clear white chalcedony. The reason the point appears
blue is that the background blue is showing through.
Image 4 This broken base is longer than most bases found
in campsites. It could have been resharpened and been a point of the same
length as the one in Image 1. For some reason, the Belen people chose not
to resharpen it. It was obviously broken on impact. Note the conchoidal
ripples on the left image. It is symmetrical in cross-section and very
gently expanding from the base. This gentle expansion is common of
Belens. See the basal measurements section.
The proximal end of the base is lightly ground and the lateral edges are
ground all the way to the break on both sides. The lithic material is
Cumbres Pass chert.
Image 5 This complete point has also been resharpened. It
is identical to the one in Image 1 except it is a little rougher around
the edges. This is probably due to the gravel environment in which it was
found. The base is plano-convex in cross-section with the left image
being the flat face. Note the large biface thinning flake scar in the
lower left corner of the face. The lateral edges and proximal edge are
ground. The lithic material contains fossils that appear to be
fusilinids. There is a canyon in the Guadalupe Mountains that produces
chert from the San Andres formation that is loaded with fusilinids and I
suggest that this is that material.
Image 6 The workmanship on this base is better than
average for a Belen point. It is symmetrical in cross-section and there
are no remnants of earlier biface thinning flakes. The lateral and
proximal edges are extremely ground. The lithic material is a brown
jasper.
Image 7 This base consists of two pieces glued together.
In the right image, the midsection fragment is a different color than its
reverse face or the proximal fragment. It is impossible to say which
color represents the original rock or if either does. All that can be
said is that the process that caused the difference in color occurred
after the pieces were separated. This point is symmetrical in
cross-section and the lateral and proximal edges are ground (lateral ones
to the break). The point's demise was caused by impact (flake scar coming
from break in right image). The lithic material is rhyolite.
Image 8 This is the base of a well worked point. It is
symmetrical in cross-section and the lateral and proximal edges are
ground. There are no remnants of scars produced by biface thinning. The
proximal edge of the base is almost straight. Some Belens had straight
bases and Image 10 is believed to be an example of this. The lithic
material is Lake Valley from the Hatch, NM area.
Image
9 This artifact represents the finest workmanship on a Belen
point I have seen. Still, it is slightly plano-convex in cross-section
with the right image being the flat face. On this face is the remnant of
the biface thinning flake scar in the upper left corner. This flake was
removed from the right edge. The lateral and proximal edges are ground
with the lateral edges ground to the break. There is at least four (4) cm
of lateral edge grinding. The lithic material is pitchstone or an opaque
obsidian.
Image 9 is one of my favorite artifacts. When I found it 33 years ago, the base was intact and the right ear (right image) was not missing. Years later when viewing the collection with my father, I discovered it had been dropped on a hard surface and the ear broken off and shattered beyond repair. I never learned how it happened, but it deeply hurt me. I know it hurt my father, also. As I write this and hold the base in my hands, it still pains me that this very beautiful point has been damaged in this manner. I have been in museums where they would have let me handle artifacts over a concrete floor. I wouldn't do it. I plead to all that read this, do not handle lithic artifacts over a surface that will damage them if dropped. I promise you someday you will drop one.
Image 10 This point has been saved for the last because
it is the crudest of the Belen points in the ten (10) images. It has very
little fine pressure retouch on the edges and the base is straight.
However, the lateral and proximal edges of the base have been ground. I
especially don't like the way it has been resharpened. This was done in a
bevelling fashion similar to the way the Archaic folks would resharpen a
point. Maybe, it was resharpened by an Archaic person. It is so crude
that I sometimes don't think it is a Belen, but I don't know another
category in which to place it. The left image is the flat side and the
material is petrified wood.
Return to Paleoindian and Other... Homepage.