The theme throughout this document is that artifacts representing the various stages of Folsom Point manufacture are failures of that process. Stage 9 and Stage 6 had the vast majority of these failures. Stage 9 failures represent 50% of the preforms in the archaeological record and Stage 6 represent 45%. Stage 9 produced the most failures because the preforms were thinner at the time of fluting. Both Stages consisted of only a single blow that removed the channel flake and, therefore, the two have the same failure modes. (Refer back to Stage 6 for more details of these modes.)
This is a proximal fragment of a preform resulting from
the Face B channel flake plunging into the body during removal (right
image). The lateral edges of the preform are not symmetrical and, as a
result, the channel flake scars are not symmetrical. However, I do not
believe this asymmetry caused the failure. This knapper was just not as
concerned about the symmetry as the knappers of the other preforms shown
here. This asymmetrical shape is unusual, but not rare.
This is also a proximal fragment resulting from the Face B
channel flake plunging into the body of the preform during removal.
Unlike the preform above, this one is extremely symmetrical. It consists
of three pieces glued together. The break lines between the fragments run
from a point in the middle of the right edge in the left image (left edge
in the right image) and fan out toward the proximal and distal edges. Did
this preform break in this manner during the channel flake removal or was
it broken subsequently? I believe it was later and was intentional.
These fragments are "pie" shaped wedges which make good burins.
Additionally, these wedges are commonly found in Folsom assemblages and
made from bifaces, flakes and other flat tools1
. I believe this preform was broken in this manner to obtain
these wedges.
This split proximal fragment was a real catastrophe. The
Face B channel flake not only plunged into the preform, the preform was
simultaneously split during the fluting process. Splits similar to this
occured ocasionally and probably resulted from the knapper's flaking tool
following through and hitting the preform after the channel flake had been
removed.
This preform is also interesting because the large fragment from the midsection was later used as a spokeshave. The spokeshave is the concavity located on the right edge in the left image (left edge in the right image). A spokeshave is a tool used to shape round wooden shafts like the spokes in a wheel on a wooden wagon. Obviously, this spokeshave worked smaller shafts.
This is my favorite preform. It is another proximal
fragment that resulted from the Face B channel flake plunging into the
body. It was found on the edge of a high ridge that had a view for 40
miles in 270 degrees of direction. It was an isolated find and there was
no other chipping associated with it, Paleo or otherwise. At first it
appears to be made of Alibates. However, the material is a petrified wood
that is foreign to the area in which it was found. What was this preform
doing in this isolated spot that had such a fabulous view? It wasn't made
there because there was no other chipping debris. Was it transported to
this location after the fluting attempt failed? Was it transported there
by the Folsom knapper, by another Folsom person, or by a person of a later
culture?
This is a proximal fragment without evidence of the Face B
channel flake plunging into the body. The break at the distal edge
occurred after Face B was fluted. The right ear in the left image is
missing. This may have occurred at the time of fluting Face B, but I am
not sure. I do not have an explanation for the condition of this preform.
This is a proximal fragment of a small preform. It is
similar to the preform immediately above, in that the flute on Face B was
successfully remove. Unlike the one above, this one was purposely broken.
I know this because of the discontinuity (knee) in the distal edge of the
preform. This is where the force was applied. It was probably laid on a
hard surface and hit in the middle of the face with another rock. The
reason for smashing the preform is unknown. Some people have suggested it
was to create the pie shaped wedges discussed above. Others have
suggested it was done ritualistically. (Check out
Stage 10 for more discussion of the ritualistic subject.) There is
also the possibility a cow stepped on it.
This is
almost a whole preform and very problematic. First, the flute scars
demonstrate one of the occasional deviations from the normal fluting
pattern. Face A (?) was fluted from the proximal end. Face B was fluted
from the distal end and since the flake scar did not extent to the
proximal end, the preform was then thinned from the proximal end.
After the fluting and thinning, this preform was beveled and serrated on the lateral edges. Preforms similar to this with beveled, serrated edges are very rare in the archaeological record. I have see two others besides this one. Bob Patten has suggested this was part of Stage 10--Post Fluting Retouch. If this is correct it is a procedure to quickly trim the lateral edges. Finally, this preform appears to have been purposely smashed with a blow to the face. Note the knee and missing wedge from the midsection of the artifact.
1 These pie shaped wedges are referred to as "radial break tools" in FOLSOM TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY at the Hanson Site, Wyoming by George C. Frison and Bruce A. Bradley (1980:96-99).