of the texas archeological and paleontological society/67531/metapth1013883/m2/1/high_r… ·...

BULLETIN

OF THE

Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society

Volume TenSEPTEMBER

1938

Publishedby theSociety atAbilene,Texas

COPYRIGHT, 1938 BYTEXAS ARCHEOLOGICAL ANDPALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society

OFFICERS

CYRUS N. RAY, PresidentJULIUS OLSEN, Vice-PresidentOTTO O. WATTS, Secretary-Treasurer

DIRECTORS

CYRUS N. RAY, D.O. W. C. HOLDEN, Ph. D.JULIUS OLSEN, Ph D., Sc.D. RUPERT RICHARDSON, Ph. D.OTTO O. WATTS, Ph. D. C. W. HANLEY

REGIONAL VICE-PRESIDENTS

FLOYD V. STUDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AmarilloCOL. M. L. CRIMMINS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - New York, N. Y.VICTOR J. SMITH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AlpineC. L. WEST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HamiltonDR. J. E. PEARCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AustinLESTER B. WOOD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BreckenridgeJUDGE O. L. SIMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paint Rock

TRUSTEESDR. ELLIS SHULER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DallasDR. STEWART COOPER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AbilenePRICE CAMPBELL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AbileneFRED COCKRELL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AbileneERNEST W. WILSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AbileneA. T. JACKSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austin

FINANCE COMMITTEER. B. LEACH, RUSSELL STEPHENS, D. G. BARROW AND C. W. HANLEY

EDITOR

DR. CYRUS N. RAY

Forword

HistoryThe Texas Archeological and Paleontological

Society was founded in October, 1928, in the officeof Dr. Cyrus N. Ray, in the City of Abilene, Texas,by a small group of about a dozen persons. ThePresident and Vice-President and two Directors,Drs. W. C. Holden and Rupert N. Richardson havebeen consecutively re-elected each year since theoriginal session. The present Secretary-Treasurer,Dr. Otto O. Watts, also took part in the organizationmeeting. At that time certain undertakings werevisualized as desirable objectives for the Societyand were expressed in the foreword of Volume Oneof the Bulletin as follows:

Objects of the SocietyThe society was organized and chartered in

pursuit of a literary and scientific undertaking; forthe study of the history and prehistory and the majorand minor artifacts of man and the fossilsrepresenting the past floras and faunas of Texas;for the encouragement of the proper collection andpreservation of such artifacts and fossils in museumsand their study and classification and the publicationof the results of the researches incident thereto.

Realization of the ObjectivesAt the time the above was written (1928) there

were no museums in Texas worthy of the name.Very little scientific archeological research wasthen being done in Texas, and most of that littlewas by out of the State museums. Hardly anypublication had been done cither by Texaseducational institutions or by societies. Having noeducational institution back of us, no financialbacker to pay the bills, and no museum withinhundreds of miles, we were about as badlyhandicapped in starting a scientific publicationsociety as can be imagined. We were surroundedby an area hundreds of miles across in which almostno anthropological research had been done.

Our only excuse for action was that no one elsewould do the job.and that however poorly wefunctioned we did have a sincere desire to collectand to preserve for future generations the ancientartifacts and fossils of Texas, and with them therecords of ancient life, before the destructiveagencies even then operating could deface them. Inall of these respects we believe that we havesucceeded.

This is the tenth annual volume of the Bulletinwhich has each year steadily grown in size and inservice to those desiring scientific publication in amedium able to adequately illustrate the subjectsdiscussed.

Museums of TexasDue in part to the Society’s work in the promotion

of the idea of Texas Museums, such institutions havebeen built in various sections of Texas within thepast few years. While most of these are yet small,several projects of some size have been started inthe larger cities of Texas.

Within the past year the West Texas Chamber ofCommerce has opened an all West Texas Museumin Abilene in which The Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society is represented by five largemuseum cases, in which are shown collections ofmembers of the Society.

Interest in Society’s Bulletins InternationalThe importance of the scientific discoveries

made in Texas prehistory during the past ten years,and recorded in the Bulletins of this Society, havebeen such as to arouse much scientific interest inthe Society’s publications not only in all parts ofAmerica, but throughout the world as well.

The Society’s Bulletins constitute the larger partof the foundation or source literature on Texasarcheology, and as such are in demand by the leadingscientific libraries of America, and of foreigncountries. The publication funds of the Society areobtained by the dues of members, the sales of books,and donations of interested members, and friendsof The Society.

Neither the officers nor the editor have everreceived any monetary compensation whatever forthe great amount of labor involved in the Society’sactivities. The work has been freely and cheerfullydone as a contribution to the diffusion of knowledgethroughout the earth. This work could not have beendone on a commercial basis. The Society wasstarted just before the great business collapse andhas successfully weathered all of the vicissitudesof outrageous fortune and remains on its tenthanniversary owing no debts, and a thoroughlysolvent, and a going forward institution.

BULLETINof the

Texas Archeological andPalentological Society

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. A Description of Texas Pictographs, By Forrest Kirkland ............................................................. 9

2. Typology of Lithic Artifacts, By E. B. Renaud .............................................................................. 21

3. Fire in East Texas Burial Rites, By A. T. Jackson ......................................................................... 40

4. Discovery of Sauk Valley Man of Minnesota, With an Account of the Geology,By Kirk Bryan, Henry Retzek and Franklin T. McCann ........................................................... 55

5. The Sauk Valley Skeleton, By A. E. Jenks and Lloyd A. Wilford .................................................. 64

6. Skeletal Remains from Northern Texas, By Ales Hrdlicka............................................................ 81

7. The Clear Fork Culture Complex, By Cyrus N. Ray...................................................................... 97

8. Blue Mountain Rock Shelter, By W. C. Holden ........................................................................... 104

9. Carved Rock Shelter, By Victor J. Smith ..................................................................................... 110

10. Spanish Fort An Historic Site, By Adolph H. Witte .................................................................... 115

11. The Occurrence and Distribution of Beveled Knives, By Sybil Poteet ....................................... 120

12. Long Channelled Point Found in Alluvium Beside Bones of Elephas Columbi,By Kirk Bryan and Cyrus N. Ray .......................................................................................... 128

13. Reports and Editorials: (1) The Museum of the West Texas Chamber of Commerce.(2) New Evidences of Ancient Man in Texas, C. N. R. (3) Deep Sites Near Abilene,Texas, Kirk Bryan. (4) Scientists Visit Texas Sites. (5) The Society’s FinanceCommittee. (6) Errata ............................................................................................................ 131

14. Secretary-Treasurer’s Report ...................................................................................................... 135

15. Membership List ......................................................................................................................... 136

Vol. 10, 1938, Price $3.00Abilene, Texas

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE 1......................................................................................................................................Page 10A map-like design from Painted Cave near the mouth of the Pecos River.

PLATE 2...................................................................................................................................... Page 11Designs resembling tri-motored planes in Rattlesnake Canyon.

PLATE 3......................................................................................................................................Page 13Types of human figures found at Paint Rock, Texas.

PLATE 4......................................................................................................................................Page 14Designs which approach true pictographic writing.

PLATE 5......................................................................................................................................Page 16Designs from Paint Rock, showing excellent arrangement.

PLATE 6......................................................................................................................................Page 17Designs in red, yellow and black, some of the finest examples of the Val Verde DryShelter Culture.

PLATE 7......................................................................................................................................Page 18Two large murals which are the work of the Val Verde Dry Shelter Culture.

PLATE 8......................................................................................................................................Page 19Typical designs taken from the winter count of the Blackwater tribe of the PimaIndians.

PLATE 9......................................................................................................................................Page 42No. (1) Site of a cremated burial. No. (2) Ceremonial knife blades from a grave.No. (3) Group of eight skeletons.

PLATE 10....................................................................................................................................Page 43Pottery from site of a cremation. Franklin County.

PLATE 11 ....................................................................................................................................Page 44Unusual pottery from site of a cremated burial.

PLATE 12....................................................................................................................................Page 45No. (1) Hard packed ash heap or cremated burial. No. (2) Stone covered grave.No. (3) Burial showing evidence of gunshot wounds.

PLATE 13....................................................................................................................................Page 46No. (1) Objects found with grave. No. (2) Post holes around grave. No. (3) Artifactsfrom grave in Upshur County.

PLATE 14....................................................................................................................................Page 48Vessels from graves which contained evidence of fire.

PLATE 15....................................................................................................................................Page 50Four views of graves which contained charcoal, and various pottery and flint artifacts.

PLATE 16....................................................................................................................................Page 53Views of four graves found in Cherokee County, Texas, showing burial furnishings.

PLATE 17....................................................................................................................................Page 56No. (1) Gravel pit showing disconformities between the West Union gravel and thegray. No. (2) West Union gravel showing horizon at which tibia was found.

PLATE 18....................................................................................................................................Page 57No. (1) Top—West Union gravel; middle—fading tongue of clay; bottom—graygravel facies. No. (2) Approach to gravel pit looking to the northeast.No. (3) Sauk Valley looking toward the northeast from gravel pit knoll.

PLATE 19....................................................................................................................................Page 58Sketch map showing the location of the discovery, and its surroundings.

PLATE 20....................................................................................................................................Page 60Map of the Gravel Pit and vicinity.

PLATE 21....................................................................................................................................Page 61No. (1) Diagrammatic section showing relation of West Union gravel to till and graygravel in Erasers Pit. No. (2) Relation of till upland to masses of gravel embodied inthe till. No. (3) Cross-section of the Sauk River depression.

PLATE 22....................................................................................................................................Page 67No. (1) Sauk Valley Skull, lateral view. No. (2) Sauk Valley Skull, frontal view.

PLATE 23....................................................................................................................................Page 68No. (1) Sauk Valley Skull, occipital view. No. (2) Sauk Valley Skull, vertical view.

PLATE 24....................................................................................................................................Page 99No. (1) Eleven Clear Fork hand axes. No. (2) Top row, seven Clear Fork gouges.Second row from top, seven planer-gouges. Bottom half, sixteen Clear Fork sidescrapers.

PLATE 25..................................................................................................................................Page 100No. (1) Top two lines. Clear Fork dart (1). Third and fourth lines, Clear Fork dart (2).Fifth line, Clear Fork dart (3). Sixth and Seventh lines, Clear Fork dart (4). No. (2)Top line, Clear Fork Disks. Second and third lines. Clear Fork Gravers. Fourth line,Clear Fork spokeshaves. Fifth and sixth lines, oval knives.

PLATE 26..................................................................................................................................Page 105No. (1) General view of shelter. No. (2) Interior of shelter. No. (3) Mortar holes.

PLATE 27..................................................................................................................................Page 106Type specimens from layer (1).

PLATE 28..................................................................................................................................Page 107Type specimens from layer (2).

PLATE 29.................................................................................................................................. Page 112No. (1) Hafted hatchets. No. (2) Cist between rock falls.

PLATE 30.................................................................................................................................. Page 113No. (1) Cobs, pierced rawhide, gourd and fragments of fur cloth. No. (2) Blades andpoints.

PLATE 31.................................................................................................................................. Page 115No. (1) Top row, image of horse, image of horse’s head. Second row, Copper crosswith purple stones. Third row, Copper arrow points. Fourth row. Copper link andtubes. No. (2) Top row, Flintlock gun hammers. Second row. Iron points. Third row,Small axes.

PLATE 32.................................................................................................................................. Page 117No. (1) Top row, Sandstone pipe. Second row, Pottery pipe. Third row. Marl pipeand bowls. Fourth row. Pipe stem of hematite. No. (2) Stone artifacts.

PLATE 33..................................................................................................................................Page 122Typical beveled knives.

PLATE 34..................................................................................................................................Page 124Types A, B, C and D beveled knives.

PLATE 35..................................................................................................................................Page 129No. (1) Long Channeled Point embedded in place (at point of trowel), and in closerelation to bones (lower left) and teeth of elephas Columbi in Site Mc. No. (2) PerfectYuma Point embedded in place in Site Mc.

PLATE 36..................................................................................................................................Page 133Two views of Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society’s museum cases inthe West Texas Chamber of Commerce Museum in Abilene, Texas. No. (1) Clear Fork,and Small Scraper Culture cases. No. (2) In foreground. Abilene Man case of skulls andgeneral view.

PLATE 37..................................................................................................................................Page 134Dr. Kirk Bryan of Harvard University examining flint flakes embedded in deeplyburied midden levels in Gibson Site; about 1500 feet farther up this bank an elephasbone was excavated from gravel formation July 3, 1938. No. (2) Abilene point foundembedded in silt 21 feet below soil surface and witnessed by Dr. Bryan and SamuelVaughan (Hodges Site). No. (3) View of Dr. Kirk Bryan pointing to Abilene Pointembedded in Durst Silt (Hodges Site).

A Description of Texas Pictographs 9

In my first article which appeared in the 1937Bulletin, of the Society our methods of work weredescribed and what we had accomplished duringthe past three years was briefly reviewed. Havingthen laid the foundation for a series of articles, weare now ready to give details concerning some ofthe many interesting questions relative to Indianpictographs.

Many of the more important questions whichwe hope to answer, or, at least to throw some lighton by our investigation, must necessarily awaitdiscussion until sites in all parts of the state havebeen studied. This is especially true of suchquestions as the age and exact relationship of thecultures. Since our survey has not reached thePanhandle area nor the region around El Paso whereimportant sites are known, it will be better, at thistime, to turn our attention to questions of a moregeneral nature, which can be discussed with someassurance in the light of the material gathered fromthe thirty-seven sites, which we have alreadystudied. So, I have chosen for consideration in thispaper, two of the most common questions askedabout pictographs—questions which I believe canbe answered with some degree of certainty. Theyare: “Can pictographs be interpreted?” and “Howdo pictographs rate as works of art?”

Interpretation of PictographsIndian pictographs awaken a lively interest in

almost every one who sees them; they stir theimagination of even the most unlearned observer.This almost universal interest seems to revolveabout the idea of being able, some day, to solvetheir meaning. The first question usually asked is:“Do you know how to read the Indian pictures?” Alarge part of the literature on Indian pictures, orwritings, as they are usually termed, is devoted tothe solution of their meaning. More than 500 booksand articles have been written about the meaningof the famous Dighton Rock of Massachusetts1

which is, in fact, a very unimpressive example ofIndian carvings when compared to the many finepetroglyphs in Texas and other parts of the country.And as a result of all this literature, only two factsseem clear: that the petroglyphs were made by theIndians, and that the interpretations offered areeither wholly absurd or unsubstantiated opinionsof their authors. Articles in recent bulletins of wellknown organizations, have devoted considerablespace to the interpretation of Indian pictographs.These articles make interesting reading; but evenwhen the interpretations seem plausible, they arealways unconvincing from a scientific point of view.

Methods of InterpretationSo far as I can determine, there are only two

approaches to the meaning of pictographs or anyother unknown system of writing: through anexplanation by one who already knows the meaning,and through the discovery of some key, or “Rosettastone,” which would unlock the hidden meaning.The logical procedure in the first case would be tohave living Indians interpret the pictographs. Thishas been attempted innumerable times in all partsof the country; but with no success. As early as1880, when Garrick Mallery2 was making hisinvestigation of Indian pictures, the old Indians,even at that early date, disclaimed any knowledgeof their meaning. They claimed to have no idea whomade the pictographs, and in many cases, regardedthem with superstitious feeling.

“Old-timers,” men who have been closelyassociated with the Indians, have often beenconsulted about the meaning of Indian pictures, andhave sometimes offered elaborate interpretations.In view of the fact, however, that the Indiansthemselves were ignorant of the meaning of thepictures, it may reasonably be concluded that theseinterpretations represent no more than individualguesses which have no place in scientific literature.

A DESCRIPTION OF TEXAS PICTOGRAPHS

BY FORREST KIRKLAND

Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society10

In searching for a key to Indian pictographs,much importance was attached to the discovery ofa series of winter counts, or “calendars” consistingof a series of pictures and symbols, each of whichillustrated the chief event of a year. On these wintercounts, were a hundred or more pictures andsymbols, the exact meanings of which were known.A number of these counts have been reproduced inethnological bulletins3 with the meaning of eachdesign; but only a casualexamination is necessary toconvince one that they fall farbelow the level of anything thatmight properly be called writing(Plate 8, Nos. 1, 2, 3). Thesesimple pictures, or symbols,seldom have a recognizablerelation to their meaning, andit is not unusual for one symbolto be used in several differentplaces to mean entirely differentthings. In only one or twoinstances has a symbol reachedthe stage of representing thesame idea at all times. At most,the symbols in these countsserved only as memory helps,and are of no value whatsoeverin the interpretation ofpictographs.

Even if these few wintercounts had proved to be truepictographic writing, theycould not have applied topictographs made by Indians ofa different language; and,consequently, only a very fewof the thousands of pictographswould have been solved by thismeans; probably none at all inthe state of Texas.

The almost universal use ofthe sign language by Indiantribes, gave hope that it mighthave been incorporated inpictographs; and through its

knowledge and application, their correctinterpretation might be accomplished. As a matterof fact, some of the interpretations offered by “old-timers” are said to have been arrived at by this veryknowledge. The writer has carefully examined anumber of these pictographs and their allegedmeanings based on the sign language, and has failedto be convinced. The sign language, as is wellknown, consists chiefly of positions and movements

PLATE 1.A map-like design from Painted Cave near the mouth of thePecos River.


of the hands; consequently, pictographs based onthis language would, necessarily, be made up ofpictures of people with various positions of theirhands or pictures of arms and hands in specialpositions. This is not the case with the pictographswhich we have copied in Texas. Many groups ofpictures totally lack recognizable human figures;and the figures which we have found are, generally,so highly conventionalized that an interpretation

based on the position of the hands, would beabsolutely absurd. In the light of our investigation,thus far, it seems most unlikely that the Indians ofTexas made use of the sign language in creatingtheir pictographs.

Much reading and personal investigation hasfailed to add another clue to the exact meaning ofpictographs, other than those which have just beendiscussed. The writer is quite sure the real truth is:

No tribe of Indians in NorthAmerica reached the stage oftrue pictographic writing; and,therefore, no exactinterpretation can ever bepossible for the thousands ofpictographs in North America.This opinion, I believe, will befound general among those whohave approached the subjectfrom a scientific point of view.

Serious Purpose ofPictography

It does not follow, however,because we cannot hope to readIndian pictographs, that theyhave no significant meaning, andthat their study is, thereforeuseless. The conclusion of someobservers that pictographsrepresent no more than idlemarkings of the Indian, comesfrom lack of investigation, andis far from the truth. I believethat a number of differentpurposes lie behind theirmaking. It is quite possible thatsome of the simple designsresulted from no higher purposethan that which prompts aschool boy to draw pictures onthe side walk with chalk, but,undoubtedly, in the vastmajority of cases the designsand pictures have sprung froma most serious purpose.

PLATE 2.Designs resembling tri-motored planes in Rattlesnake Canyon.


The labor and trouble to which the artist wasput in making many of the designs, is proof enoughof their serious purpose. The elaborate petroglyphsnear Van Horn are carved so deeply into the hardrock that weeks or even months of patient laborwith primitive tools, must have been required fortheir making. The pictures in almost every cave inVal Verde county, extend far above the reach of aman standing on the floor of the cave, so a ladderof some kind must have been required for theirpainting. In a few cases they were painted flat onthe ceiling more than ten feet above the floor. Thiswork would certainly have required some type ofscaffolding. Grinding, mixing, and applying the painton certain of the figures in these caves, must haverequired considerable labor, as they stand more thannine feet tall, are painted solid on rough surfaces,and are finished in three shades of color.

Ceremonial DesignsAt Paint Rock, Langs Mill, and in the Big Bend,

we have found simple, geometrical designs madeup largely of criss-crossed lines resembling certaindesigns reported from Southern California. Thesedesigns are so simple as to suggest idle markings;but the designs in California are known to have beenmade in historic time by Indian girls as a seriouspart of their puberty ceremonies. The exactsignificance of similar designs in Texas may neverbe known; but it may well be assumed that theyplayed an important part in some Indian ceremony,and definitely mark the sites at which this ceremonywas practiced.

Indian MapsOne type of simple design common to both

petroglyphs and pictographs throughout thecountry, consists of wandering, wavy linesconnected to one another or to unrecognizableobjects. These rambling designs resemble, in asuperficial way, the rivers and lakes on aconventional map, and are usually classed as Indianmaps. Attempts are made to relate their principallines to the outstanding features of the surroundingcountry.

These designs occur in Texas chiefly among thepetroglyphs near Van Horn and the pictographs ofthe cave dwellers in Val Verde county, at locationswhere we have sufficient evidence to believe thatthe Indians who made them had permanentsettlements. It does not seem reasonable that theseIndians could have needed a map to direct themover their own familiar territory; and it is even moreunreasonable to think that they would prepare amap for the use of strangers who would almostcertainly be their enemies. The very idea ofprehistoric Indians making and using maps, as weknow them, seems most unlikely to me. We havecopied many of these designs and have found that,at least in Val Verde county, their form and generalarrangement suggests illustrations of some mythor religious idea in which the wavy lines representserpents, or perhaps spiritual power.

An excellent example of these map like designs,and one which is locally explained as a map, maybe found in Painted Cave on the Rio Grande, onemile below the mouth of the Pecos River (Plate 1,No. 1). This very dim, three color design, measuringseventeen feet in length by eight feet in height, doesresemble a map on casual examination; but when itis copied on a small scale and in its original colors,it loses its map-like appearance and takes its placeas a well thought out decorative design made up ofwavy lines and conventional forms common to theVal Verde Dry Shelter Culture.*

We have yet to find a design that can reasonablybe classed as an Indian map.

The Necessity of Getting theIndians’ Point of View

This practice of classifying every wavy-linepictograph as an Indian map, calls attention to oneof the greatest hindrances to a correct understandingof Indian customs and beliefs, as well as, Indianpictures. It is that natural tendency every one hasto attempt to explain everything he sees or hearsby his own personal knowledge and experience. Weare prone to give meanings to Indian pictures basedon the objects and practices of our culture, whichwere entirely unknown to the prehistoric Indian.The great difficulty is in laying aside our advanced


knowledge and seeing the pictures with only theeyes of a primitive man. The very fact that almostevery one thinks that pictographs will some day beread, is a good example of this natural tendency.The art of reading and writing is so deeply set inthe pattern of our lives that we instinctively feelthat every series of pictures or symbols is a form ofwriting. We can hardly place ourselves in theposition of the Indian who probably never thoughtof writing in its true sense, andwhose pictures and designsrepresent only a crude type ofillustration and symbolism.

Another of the manyexamples of this, we met withat Rattlesnake Canyon nearLangtry. We were asked if wehad seen the pictures ofairplanes on the shelter wall.We had. But the designsreferred to, which were goodrepresentations of tri-motoredplanes, proved, by comparisonwith other similar designs, tobe highly conventionalizedpictures of men wearing wing-like costumes (Plate 2, Nos. 1,5).

Even in copying the Indianpictures, I find it necessary atall times to be on my guardagainst this tendency, lest Imake something out of dimdesigns which is not actuallythere, but only supplied by myimagination. However, whenthe right attitude has beenattained, I find that I canapproach my work with afeeling that must resemble thatof the original artist. AlthoughI have not had the timenecessary for an exhaustivestudy of the meaning ofpictographs, due to ourconcentrated efforts to secure

copies; yet I believe that it is possible by sincerelystriving to assume the Indian’s point of view, toarrive at the true significance and purpose behindmany of the Indian pictographs.

No great amount of study or understandingshould be necessary to classify most of the designsof the Val Verde Dry Shelter Culture asmythological illustrations. Its typical

PLATE 3.Types of human figures found at Paint Rock, Texas.


anthropomorphic figure holding a staff in one handand a broken flower in the other, which is found onthe walls of almost every occupied cave in thedistrict, could hardly represent anything except agod or mythological character (Plate 3, No. 2).Many other conventionalized animals, men, anddesigns, repeated many times in the pictographs ofthe culture, must undoubtedly illustrate wellestablished ideas or myths.

It is not, however, my purposeto elaborate on these pictographsin this paper. I have planned,instead, to devote an entire articleto the pictures of this remarkableculture when our survey in thatdistrict is completed.

Illustrations of Brave DeedsIllustrative pictographs are

found at most locations; but theones at Paint Rock and MeyersSprings are especially interesting.They consist of several pictures,usually in one color, groupedtogether to illustrate a singleincident (Plate 2, Nos. 6, 10).Instead of illustrating myths likethe anthropomorphic figuresmentioned above; they picturehunting, fighting, dancing scenes,and other every day affairs. Someshow a deer being shot with bowand arrow; others a buffalopursued by Indians on horseback.At Meyers Springs we can see aman on horseback beleaguered byfour Indians on foot; two menfighting a duel with guns; an oldstage coach drawn by a horse; aman in high top Spanish boots; andseveral groups of dancing figures.None of these pictographs showsigns of great age; and all probablyare the work of Apaches orComanches in historic time. Theobject of these pictures, without

doubt, was to illustrate some special event in thelife of the artist which he probably recounted to hisaudience in an outburst of oratory when the picturewas made—a speech which could be repeated asoften as the occasion permitted.

Sympathetic MagicCertain of the animal pictures among the

pictographs must have resulted from the Indians

PLATE 4.Designs which approach true pictograph writing.


belief in sympathetic magic. According to this belief,painting or viewing pictures of animals on theshelter wall insured success in finding and killingthe animals. Else, why the many little animal pictureson the ceilings of low shelters in the DavisMountains; and the pictures of droves of deer, eachpierced with a spear, in the shelters of Val Verdecounty? At least two of the anthropomorphic figuresof the cave dwellers which we have copied, seemto picture a god-of-the-chase surrounded by animalspierced with arrows (Plate 6). It is also quite likelythat most of the puma, deer, rabbit, turkey, catfish,and nondescript animal pictures on the walls of theflooded shelters in Val Verde county, can beattributed to this belief in sympathetic magic.

SymbolismSymbolism, connected in some way with the

Indian superstitions or religion, appears to haveprompted the painting of many designs such as theso-called sun emblems—variations of stars andcircles—common at every pictograph site; manyof the geometrical forms; perhaps a few of theanimal pictures; and certainly the large thunder birdsso conspicuous on the cliff at Meyers Springs. Acareful study of the legends of the Apaches andComanches might throw some light on the meaningof these symbolical designs.

Of all the hundreds of pictures which we havecopied, only a very few can possibly be thought ofas true pictographs with meanings clear enough tosuggest interpretations. Some of the best exampleswe have found are submitted here, with the beliefthat an attempt to arrive at their exact meaning,will only confirm my conclusion that pictographscan never be accurately interpreted (Plate 4; Plate5).

Pictographs As Works of ArtArt is so broad a subject and bounded by so many

disputed outlines that any attempt at an exactscientific approach to it, is out of the question. Itsoutward surface, at least, is constantly undergoingchange. What is accepted today by good authoritiesas vital art, is a shock and an affront to many peoplewhose tastes were formed a few years ago. Modern

art is a revolt against the impressionistic paintingsof the past generation, and a renewed interest inthe simple art of primitive man. All of which justifiesthe question: “How do Indian pictographs rate asworks of art?”

It is most important in this consideration to keepin mind the broad character of art. We mustremember that no single qualification is essentialto a work of art; and that there are several verydifferent qualities, any one of which, when presentin a picture or other object, gives it artistic merit.No one picture or type of picture ever containedall the qualities which combine to make art. Apicture may be weak or totally lacking in several ofthese qualities and yet rank high as a work of artbecause of one or more qualities which it does have.For example: Life-like representation is a veryinteresting feature in art, and in certain schools is amark of perfection; but it is not absolutely essential.Many of the priceless masterpieces of the MiddleAges fall far short in this respect. Pleasing colorharmony is another important quality; but manydrawings and lithographs are true works of art inone color.

Much also depends on the artist’s point of view.His work can only be judged justly in the light ofhis personal interests. If he sacrifices every otherquality to life-like representation and then producesa crude drawing, his picture will lack artistic merit;but if his interest is in color harmony, action orbalance, and he succeeds in that respect; it mattersnot how crude his drawing, it will possess someartistic merit.

With these principles clear in mind, we may nowturn to Indian pictographs and see how they rankin respect to some of the fundamental qualitiesusually looked for in objects of art. Chief amongthese qualities are accurate drawing,conventionalization, color harmony, balance,rhythm, and action.

Why the Indians SeldomMade Accurate Drawings

It is well known to every one who has seen TexasIndian pictographs, that they fall far short of


accurate drawing; the one quality most easilyrecognized in pictures and the very first qualitylooked for by the average observer. This hasseriously affected the interest in pictographs:because most people, seeing how crude or unlife-like they usually are, have dismissed them as trivialand inartistic.

It is quite true that the famous paleolithic animalpaintings in Europe far surpass in accuracy anythingproduced by the American Indian; but paleolithicman’s interest was mainly insympathetic magic, whichencouraged life-likerepresentation. The AmericanIndian, on the other hand, had longago passed this stage of simplerepresentation and wasstruggling—unconsciously to besure—with the problem ofrecording his deeds and thoughts.His fundamental desire to recordor illustrate, profoundly affectedhis attitude toward his pictures. Ittook his attention off of accuratedetailed representation, andfocused it on conventionalizationand symbolism. The object of hispictures in most cases was torepresent an idea or to help himremember a story or deed. Thisencouraged simplification andbrevity which often resulted incrude drawing. I believe that thereare among his many crudepictures, enough accurately drawnones to justify us in concluding thathe lacked interest in life-likerepresentation, and not in abilityin draughtmanship (Plate 8, Nos.6, 7, 8, 9).

ConventionalizationIf skillful conventionalization

can be called a quality of art,pictographs will take a muchhigher place. And whether this is

allowed or not, it must be admitted that many ofthe Indian’s simplified forms are skillfully done andrepresent no small measure of imagination and taste.These conventionalized human, animal, and plantforms occur among the pictographs of every culturewe have studied, and seem to be the result of somefundamental trait of the Indian mind, rather thanthe work of a single culture whose specialty wassimplified forms (Plate 3, Nos. 4, 5). It has beensuggested that these forms evolved through the

PLATE 5.Designs from Paint Rock, showing excellent arrangement.


need for simple forms for the decoration of basketsand pots; but pottery is absent at every site we havestudied, and the baskets from the dry shelters wheresimplified pictures are found, seldom containdecorations of any kind. It seems more reasonablethat these highly conventionalized pictures grew outof the Indian’s unconscious struggle with theproblem of recording his ideas. And had his nativeculture not been terminated by white contact, these

simple designs may ultimately have formed the basisof a true system of writing.

The designs and figures of the Val Verde DryShelter Culture are wonderful examples ofconventionalization. They are as individual as thepictures on a Babylonian temple or those used inEgyptian heiroglyphs, and, no doubt, represent agesof evolution from some simple and perhaps morerealistic art (Plates 1, 6, 7).

The writer has thought from thetime he first recognized thisculture, that a definite resemblancecould be seen in its characteristic,slender figures, to the tall, squareshouldered figures of the BasketMakers. It seems quite possiblethat these Val Verde Dry Shelterpictures may represent a direct butmuch more highly developed phaseof the Basket Maker art. However,as yet, the writer has studied toofew Basket Maker pictures to offerthis as more than a meresuggestion. He is anxious to followup this idea, because it promisesadditional information on the muchdebated relationship of our Texascave culture, to that of the trueBasket Makers. (Photographs,tracings or other information aboutpictures known to be the work ofthe Basket Makers, will greatlyassist in the preliminary work ofthis investigation, and will begratefully received).

Color HarmonyColor harmony, which is

unquestionably an importantquality of art, was highly developedby the Val Verde Dry ShelterCulture. Its polychrome designs infrom three to five colors, althoughunimpressive in their present fadedand mutilated condition, showremarkable taste in the use of a

PLATE 6.Designs in red, yellow and black, some of the finest examplesof the Val Verde Dry Shelter Culture.


limited palette, when they are copied in their originalstrength. Not only do we find a pleasing varietyand combination of colors on individual pictures,but the arrangement of color masses in large groups,is much more than accidental. It indicates a senseof color balance unsurpassed by painters of our owntime. Outside of this one culture, however, we havefound only a few polychrome designs that rank highin color harmony. The best of these are at PaintRock. Here we found many small geometricaldesigns in three colors that show excellentdiscrimination in color arrangement. Polychromeeffects are met with at other locations, due to severalunrelated, one color pictures being painted on thesame wall with different colors. This effect is entirelyaccidental, and does not indicate the artist’s senseof color balance.

Picture ArrangementClosely related to color balance is the

arrangement of objects, or picture composition asit is usually called. This calls for no practice nor

training, as does accurate drawing, but springsspontaneously from within, and is, therefore, anexcellent test of the real esthetic taste of an artistor a culture. Pictorial arrangement is so littleunderstood or recognized by the average observer,that it is likely to be overlooked entirely if attentionis not especially called to it. In this important qualitymany Indian pictographs take their place as worksof art. Even the crude pictures at Paint Rock rankhigh in this respect. Arrangement is easily studiedat this location because the small ends of the rockson which the pictures are painted, serve somewhatas a frame for the design. Notice how satisfactorilymost of the designs fit into their space, and howmany of them seem to be delicately balanced onthe bottom of the space (Plate 5.) There is also apleasing rhythm and flow of lines in many of thesedesigns that will be apparent to any student of art.

Like color harmony, however, we must go toVal Verde County to find the finest examples ofpictorial arrangement. There, on spaces defined byimperfections of the cave wall, are designs so

PLATE 7.Two large murals which are the work of The Val Verde Dry Shelter Culture.


perfectly adapted to their respective areas, that tomove a single important element, would seriouslyinjure their delicate balance and detract from theirartistic merit (Plate 1, No. 1; Plates 6, 7.)

Rhythm and MovementThere is also in these designs a remarkable

rhythm or movement, so essential to any true work

of art. Rhythm is accomplished by suitable repetitionof lines or objects in a picture; a sense of movementresults from several different factors, chief of whichis the direction of the leading lines in the picture. Itis not to be thought that the Indian artist understoodthese factors and consciously worked them into hispictures. It can scarcely be thought that he evenrecognized the existence of art; but somehow,through his native artistic sense, he succeeded,

unconsciously, of course, inputting into many of hispictographs those very qualitiesnecessary for a true artisticexpression.

These more subtle artisticqualities cannot be accuratelydescribed nor definitely pointedout; but they have beenrecognized in our copies ofIndian pictures by almost everyartist who has examined them.The art of the Indian, like that ofmany other primitive people,though crude, seems to possessa directness, simplicity, rhythm,and vitality, which is lost in ourmore complex culture; andwhich is earnestly sought byevery sincere modern artist.

ActionAction is a quality almost

totally lacking in Indian picturesof men, which are usually stiffand lifeless. But not so, hisanimal pictures. Even when theyare so crude as to be nondescript,they often show surprisingaction. Outstanding in thisrespect are the numerous groupsof deer and other small animalsto which I have referred indiscussing sympathetic magic(Plate 8, No. 4). The manner inwhich the artist has added head,legs, and tail to shapeless, oval

PLATE 8.Typical designs taken from the winter count of the Blackwatertribe of the Pima Indians.


bodies, has given them splendid life-like action, andmade them more than just crude drawings.

Our investigation, though far from complete,indicates at least one surprising fact. Instead of thevery earliest pictographs being crude and graduallyshowing refinement with the passing of time, asmight be expected; our highest culture from everypoint of view, the Val Verde Dry Shelter Culture,appears to be the oldest of all. Superimposed overthe pictures of this culture, we have found those ofthe Flooded Shelter Culture which show no signsof white contact, but rank high in artistic merit. Atthe very bottom of the list come the pictographscontaining horses, guns, and other evidences ofwhite influence. These more recent pictographsattract a great deal of attention; not because of anyartistic merit which they possess, but solely becauseof the fact that they were made so near to our timethat they picture scenes and objects within our ownexperience which we can understand.

How the dry shelter culture developed so finean art without leaving behind a long record ofpreliminary work, is just as great a mystery, as whatbecame of it when its last fine mural was painted.The less artistic pictographs showing whiteinfluence are, no doubt, the work of the PlainsIndians who came down into this region from thenorth at about the time the white men arrived inAmerica. They probably exterminated or drove outthe older and more artistic tribes of the region.

The Need of Color ReproductionsTo illustrate the Indian art which we have

discussed, we can only offer here small, one color,reproductions which do small credit to the originalson the shelter walls. It is hoped that some day away will be found to reproduce, at least, arepresentative collection of our copies, in full colorand of a convenient size, so that they may beavailable to anthropologists, artists, and studentswho are interested in basic material on aboriginalart.

*In my first article, this culture was referred toas that of the basket makers, because Its artifactsresemble those of the true Basket Makers, andbecause some descriptive name seemed necessaryto distinguish it from another culture whose picturesare also found in the same canyons and occasionallyin the same shelters with it. This name, however, ismisleading; because it implies that the culture isthe same as that of the true Basket Maker, which isstill an unsettled question; and because the picturesIn Val Verde County are radically different fromthose found in caves of the Big Bend containingvery similar artifacts.

Additional work in Val Verde County seems toshow that this basket maker-like culture is confinedalmost entirely to the dry shelters, and the otherculture in the same area is confined exclusively toflooded shelters. Therefore, the followingdesignation is suggested: Val Verde Dry ShelterCulture, to refer to the polychrome pictures foundin most of the dry shelters near the mouth of thePecos River; Val Verde Flooded Shelter Culture,to refer to the red, one color pictures found inseveral flooded shelters in the same district.

Bibliography(1) “More than 500 Books,” etc., p. 2, lines 14 to17—Steward, Julian H., Petroglyphs of the UnitedStates, Annual Report Smithsonian Institution,1936, p. 410.

(2) “As Early As 1880,” etc., p. 3, line 8—Mallery,Garrick, Picture Writing of the American Indians,Tenth Annual Report, Bureau of AmericanEthnology, 1888-89, p. 770.

(3) “A Number of These Counts,” etc., p. 3, bottomtwo lines— Ibid. pp. 266-328. Mooney, James;Calendar History of the Kiowa Indians, SeventeenthAnnual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology,1895-96, pp. 141-364. Russell, Frank; The PimaIndians, Twenty-sixth Annual Report, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 1904-05, pp. 34-66.

Typology of Lithic Artifacts 21

INTRODUCTIONWhenever an amateur, a student of archaeology,

or even a trained archaeologist familiar with thetypology of stone artifacts is placed before a largecollection of lithic implements, there is a firstimpression of confusion. It is followed by a certainamount of time, during which the archaeologistattempts to figure out what the collection consistsof, what it represents, what may be its importanceand scientific value. He tries to pick up, with hiseyes if not actually with his eager fingers, the best,most ancient, or most significant specimens, thepieces which are typical or rare. Even after thispreliminary work of sorting out importantimplements, or of estimating the value andsignificance of the collection, it is not often thatthe scientist leaves with a clear conception of thecontent and full meaning of the assemblage ofartifacts thus more or less rapidly examined.

As to preparing an inventory of such a collectionof medium or large size, it would take considerabletime and care because requiring, first of all, to sortout and, then, more carefully to classify, all theartifacts according to their types, forms ordestinations, and take a census of each class. Onlythen would one have obtained a sufficient and usableknowledge of the collection examined. How muchmore rapidly could this be done, how much moreeasily could one get at least a fair estimate of thecomposition and relative importance of a collection,if the specimens had been arranged according to aclear scheme grouping the artifacts of the same kindtogether. Under such favorable circumstances, oftenan attentive looking over would have sufficed forordinary purposes.

But if one is asked to examine an amateur’scollection he is often faced with an utterly mixedmass of specimens kept together pro-promiscuouslyin boxes without any label of origin, nor the slightestattempt at classification. To secure any clear ideaof the collection as to types, provenance, and

scientific value, takes a long time and muchpatience. It even happens that the owner is notinterested in the rearranging of his collection, whichyou think would be an improvement, and for somevague personal reasons he wishes to keep theartifacts as he has them in certain boxes, althoughhe may not object to your examining them withoutdisturbing his own grouping and arrangement. Ifonly each box represented a site or group of sitesthere would be no objection, on the contrary, thiswould help to furnish some information as to origin.But, frequently, the sorting is only to keep the blackarrowheads together, and separated from the grayor the brown ones. Or else the specimens are solidlywired on cards or boards, which damages the edgesof fine points; or they are glued, which preventsfreely examining both faces. What is even worse isthe case of the amateur, artistically inclined, whoarranges his artifacts according to some geometricpattern, pleasing to him, but completelydisregarding type or origin of specimens. Finally,the worst offender is the one who used hisarrowheads or other small pieces to represent a birdor an Indian profile with feathers and all. Then it isnearly maddening to attempt examining, andespecially counting the number of each type.

In all fairness, one must not censure the amateurarchaeologist for the lack of system in theclassification of his specimens and for the kind ofpreservation and presentation of his collection. Infact, he collects arrowheads and other artifactsmostly, or even exclusively, for his own satisfactionand enjoyment, without scientific pretense. Besides,by the fact that he diligently collects the implementsto be found in his district and preserves them, andthen allows the professional scientist to examinethem and survey his collection, he indirectly rendersa service to science. He furnishes materialinformation utilizable by the trained archaeologist,thus increasing the knowledge of the lithic industryof the region. Moreover, there are intelligentcollectors, who have received some instruction in

TYPOLOGY OF LITHIC ARTIFACTS

BY E. B. RENAUD


collecting, preserving, classifying and presentingspecimens, who avoid the main sins reported aboveand others of similar kind. It is, then, a real joy forthe scientist who is given the privilege of seeingsuch a collection.

In public collections, as seen in museums ofscientific standing, the specimens are displayed atleast according to fairly good methods. The maincriticism is here directed at the labeling. Very oftenit is insufficient as to needed information to serveany educative or scientific purpose. Not infrequentlythe designation is lax or incorrect because ofignorance or carelessness. It also happens thatgrouping by type or origin is neglected. All thesefaults and others lessen the true value of suchcollections. In the better museums, where the onein charge of exhibits both knows and cares, theartifacts are displayed by sites or districts and bytypes; they are clearly and accurately labeled, insuch a way as to show the specimens at their bestand with the proper labels easily readable. In someother museums where the purpose of educating thepublic and serving the students predominates, acareful selection of only the most typical artifactsis displayed, showing the order of successivecultural phases, or the evolution in time. In drawers,placed immediately below each section of theexhibit, there is a wealth of other specimens,showing all the main types and their proportionateimportance in number. An easy and truly scientificstudy can then be made in a minimum time of thelithic industry of any period, or culture phase, ordistrict, as well as of the various types of artifacts,the time of their appearance, vogue and decline, aswell as the concomitance of other implements usedparallelly with them. Such well prepared andtherefore, highly reliable, and usable, displaysrequire of the curator a thorough knowledge oftypology among other things. But, even anelementary acquaintance with the various types ofstone implements is necessary to students andcollectors. Unfortunately, this is difficult to obtainfrom books, because apparently the authors are notinterested in teaching a basic typology, systematicand logical, such as would be so helpful to thecollege student, the museum man, and the intelligentlayman interested in Indian artifacts. It is, therefore,

hoped that the following attempt at a clear andrelatively simple classification will be of assistanceto all those who collect and handle lithicimplements.

Principle of ClassificationAll classification must be simple enough to be

understood by every person of average intelligence,clear and logical enough to be easily remembered,and practical so that it can readily be used. In orderto realize these three principal requirements, suchclassification must be inspired by a broad and naturalprinciple, a safe guide good for all ordinary typesof artifacts. No basis seems safer nor moreacceptable than the consideration of the primaryneeds of primitive man, ancient or relativelymodem. He obviously made all his implements toanswer his immediate wants and, therefore, toclassify lithic artifacts on the basis of their purposeor destination, recognized or reasonably postulated,appears logical and safe.

This also leads the archaeologist to designatestone implements, and others as well, by the namesdescribing better their action and purpose such as:percutor, grinder, scraper, borer, etc.; or by commonwords understood of all such as: hammer, knife,drill, etc. Whenever, a distinction must beestablished between subdivisions of the samegeneral kind of tools, the original designation ofthe type can be compounded to make clear, forinstance, the working edge or part of the specimenof special importance, as is the case for end-chopperand side-chopper, or end-scraper and side-scraper.Again, the brief description of the shape of theworking edge may be added to the generic term inthe form of an adjective such as: convex, straight,or concave scraper. Or else the shape of a tool willbe clearly enough designated by stating that it is,for instance, a flake end-scraper, a blade end-scraper, a core end-scraper, etc. Usually such a wayof proceeding is simple and sufficient for ordinarydesignation of the most common artifacts. Fancifulappellations, as sometimes used by untrainedpersons, are unscientific, rarely justified, seldomclear or acceptable. Terminology must be as simple,clear and practical as possible; it must designate,whenever possible, the purpose or use of the


implement, or its shape or size, or its appearanceand way of making. This is to say that it mustcontribute to make it known by its mere name,simple or compound, avoiding confusion,duplication and fancy.

In certain cases the name of a site, or of a culturalphase, can be used as an easy means of designatingspecialized tools or weapons. Such terms are thenshorter than complex descriptions, and for theinitiated they evoke a clear picture of a type ofartifact. Thus we speak of a Chatelperron knife, aGravette point, a Solutrean leaf point, and inAmerica, the name Folsom point belongs to thesame kind of terminology. It is practical andadvisable as long as it is strictly reserved forspecimens answering the accepted definition;otherwise it becomes misleading and confusing.

In a few instances, names coined by foreignscientists are used in their original forms. This maybe due to a long tradition, or because there is noexact translation covering the full meaning of theforeign term, or owing to the fact that, in spite ofthe difficulty of correct pronunciation or spelling,the French or German word is considered shorterand simpler than the necessary description of acertain type of tool. These reasons may not be ofequal value, but an insufficient translation, or thecreation of a new term, might well be moreconfusing than the old name consecrated by longusage. Thus the French word “burin” designating aspecial type or group of forms of gravers isconstantly used by British archaeologists. In thesame class is the cumbersome “coup-de-poing” alsofrequently found in the archaeologic literature forlack of a better term since “biface,” “hand-axe,”“cleaver,” and others, are obviously deficient intranslating the forms and uses of this generalizedtool of early Palaeolithic times. German andScandinavian names have also made theirappearance for implements more or less special tocertain cultures of northern Europe. In the samemanner “mano” and “metate” are used in ourSouthwest. This small class of foreign terminologymay have some advantage but will always bereserved for scientific use and employed only bytrained archaeologists, until they have becomepopularized by common usage. The layman, the

amateur archaeologist and collector, and manystudents, will do better to stay with a simpler andgenerally sufficient terminology and means ofclassification. And this is the main scope of thisattempt at designating and classifying stoneartifacts, principally, although a few words mayrefer to bone and horn objects and even pointtoward metal implements and weapons, derivedfrom earlier stone and bone forms.

Good standard books on the Stone Age—Old,Middle and New— generally name, describe, andillustrate lithic implements well. But they presentthem as they become characteristic of a culture orperiod, not always showing the morphologicrelations between types or groups. In some booksthe authors have given “family of tools.” This isalready an important step as artifacts of the samegeneral kind are thus coordinated and theirspecializations analyzed. However it seems thatthere is more to do in that line. First, many types oftools whose names do not readily suggest relationswith others could be brought together and mademembers of a same coordinated group or classunder one heading expressing the common elementbetween them. This would have the advantage ofgreatly reducing the number of main classes throughrendering them more comprehensive and sufficient,although fewer, to cover the whole field. Anysimplification of this sort is beneficial, as it makesthe classification easier to learn and remember.Besides, it brings to light relations hithertounnoticed or ignored, but really existing betweencertain artifacts. These may be relations of forms,functions, or modifications, and successions oftypes. It suggests or renders, more clear “genetic”relations, if such a term can be used here, and italso shows relations of weapons to tools sometimesobscured by substitution of metal for stone, or theuse of different names for a more modern weaponalthough based on an old principle.

These are further reasons for our attempt atcoordinating tools and weapons, mostly ancient butwith suggestions of some historic forms, on thebasis of the simple idea of the principal needs ofprimitive man, the artifacts being grouped as to theirmode of utilization, this in turn leading to theformation of families or classes of tools, and, finally,


ending into the naming and describing of individualtypes of implements. This has no pretension at beingperfect, that is to say universal and coveringabsolutely all possible classes and types, nor to bepresented according to an unimpeachable logic, norof being exclusive of any other method havinganother aim in view and other advantages for itsown purpose. It only tries to simplify, coordinate,and so to render clearer and easier the study oftypology and classification of stone artifacts.

Classification of Stone ArtifactsThe following classification of stone artifacts—

and some allied forms in wood, bone, horn and latermetal—is mainly based on the elementary needs ofman and the ways of using the implements to realizethe end wanted. The first time I came upon the ideawas while listening to an excellent lecture given bythe veteran Belgian archaeologist, the late ProfessorRutot, in his laboratory of the Royal Museum ofNatural History at Brussells. His demonstration ofthe way of holding and using the main types ofPaleolithic artifacts made it clear to me that theycould all be classified under four principal heads,namely: breaking, cutting, scraping and boring. Eversince that time I have used that simple and naturaldivision in teaching the uses and forms of lithic tools.The following synopsis is nothing more therefore,than the summary of such a course, based on theidea of the primary needs of man. It is somewhatextended to comprise a few allied implements andderived weapons. Each point will later be furtherexplained and discussed.

I. Classification of stone and alliedimplements on basis of elementary needs.1. Breaking, crushing, grinding.

A. Percutor, hammer-stone, pounder,maul, hammer, mallet; (stone, horn,wood, later metal), anvil.

B. Grinder, (1) Pestle and mortar.(2) Mano and metate or

grinding stones.2. Cutting, sawing, splitting, slicing.

A. By pressure downward.(1) Cutting edge, blade, knife.(2) Incising, burin, graver.

(3) Sawing, serrated edge andblade, saw.

B. By percussion sideway.(1) Sickle, with microliths,

concave metal blade,serrated or not.

(2) Scythe.C. By percussion downward.

(1) Indirect: chisel, wedge.(2) Direct:

a. Cleaver, chopper.b. Hatchet, axe.c. Adze, gouge, hoe.

D. By dragging, plowshare from stoneaxe.

3. Scraping.A. Side-scraper—convex, straight,

concave, notched.B. End-scraper—on flake, on blade,

carinate, on core or nucleiform; plane.4. Boring.

A. By a blow—punch.B. By pressure—awl, bodkin.C. By rotation—drill.

(1) Solid and pointed.(2) Hollow and cylindrical.

II. Hunting and War implements, or Weaponsderived from Tools.1. Percuting.

A. Club type.(1) Held in hand: club, mace,

tomahawk.(2) Thrown by hand: throwing

stick or club of any shape.B. Missile.

(1) Thrown by hand:projectile stone, round orsharp edge.

(2) Thrown by mechanicalmeans: sling, catapult,round pistol and cannonball.

2. Cutting.A. From knife: saber, flat bayonet.Splitting.B.From axe: battle axe, halberd blade.

3. Boring.


A. Thrust sword, French bayonet.B. Modern conical bullet and cannon

projectiles.4. Points.

(1) As to action.(1) By sharp tip-borer.(2) By cutting edge—knife.

(2) As to form.(1) Pointed blades.(2) Leaf shaped points.(3) Triangular points.

A. Points.(1) Thick butted, held in hand, tool or

weapon.(2) With special grasp or handle:

poignard, dagger, sword.B. Points, hafted on shaft, and forming

head of weapons.(1) Held in hand: lance, spear for

thrusting or throwing.(2) Thrown by hand or with atlatl:

javelin, dart.(3) Projected by bow: arrow with stone,

bone or metal head.C. Points of bone; Harpoons of bone

and antler; and later metal tip.

Utilization of the “Coup-de-poing” type1. Tip: pointed, round, straight. For breaking,

splitting, as hatchet or axe.2. Sides: for splitting, as cleaver or chopper;

for scraping as side scraper; for cutting, asknife.

3. Butt: for breaking, crushing as pounder orhammer.

I. First class of implements, for breaking.

The first class of implements answers the primaryneed of breaking, which comprises also crushing,grinding, pulverizing, according to the degree ifseparation and fineness of the resulting fragmentsand parts of the things either broken or crushed.This leads to the formation of two subdivisionsowing to the difference in the action and the results:A. Percutors; B. Grinders.

A. Percutors. The action of the percutors isessentially due to a downward motion. The results

of this action depend, outside the resistance offeredby the thing to be broken or crushed, upon theweight of the tool to which is added the energy ofthe man handling the percutor according to hisstrength and his anticipation of the resistance whichhe wishes to conquer. Thus in the operation of apercutor, as will also be seen, in the operation ofany tool or weapon, must be considered thedirection and nature of the motion, the fitness ofthe implement to answer the desired results andthe contribution of energy by the man wishing topound, cut, scrape, bore or throw.

At the beginning, for a long period, and stilloccasionally now, the most common percutors werestones, any stone or fragment of rock. In regard tothe objects to be broken, cracked, or crushed, thestone had to be of sufficient hardness. In regard tothe man, the percutor had to be of a size that couldbe efficiently held in one, or in some cases, in bothhands, and yet when in direct pounding, not hurtor wound the hand of the operator. Naturally, forthese reasons, river pebbles were preferred becauseof having ordinary size, and a rounded shape thatgave protection to the hand. Their varied forms;round, oblong, pointed or almond-shaped, sphericalor flattish, answered early specialization of needsand actions. They required no flaking nor peckingfor accommodation to their purpose and use. Theypractically are “eoliths”, that is to say, stones asfound in nature and utilized by man without retouch.They became regular implements whensystematically used. We recognize them as truetools, and they are distinguished from other riverpebbles, by the many scars left along their edges orat the working end as marks of use caused bypounding hard substances such as bone, shell, stone.This was often done on a flat stone of convenientsize serving as an anvil. Scars proving such use areconcentrated over a small area, on the central partor toward one end of the stone employed in thispassive capacity. Frequently on the camps of theWestern Plains, and this is true elsewhere, manos,the one-hand type here, show evident traces ofhaving been used as pounders for operations notrequiring heavy mauls nor stronger hammer-stones.The scars are seen grouped at one end, sometimesalong the edges, especially in the case of roundish


manos which correspond to the type of round ordiscoidal pounders as found in some cultures.Manos and metates were also used as convenientand already shaped anvils, especially the former,small but stouter, the latter, larger but thinner, beingsubject to crack and split if too roughly poundedon.

The river pebbles, round or oblong andsometimes pointed, were first held directly in thehand. Later a groove was progressively developedaround the body of the pebbles, either in the middleand broader part, or more or less toward the butt.At first it was merely a shallow pecking on eachside; then it became more clearly marked andincreased in length and depth; finally, it formed, areal groove which prepared the tool for threequarter halting, and it goes completely around thepounder. We are not concerned here with the modeof hafting. But we may state that all present typesof hammers, and they are numerous and varied, haveevolved from the original hand pounder or hammer-stone which progressively developed into stone-hammers and metal hammers of various shapes,sizes and haftings in order to answer the everincreasingly specialized needs of man advancing inculture and civilization. The enormous poundersused in the metallurgic industry are descendants ofthe ancient stone mauls as well as the finest hammersof the watch maker and the dentist come from theoriginal stone hammer of Paleolithic and Neolithictimes. Mallets of wood and antlers constitute asecondary class of pounders. Even the games ofcroquet and polo owe their mallets to the evolutionof that group.

The end chopper and the side chopper arenothing but similar pebbles such as used forpounders but with a minimum trimming of the endor side by means of a few broad flakes to renderthe said end or edge into cutting instead ofpercuting. The progressive flaking of both edgesand faces of the original pebble led to the creationof the “coup-de-poing” type, the principal andcharacteristic Early Palaeolithic tool. This is merelymentioned here to suggest their relation to theprimitive hammer or pounding implement.Moreover, the percutor used in flaking the pebblein order to make it into a chopper or a “coup-de-

poing,” or any other artifact, was in itself a kind ofhammer stone to be added to the list, sometimescalled by British authors a fabricator.

B. Grinders. When it was desired to reduce thething into smaller fragments than were obtained bymerely cracking, splitting, breaking, pounding orcrushing, implements other than these justmentioned had to be evolved and used in order togrind and pulverize. They are not as primitive andancient as the hammer stone, pounder, and percutor.They are more complex and in most cases had tobe pecked. They comprise two groups of differentkinds, and not of equal nor similar distribution. Theyare (1) the pestle and mortar; (2) the mano andmetate or grinding stones.

First, the mortar and pestle participate of thenature of both the pounder and the grinder. Themortar may be roughly globular or else like atruncated cone. There are some rather shallow andflattish. They are made of a variety of stones fromthe relatively soft soapstone, to sand stone, lava,and others. The pestle is an elongated piece of ratherhard stone, round in cross-section, often with thelower end enlarged to increase its efficiency, andsometimes the upper end is round or flat to facilitatethe hand holding it and exercising pressure upon it.The pestle works in the mortar either as a pounderbreaking the material at the bottom of the bowl infragments, or as a crusher by pressure of the handreducing the particles into a powder. Besides thisdouble downward action, the pestle may berevolved in order to crush and pulverize along theinside walls of the mortar. It is then a grinder actingon the bottom and the wall of the bowl. It may beutilized for a variety of operations such as crushingand grinding seeds and grains, mixing medicines,preparing pigments, and the like.

Sometimes the mortar is replaced by a cavity,natural or artificial, in a rock. In places, the pestlebecomes a long handle of hard wood used incrushing and pulverizing Indian corn, millet, etc.,for the preparation of food. The mortar may thenbe a deep wooden trough or drum, or a cavity inthe ground, according to the cultures. The pestlesand mortars of the chemists and pharmacists aremodern versions of the ancient implements of the


same kind and used for a similar purpose, althoughthe materials crushed and pulverized or mixed aredifferent.

The mono and metate, to use common Spanishterms for grinding stones, have a wide distribution.Those used by the Egyptian women were verysimilar to those of the Indians and Mexicans. Theseare especially common and of varied types incountries where cereals, such as wheat and corn,were cultivated for food and therefore are numerousin cultures of Neolithic standing. However, theymay be found elsewhere. Thus they were fairlyfrequent on the Western Plains in regions whereagriculture does not seem to have been practiced.

Two main types can be distinguished. On thecamps of the High Western Plains we have seenand collected exclusively a type which can be calledthe “one hand” mono. It is made of a pebble or astone often shaped by pecking. It is subrectangularin general shape, sometimes roundish or oblong.Its size, in width and thickness, permits it to beeasily held in one hand. It is often made of aquartzite pebble, a piece of sand stone, or otherfairly hard rocks.

The “metate” is a slab of stone, most oftenrather thin and transportable; other times thick andheavy. Many are irregular in shape, others have beenbroken or pecked into either a roughly rectangularor an oval shape. On one face, more rarely on bothfaces, there is a certain amount of broad peckingmade to increase the grinding efficiency of themetate rubbed by the mano. This grinding surfaceforms a generally very shallow and oval trough.The observation of the surface of the metates andof the faces of the manos, often rounded and as if“warped,” suggests that the grinding was done byrotative motion over the metate and a “wavy”motion of the mano, contrary to what is known ofthe grinding operation of the Pueblos, for instance.It happens at times that a thin slab metate has beenso intensely used on one or both faces that the manowore through its thickness, making a hole renderingit useless.

These metates could be used to grind seeds,roots, dry meats, crush the components ofmedicines, and even pigments. As already stated,

these one-handed manos were often used aspounders and hammers and also as anvils. Aroundfire places old manos are found with evident marksof fire and disintegration, as if made hot over a woodfire and then dipped into a pouch used before theintroduction of pottery for cooking. Then the manoshaving suffered from the heating action of the fireand the cooling effect of the liquid, were droppedaround and sometimes used also for building thefire place or supporting the cooking pots. It is saidthat some one-hand manos were used on the plainsin rubbing skins. In fact, certain manos, usually ofhard quartzite, show on part of the ventral surface,toward one end, a smooth, polished surface as ifused in rubbing and smoothing some rather softmaterial such as leather.

The grinding stones of the Pueblo area are of amore advanced type and generally better shaped.The mano is of the “two hand” type, longer andbroader than the one-hand type of the Plains. It isoperated by an alternate motion: “down andoutward,” then “up and inward.” To the weight ofthat relatively large mano is added the pressure ofthe hands of the woman kneeling behind the metateand exercising a forward and then backwardmovement on the inclined metate. The metate isgenerally a larger and especially heavier stone thanthe one used on the Western Plains. It most often isrectangular in shape. The surface of one type iseither straight and uniform or somewhat concavefrom end to end. A more frequent type displays afairly deep and rectangular groove within whichthe two hand mano functions in straight line. Severalmetates of different degrees of grain fineness areoften placed side by side with vertical slabs of stoneseparating them and holding the flour from theground corn at the lower end of the metate, thusforming a sort of box or cist. In Mexico the metateis supported at the desired angle by short feet.Various stones were used in the making of manosand metates according to the material at hand.Rough grain lava was also used.

In some places, principally in the High WesternPlains, one sees “fixed metates.” They are more orless shallow troughs pecked directly on a rock benchor boulder near a site, camp or rock shelter. Fromone or two up to as many as a dozen can be seen atone place.


This sketchy presentation of “manos andmetates” will suffice for the present purpose. Moredetails may easily be found in the extensive literatureof the archaeology and ethnology of the Southwest,Mexico and other agricultural countries, in ourreports for the High Western Plains and works byother authors. Books on Egypt, for instance, willillustrate the subject for the Old World.

Smoothers and polishers are often stones of finegrain, utilized in pottery making and for otherfunctions. They are of various sizes and shapes,frequently used as found rather than manufacturedand shaped; although they are considered as tools,they seldom are actual products of man’s industry.

II. Second class of implements, for cutting,sawing, splitting, slicing.

Whereas the first class of tools, percutors andgrinders, were stones of natural forms or peckedinto the desired shape, except for a few made ofwood or horn, and the later substitution of metal,the implements of the remaining classes will beartifacts essentially made of stone, flaked bypercussion in the early cultural phases, to whichmethod will be later added the finer means of thepressure method in shaping, sharpening andfinishing the specimens. These methods are knownand described in the archaeological literature. Hereour purpose is to concentrate our attention ontypology.

As there are several ways of cutting it has seemedexpedient here to group the types of tools accordingto the process used in performing the cuttingoperation.

A. The first way of cutting is by pressuredownward. This allows three types of operations:

1—cutting; 2—incising; 3—sawing.

1. At the beginning and for a long time anycutting edge, that is, any sharp edge of a flake orthin fragment of flint or other such materials, wasutilized and considered sufficient. When bluntedor notched by rough use it was discarded andanother was picked up either as found in nature oras resulting from the making of other implements.There was no specialized tool with a standard shape;any sharp edge large enough to be conveniently held

in hand, and sufficiently thin and strong to cut skin,flesh or wood was acceptable and utilized. Thinblades were evolved as long and narrow flakes,often pointed, which added to the efficient use forpiercing the skin, for instance, before cutting it orthe flesh under it. A slightly convex edge helpedalso the cutting of the blade. Finally, the bluntingof the back permitted stronger pressure withouthurting the hand holding it. The knife blade wasinvented and up to the present day its form hashardly changed except in substituting metal for theoriginal stone. With its specialized functions inmodern life, there has been variation in proportions:length, breadth, thickness, shape of end, but itessentially remains an oblong blade, with sharpcutting edge (making a narrow V-shaped cut byhaving the two smooth surfaces of the blade meetat an acute angle,) with blunt back to facilitatepressure with the index finger, unless the handgrasps the handle. In this case the blade may displaya double edge, as seen on some biface hafted stoneknives. Even today, frequently our one piece metalknives testify by their form of their ancient origin,as one can still easily recognize the old componentparts: the blade of approximately the same shapeas the original stone blades, the handle stillsuggesting its former material, often horn, the small,now decorative, design in relief, made of a fewcircular lines, recalling the ligature of sinew whichfastened blade to handle. A small guard protectingthe hand from slipping from the handle down tothe blade still remains because of its usefulness,especially in carving knives, instruments for openingoysters and other shell fish. The invention of a stemat the base of the blade and penetrating into thehandle was an important improvement when haftingthe knife. Gum, glue, tar, helped in making the bladefast into the handle. Before that stage a piece ofskin or leather could be used in protecting the hand.A thick coating of some adhesive material, such asgum, or the wrapping of part of the knife withvegetable fiber was another type of protectionpreceding the use of the true handle. The real andsignificant contribution of modern ingenuity wasthe invention of the folding knife, saving the troubleof making and carrying a sheath for the blade, andreducing the length of a hafted knife, as well as thedanger of accidental cutting and breaking.


The evolution of the flake into a blade whichwas a true knife is illustrated by the flints of theAurignacian phase of the Late Palaeolithic. It reallybegan with the Audi type, still a flake butconsistently oblong and usually pointed, althoughnot yet a standardized narrow blade. Then theChatelperron type, a true knife blade, long, narrow,usually pointed, with a nearly straight or slightlyconvex cutting edge, and a blunted back. It wasthen fully characterized and specialized; it remainsthe prototype of all ordinary knife blades to thepresent. Passing from the early to the lateAurignacian we see the Gravette type, smaller, finer,narrower and sharp pointed. It is more a long,slender point than a true knife, although its edge issharp and cutting, it could not be used for roughwork. It is the original pen-knife blade. The laterMagdalenian phase had blades also, but oftendouble edged. In the various cultures of theMesolithic stage we recognized the descendants ofthe Aurignacian blades, or at least similar forms,with partial or whole blunted back, with pointed orsquare end, and the general tendency of the timetoward microlithic proportions.

The Solutrean culture, with its more complextechnique of pressure retouch, and biface forms,produced larger blades, often leaf-shaped, whichcould well be used as efficient knives. Many similar,although not as beautifully made, biface bladesappeared later in the cultures of Neolithic types.Some such artifacts have been found almosteverywhere in North America either in agriculturalareas like the Mound region and the Southwest oron the camps of the Western Plains, as well as inMexico where they sometimes bore artistic handles.There also splendid unretouched blades, obtainedby a skillful blow given at a certain point on theedge of the striking platform of an obsidian core,produced those efficient knives used in humansacrifices. The two main types of knives had thussurvived side by side. There are also bone knivesof various forms such as were used by some Indiantribes and the Eskimos; and possibly others madeof horn or hard wood.

In the discussion of stone artifacts found by ourexpedition on the High Western Plains and thestatistics presented in my reports of the

archaeological survey, I never employ the term knifeas a heading of classification and tabulation. Thereasons have already been given. Besides blunt backblades obviously made for knives, how many goodflakes have been utilized as primitive cutting edges,although not specialized and standardized knives?How many sharp edged side scrapers have, besidestheir obvious destination, served for cutting? Again,how many biface blades, especially those providedwith a stem for hafting in a handle, or mounting ona shaft, are weapon heads or really knife blades?Or, if primarily javelin, dart, or spear heads, havethey occasionally been used for cutting whenexpedient? Those are difficult questions to answeraccurately and liable to subjective interpretation.This would naturally vitiate the results of tabulation,statistics and comparisons, whereas when dealingwith other artifact types, such as end-choppers, forexample, there is little chance for error; with side-scrapers, when fairly straight or slightly concave,an element of doubt already enters, although withsome, such as those of the Mousterian type, thereis less uncertainty. These are problems for asystematic report of stone artifacts by types.

2. Incising is nothing but a shallow cutting, notpenetrating very deep below the surface, not goingentirely through the piece incised. It may be doneon stone, bone, horn, shell or wood, that is to sayresistant materials, and later on metals. It requiresa point sharp enough to cut and penetrate a hardsurface, and strong enough to conquer theresistance of the substance incised without easilybreaking, denting or blunting the sharp edge or pointof the graver or burin.

At the beginning, almost any point of flint orother lithic material was probably used, producinga more or less irregular and shallow groove orincision, and all too rapidly losing the shape orsharpness of its working tip. This, by experience,probably lead to the selection of forms moreresistant or penetrating, better adapted to itspurpose, and, finally to the creation of a specializedtool embodying the required qualities and,moreover, easily re-shaped. That is the “burin,” sonamed by the French archaeologists and still sotermed by many other scientists to distinguish thischaracteristic tool from others, usable for the


purpose but not of exactly the same shape andmaking, simply designated as graver.

The true burin is produced by a certain techniquediscussed and described by specialists. It does notconcern us here in a paper dealing with typologyand also, and mostly, because, so far, the real burinhas not been found, nor recognized in America,although ordinary gravers exist. In years ofexploration of the High Western Plains and inthousands of stone artifacts examined, no burin hasbeen seen nor collected. A couple of pieces mayapproach it but do not really qualify, nor representa type. In the Old World the burin consistsessentially of a triangular point, sharp, yet strong,produced on a flake, or at the tip or the corneredge of a blade, sometimes at the end of a smallcore. It is found in a great variety of forms or typeswell described in the literature of the UpperPalaeolithic cultures; the micro-burin being specialto the Mesolithic period. Burkitt in his book, “TheOld Stone Age,” gives, on page 61, a completesynopsis of all the varieties of gravers of burin types,about two dozen of them!

These gravers were used for incising stone, bone,horn, and probably wood, for the making of figuresand the decoration of implements, and also fordetaching from large bones, fragments used in themaking of bone objects. In Western Europe, outsideof painted figures, the designs seen on the walls ofcaves, and rock shelters, on flat stone pebbles,pieces of bone, artifacts of bone or antler, weremostly produced by the incising or engravingprocess, hence the larger number of gravers orburins. On the other hand, our western petroglyphs,and we have observed and studied hundreds ofthem, are principally made by the pecking method.Besides, very few bone implements have beencollected from the sites of the High Western Plains,whether this is because they were actually rare, oras is more probable, because the conditions wereunfavorable, a great many camp sites being locatedon sandy soil which is inimical to the preservationof bone.

3. Sawing is another form of cutting with someabrading in the process. It is used for dividing piecesof hard material, such as stone, bone, antler, or

wood, into small sections and for similar operations.A cutting edge, a sharp flake, after rough usage,will become notched or dented. It was found byexperience that, after all, it was more efficient tosection hard substances than a knife and did betterwork than a chopper. This must have led to thedevelopment of a serrated blade, with dents or teethmore or less sharp and long; as a special tool itbecame the primitive saw from which type andprinciple all other more specialized and modemmetal saws were evolved.

The stone saw must not be confused withanother kind of small denticulated flint implements,which would probably prove very inefficient forsawing because its teeth are not sharp or pointed.Its working parts are really roundish notches formedalong the edge of a blade and made to serve in theshaping of bone points and needles. A bone splinterwas pushed through these tiny notches and rubbedalong their sharp edges which acting as smallscrapers shaved, shaped, and smoothed the sidesor surfaces of the bone points, progressively makingthem evenly round in cross-section, and taperingtowards the tip, which was also sharpened. It is,therefore, a tool for bone working, of an entirelydifferent type and destination than the saw, althoughboth, at first sight, have much in common in generalappearance. However, the working parts of the saware the sharp teeth, and, contrawise, the notches ofthe other tool, for which there is no specific name.

B. A second method of cutting is by percussionsideways. This, referring to agricultural implements,is therefore, unknown in the Palaeolithic andappears only late in the Mesolithic to develop inthe Neolithic and to reach its perfection in the MetalAges. It concerns the cutting of cereals and othergrains and grasses for food and fodder. It isrepresented in the use of the sickle and the scythe.

Neolithic sickles are known to have been madeof a concave body of wood with handle. Microlithicflints, usually trapezoidal, were inserted along agroove and their sharp edges, placed side by side,served to cut wheat and other such cereals bystriking the stems sideways. A concave metal blade,serrated or not, was later substituted bringing thisagricultural implement to its modern form. Egyptian


paintings show us the use of the sickle in the NileValley. The scythe works on the same principle, butthe blade is much larger and the handle, placed at adifferent angle, is much longer and provided with aside hold. It is operated with two hands instead ofone for the sickle. Modern machinery has replacedthose implements.

C. The third means of cutting is by percussiondownward. It may be applied directly or indirectly.

1. The two principal tools used in indirectpercussion downward are the wedge and the chisel.They may be made of a variety of materialsdepending upon what nature furnishes man and theresistance of the substance to be cut, split, or sliced.Thus, according to place, tribe and culture, hardwood, antler, bone, stone, and later metals are used.Both tools are essentially of the same type. Theirbody and butts must be strong enough to stand theblows of the hammer or mallet. Their taperingworking end must be sharp enough to penetratethe resisting material to be split by the wedge, cutor chipped by the chisel. They were mostly used inworking wood and stone. They are frequently seenin the forest-cultures of Northern Europe and theIndians of the N. W. Pacific coast employed themin the construction of their large wooden canoesand of their plank or board houses. The Egyptiansalso made use of them in quarrying slabs of stoneand in building. Some are found on old Indianquarries. Rough tools of stone, shaped like wedgesand chisels, with round or squarish butts bearingmarks of having been pounded upon, whereas thetapering ends show signs of use on hard substances,are found in Old Stone Age cultures. Someimplements of this kind have been collected hereand there on camp sites of the Western Plains andespecially among the older series of the Black’s Forkculture of Southwest Wyoming. Some have a fairlysharp working end, either flat and relatively thin,or else stouter and prismatic; others are more bluntand roundish. Some gouges may be considered asmembers of this group.

2. The implements used for cutting, splitting andslicing by direct application of downwardpercussion comprise three related classes, (a)cleaver and chopper; (b) hatchet and axe; (c) adze,gouge, hoe.

Large flakes with a straight or slightly convexedge, sharp and strong enough, were used ascleavers during the Old Stone Age and even later.They were firmly held in hand and for that reasonthe back edge had to be blunted to prevent hurtingthe hand. Probably it was principally used for cuttingmeat, dividing a carcass or larger sections of animalinto portions that could more easily be handled,just as is still done today by butchers with a similarimplement of metal with a handle. The weight ofthe cleaver, and even more, its sharpness, togetherwith the force of the hand working it by means of adownward stroke, allowed it to cut or cleave neatlybones, joints, tendons and meat attached. Itfunctions like a hafted hatchet on wood. Stonecleavers and choppers are handleless hatchets.

The choppers are usually heavier than cleaversand also more varied in shape. There are sidechoppers, end choppers, and others moreextensively trimmed to serve either way. Whereascleavers are more often big flakes, choppers morefrequently are river pebbles or large fragments, witha minimum amount of broad flaking done bypercussion. When this trimming is concentrated atone end, making it straight or somewhat convex, itserves as an end chopper, or hand axe, for cutting,splitting, chopping wood, horn or bone. From thefact that it is not hafted with a long handle, it hasless force to accomplish its purpose than the trueaxe. Some pointed forms could be efficiently usedto crack, break or split hard objects. In conjunctionwith a mallet or a hammer stone they could breakopen large, hard nuts, or split big long bones toextract the marrow. The Asturian industrycomprised a number of these tools, pointed orotherwise. Some have been found on our Westerncampsites. The Black’s Fork culture of SouthwestWyoming had a variety of end choppers made oflarge quartzite pebbles with roughly straightworking edges, or convex, even fan-like, and somepointed ones.

It also contained a goodly number of sidechoppers. The same kind of big river pebbles hadbeen trimmed by means of bold flaking along part,or all of the lengthwise edge, giving an oblique, orconvex working edge. Thanks to the naturallyroundish or oval shape of the pebble, having kept


its original cortex, the hand got a good grasp ofthese tools without danger of wounding itself whenholding and using them. It imparted to them a strongdownward movement which, added to the weightof the implement, and the stoutness of the edge,rendered them quite efficient for cutting, breaking,splitting wood, bone or horn. Modern metalchoppers of different forms are still used in varioustrades. The early Palaeolithic coups-de-poing werecertainly employed as cleavers and choppers, as isproved by an inspection of the traces of use alongtheir edges, especially along the upper part of oneside nearing the tip. Cleavers and choppers musthave been important tools before the invention ofthe true and hafted hatchet and axe.

As already suggested, the hatchet is hardlyanything else but a hafted cleaver or side chopper,and though more efficient in its metal form forchopping and splitting branches from a tree orsmaller pieces of wood from a section of trunk orlarge branch. The axe, often larger and heavier thanthe hatchet, stouter and oblong in body, is moreclosely allied to the end chopper. It is known inhand and hafted forms. The old coups-de-poing ofearly Palaeolithic could be used as hand axes. TheForest cultures of Northern Europe brought aboutan extensive use of the axe evolving during theMesolithic and Neolithic periods from a flint axeflaked, then partly polished to render its workingedge more efficient, finally wholly polished andleading to the search for fine grained stones in orderto obtain a higher polish and a more beautifulappearance. Some of those splendid specimens werelooked on as very valuable, real objects of art or ofluxury, better fitted for exchange than for roughuse. The evolution of their form is well known andof value in chronology. Later they were replacedby copper, bronze, and iron axes as civilizationprogressed. The story of their methods of haftingis an interesting chapter of the inventiveness, andingenuity of man. Many answers to that difficultproblem were successively attempted, used, andthen rejected for better ones, through thedevelopment of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and MetalAges on the various continents. It is a study in itselfwith which we cannot concern ourselves here.

The term celt is used by some archaeologistsfor designating a stone implement with a doublepossibility. Hafted so that the cutting edge of thetool was in the same direction as the axis of thehandle, it really was an axe. When hafted so thatthe working edge was in a transverse position, orcrosswise in regard to the handle, it was called anadze. In other words it is essentially the sameimplement used in two different ways for twodiverse purposes or functions. Like the axe, the adzeis principally a woodman’s tool, or, an instrumentemployed by those building a boat or a dwelling.

The hoe is an agricultural implement of the samegeneral nature as the adze but used for cultivating.Some were simply made of a scapula or shoulderblade of a deer or a buffalo. Others were made outof a flattish river pebble with notching or groovingof the edges at the proper place for hafting. Bothforms were found among the Indians, the stone hoedisplaying a variety of shapes. It was also used fordigging ditches such as the Pueblos made for thepractice of irrigation.

The gouge has a sharper edge, often concave-convex, removing chips of wood, digging,grooving, and otherwise used in wood working.

D. Finally, it could be remarked in passing thatthe polished stone axe of Neolithic times, whendragged by means of its long handle, sometimesspecially shaped for this derived purpose, becamethe prototype of the plough share. By its weightand sharpness it could break the ground, cut afurrow, plough the earth for the early agriculturists.The next development was the harnessing of hiswife, donkey or oxen, and the true plough wasinvented. The metal share with an appropriatepointed curved form added efficiency to the simplerstone axe. The inspection of some of these oldimplements will easily reveal their agricultural use.One corner of the working edge is more or lessabraded, worn and reduced in size. Part of thesurface is masked with many fine parallel lines madeby the grains of the earth, sand and gravel, as itwas dragged through the field. On these and manyother polished stone axes, especially the best ones,there is no trace of hard work such as would beproduced by striking wood or other resistant


substances, having a tendency to flake, notch orotherwise deteriorate the sharp edge of the axe.

III. The Third Primary Need of Man, on our listis Scraping. It is a simpler operation calling for lessspecialized or varied forms of implements. Thereare two main types designated by names descriptiveof their mode of action; sidescraper, and end-scraperrespectively; racloir and grattoir in French, termssometimes used also by British archaeologists,possibly because, with a single word they designatethe operation performed by each tool.

A. Side Scraper. The side scraper, like the knife,very likely started with any sharp flake answeringthe need of scraping. Thus, scraping edges ofvariable forms and sizes existed through the earlystages of the Palaeolithic before the more or lessstabilization resulting from the understanding of therequired qualifications for the most useful scraper.Thus, at first, a utilized sharp flake, then theselection of a more convenient shape and size,followed by the addition of flaking retouches togive it those desired qualities; such seems to havebeen the natural evolution of the side scraper, aswe see it by the observation of the scrapers ofChellean and Acheulean industries, and the use ofClactonian and Levalloisian flakes. Side scrapersbecome especially numerous in the Mousterianculture and tend to a fairly simple facture if notreally to standardized forms. In fact, side scrapersare made on flakes of almost any shape and size, atleast, they greatly vary in dimensions. Essentially,they consist of a flake, generally of a medium size,such as could easily be handled. They wereproduced by percussion applied to the edge of acore or nucleus prepared according to either theClactonian or Levallois technique. The under orventral surface remained unretouched, smooth andmore or less curved or undulated as being theconchoidal face of the flake. The upper, or dorsal,surface of the scraper showed little flaking, exceptin the case of a Levallois prepared flake. Theworking edge was constituted by a flaked bevel,usually at a low angle. Protective retouching wasdone, if necessary, by blunting the back edge of thetool to permit a good and safe grasp by the handoperating the scraper. Sometimes a broad and

shallow flake on the dorsal face marked the positionof the thumb. This, not infrequently, allowsdistinguishing right and left-handed scrapers, whileothers may have been used with equal ease by eitherhand. The side scraper was held with one hand, thesmooth ventral face turned downward and movingvery close to the object worked on, the workingedge scraping the surface more or less firmly, usuallywith a circular motion toward the operator,although it could also be used along a straight line;sideways or outward, according to the resultdesired. The edge may be straight, more oftenslightly concave which facilitated the circularmotion just mentioned. This last form sometimesbecomes deeply concave, constituting a notch. Onsome flakes several such notches of different sizesare seen. These tools are designated as “spokeshave” by certain authors, suggesting that they wereused for scraping cylindrical objects such as stems,shafts, handles, poles. Some rough examples areseen in the early cultures; they become smaller andbetter made in more advanced stages of Palaeolithicand later. Instances of the notch scraper are notmissing among the stone implements from the HighWestern Plains. But the convex side scrapers stillremain by far the most common. Many piecesdisplay two or even, rarely, three scraping edges.In fact, in the Mousterian industry one sees clearlythat the convergence of two scraping edges on atriangular flake lead to a point with a rounded,rather than sharp tip. The preparation of skins forthe making of robes, dresses, leggings, andmoccasins, bags and pouches, material for tents andtrappings, necessitated a quantity of scrapers whichexplains their frequency on permanent camps andvillage sites. Some side scrapers are pointed at oneend of the working edge, which must have madethe tool very effective in skinning a game animal,the point puncturing the skin, ripped by the cuttingedge of the upper side of the point, while the broad,fan-like edge of the tool was ready to scrape theskin once removed from the carcass. Scrapers wereusually made of flakeable stones, but they also canbe of bone and metal. The razor blade is nothingbut a kind of side scraper and it has been used sincethe Bronze Age, although flint could be veryefficient.


The main differences between a knife and a sidescraper are: First, that the knife is essentially a bladewhereas the scraper is a flake. Second, the knifeblade in order to penetrate more easily, must besmooth on both faces, thin and narrow, V-shapedin cross-section; the scraper on the other hand issmooth on the ventral face; has one bevel, alongthe edge on the dorsal face, and the angle of thatworking edge generally is greater than that of theknife, since the scraper is often thicker. However,a sharp side scraper can easily function, if need be,as a cutting edge or knife. On the other hand, aknife blade is too narrow to be easily handled as aside scraper and the edge too thin to stand much ofthe hard work of a scraper.

B. The end-scraper is a different tool from theside scraper. Not only is its working edge at thenarrow end instead of the broad side, but its shapeis essentially different. The class more closelyresembling the other kind of scraper is that of theend scraper on a flake usually of a small size. It isroughly circular or subtriangular, and often thin.The working edge is limited to a flat roundishportion of the contour of the flake, and it was heldwith the thumb placed over the dorsal face of thetool, for that reason it was frequently termed athumb-scraper. The scraping end is shaped by thepressure method, producing fine flaking along asharp edge. The typical late Paleolithic end scraperis on a blade with the same fine pressure flakingforming the working part of the implement. Theblade, of various sizes, is triangular or trapezoidalin cross-section, and constitutes a small tool easilyheld between the thumb and the index finger. Someof the blades, usually somewhat larger than theordinary, are constricted or strangulated back ofthe working part, either to facilitate holding or forhafting in the hollow shaft of a long bone, servingas handle. Other times the opposite end of thescraper is pointed, and can be used as a borer or asa burin or graver. In certain cases, as seen in theSolutrean industry, the dorsal face is more or lessflaked. Many of the end scrapers, either from theOld or the New World, are among the finest artifactsof the Stone Age on account of the minute andribbon-like pressure flaking of their working ends.Such are frequently found on the camp sites of theWestern Plains.

Besides the flake and blade varieties of endscrapers, there are others such as the carinate, orkeel-shaped, scraper with a stout nose or end madefor hand work on resistant material. They aboundin the Middle Aurignacian phase, and are notunknown in America. A few scrapers, some on flake,more often on irregular blades, or even carinate,have their working edge concentrated on a narrow,flat or high, end or nose, for some finer and specialpurpose. Small cores, pyramidal in shape, with aflat and smooth under surface, are also used as endscrapers of the nuclei form type. Large, strong andoften roughly made end scrapers, high in profile,are better called plane, or planning tools, althoughoperating along the same principle.

The irregularly shaped and rather rough endscrapers of the early stages of the stone age seemrelated to the end choppers, the same as the sidescrapers appear as a specialization of the cleaver,both strong and sharp flakes, although for anotherkind of operation.

IV. Fourth Class of Implements, for BoringThis last group of artifacts comprises all types

of borers or Perforators, that is to say tools thefunction of which is to pierce or produce a holethrough a variety of materials. This can beaccomplished in three different ways according tonecessity: by a blow; by pressure; by rotation.

A. By a blow. This is done with the aid of apunch. This is a tool essentially made of a tip orpoint more or less acute and a body fairly strong toresist the rather sharp and violent push or blow onthe butt end or handle and the impact of the pointwith the substance to be perforated. Usually it is aone-piece artifact firmly held in the hand that givesthe impulse or driving force; however, a malletcould have been used to strike the butt and drivethe perforating point through the material to bebored or punctured. The tip of the implement if itis too sharp or brittle, is easily broken or blunted inthe impact by the resistance of the substance to bebored. As the resilient quality of horn renders itdesirable for such a tool, the prong of an antler hasoften been employed as a punch.


B. By pressure. Awls and bodkins are the sharppointed instruments used, by means of pressure ofthe hand, for piercing or making small holes in skin,leather or wood. In all primitive cultures, be it ofhunters, fishermen or early agriculturists, bone awlsare numerous. They were made of a fragment oflong bone sharpened at one end, the sides of theshaft were smoothed so as not to hurt the handwhich held it firmly to exercise pressure to forcethe awl or bodkin through the substance to bepierced. Often a leg bone of a medium or smallsized mammal or bird was preferred with onearticulation being left on for a handle, which wasround, smooth and gave a good grasp to the hand.The other end was sharpened, usually by rubbingon sandstone.

A two piece awl could be obtained by forcing asharp point of bone, flinty material, or a pointedtooth, into the tubular part of a small leg bone with,or without, the articulation left on to act as handlein the manner previously described. It could alsobe mounted on a strong wooden shaft allowingmore forceful pressure with one or both hands oreven the chest. In this case it could be used on hardermaterial such as stone. A metal point could later besubstituted.

C. By rotation. The rotative method is appliedto the drill. It is of two types: 1—solid and pointed;2—hollow and cylindrical.

1. Solid, pointed drill. This kind of implementis nothing else but a bodkin, only instead of thestraight downward pressure, here a rotationalmotion is added, permitting a better penetration intoa harder substance. Early drills were made of stone.Any sharp point on a flake or blade of flint or othersimilar material could be used. A borer of this sort,giving a firm grasp between the thumb and foldedindex finger, allowed a twisting motion pushingdown the drill. These primitive drills were frequentlyused during the Stone Age and are found on thecamp sites of the western Plains. But there is a moreadvanced type also made of flint, chert, etc. Thereis a pointed shaft, sometimes fairly long, and a flatand roundish end for the fingers to hold, permittingthe rotative motion desired. The cross-section ofthe shaft or point of the drill is roughly lozengic

with fairly sharp edges adding abrasion to thepenetrating power of the tip. These drills are notinfrequently found broken because of the fragilityof the stem, it being not strong enough to resistboth the pressure and twist applied to the drill, andthe resistance of the stone.

A variety of improvements and inventions arefound in several Indian and Eskimo cultures, suchas the use of the bow to facilitate the rotation of ashaft with a sharp stone or metal drill point; theaddition of a weight to increase the pressuredownward, as is also done by application of thechest or mouth.

When drills were used to perforate an object ofstone too thick to be pierced only from one side,the operation was restarted from the other face.The resulting hole is roughly shaped like two hollowcones connected at their apices, not always verycorrectly owing to some miscalculation or deficientworkmanship.

Metal, for the perforators, as for the other tools,later replaced stone.

2. Hollow and cylindrical drill. Strange as itmay seem, hollow and cylindrical drills, made ofstiff stems, the hollow shafts of selected plants,although woody in nature, and apparently not sohard as the stone to be perforated, made good drills.They were also rotated and their efficiency wasincreased by the addition of angular sand and waterwhich softened the stone and gave them teeth topierce it. With patience a cylindrical hole wasobtained and a tiny piece of core material wasdetached. If necessary, the same operation couldbe performed from both faces, sometimes, as in theprevious case, the axes of the two drillings notmeeting end to end, the imperfection being latercorrected by filing if so desired.

These two types of perforation, conical by useof a solid pointed drill, and cylindrical by means ofthe hollow drill, have been observed on stoneobjects in the Southwest. Beside stone, bone, horn,shell and wood could also be drilled by the primitiveworkmen.


WeaponsAfter the synopsis of the classification of stone

artifacts, a short list of weapons derived from toolshas been presented following the same principle ofclassification as used for the implements. Althoughrather sketchy, it may suffice to suggest the relationsof the original stone tools to the more specializedweapons for hunting and war. To enter into moredetails of description and discussion would requirea special study not intended here.

However, an important and varied class, that ofthe points, deserves particular attention.

PointsPoints, in themselves, do not imply any special

form or destination. They may be either tools orweapons or parts of them. They simply refer to auniface or biface flake or blade with a functionalpointed end or tip. As to action, a point, by its sharptip, acts essentially as a borer, and by its cuttingedge, as a knife. This is particularly true of weaponpoints.

As to form, points may be pointed blades, orleaf shaped points, or triangular points. These arethe three main shapes, admitting many variations.

As to mode of using, we may consider twoprincipal groups: hand points and hafted points.

A. Hand Points.

The first subdivision of this class and the oldestone is the thick butted point directly held in hand.It was primarily made for a tool, although it mightbe used as a weapon. From the fact that such pointshad a thick base or butt, often made of the bulbarend of the flake, it seems obvious that they couldnot be conveniently hafted and so must have beenheld between the fingers. Unstandardized forms ofthis kind are found in the Early Paleolithic industries.But the point became one of the typical implementsof the Mousterian culture together with the sidescraper. Already then one may distinguish twovarieties of points, both made on a flake. One isproduced by the conjunction of two convexscraping edges. The tip is not very sharp, rather

spiral in shape, and the diverging edges really arethe working parts of that useful tool. In some phasesit is fairly well flaked on the dorsal face. The otherkind has such an acute tip that this point could beused as a perforator to pierce skin or leather, andthe edges being very sharp could cut or scrape. Itcould be made use of as a weapon and its triangularshape suggests already the later spear head. Thedorsal face and the edges are less retouched thanthe preceding variety, or double edge scraper.Sometimes the bulb of percussion was knocked offto reduce the thickness of the base and probablyfor hafting.

Some well-known forms of weapons evolvedfrom other offensive stone points. This came aboutespecially when the flint was shaped with a handleforming one piece with the pointed blade, or whenthis sharp blade was mounted on a handle of wood,horn or other materials. Thus appeared thepoignard, which was grasped in the fist, as the wordindicates; also the fine flint daggers of Denmark,prototype of the more modern weapons with metalblades. Finally the saber is nothing else but anoversized pointed knife blade, metal allowinggreater dimensions than stone, besides otherqualities.

B. Points Hafted on Shafts.

Points hafted on shafts and acting as heads ofweapons generally are leaf-shaped, or lozengic, orelse triangular and usually have a stem. Accordingto the way they are used, we may divide them intothree principal classes.

1. Held in Hand. When the point, of stone andlater metal, is mounted on a strong shaft held inhand, we have a lance, or a spear, for eitherthrusting or throwing. These points are generallyof larger dimensions to be in keeping with the sizeof the weapon, and to be able to stand the impact.

2. Thrown by Hand. The stone, bone, or metalpoints which served as sharp heads of darts andjavelins were elongated to facilitate penetration,and rather thin or small, to reduce weight. The shaftwas also lighter and when projected with vigor andaccuracy must have been very efficient. ManyAfrican tribes use this type of weapon with great


skill in hunting and war making. It is known thatsome prehistoric American Indians, such as theBasket-Makers of the Southwest, Mexicans andPeruvians, employed a device called “atlatl” orspear-thrower, in order to increase the efficiencyof their darts.

The famous Folsom and Yuma points probablywere dart points of Postglacial times. The latterclosely resemble Solutrean points from S. W. Franceand North Spain. It is also known that theMagdalenians of Late Paleolithic times had objectsof horn, bone or ivory, with a hook which it is likelyfunctioned as a dart thrower. The same prehistoricpeople of the Old World also fashioned bone pointsand harpoons of bone and antler. This practice isalso seen in various cultures of the Mesolithic periodof Europe, and also found among the Eskimos.

3. Projected by Bow. The invention of the bow,implying a mechanical means of projection of thearrow, came later, although in many places lanceand dart continued in use. Sometimes one weaponis preferred by a tribe whereas another, apparentlyless perfected, is the choice of a neighboring people.Thus, the lowly Bushman of South Africa has bowand arrows while the tall and more advanced Bantutribes stick to their spears. The broadhead Pueblosmay have introduced the bow in the Southwest.The arrowheads, according to place and culture,were made of sharp stone flakes, often beautifullyworked, or of bone fragments. Sometimes thehardened end of the wooden shaft was consideredsufficient, and its power of penetration is in somecases astonishing.

The description of the making, hafting,feathering, holding and using, of these knownweapons with pointed stone heads is not in thescope of this study. But the classification ofarrowheads, which may also apply to the spearpoints, is here in order. It will be taken from a formerstudy.

“So far, all systems of arrowhead classificationhave failed because they were too complex and,therefore, impractical for the amateur and the fieldman and, besides, they did not agree amongthemselves. Hence, they remained unused, or theywere discarded after a short trial period. The cause

of their failure was that their authors did not startfrom a simple and basic principle, and because theydid not distinguish what was essential from whatwas local or even individual variations of thethousands of arrowheads found. They multipliedthe classes or types and sub-types of points to theextreme instead of concerning themselves only withthe main features, and allowing each collector tocreate whatever subdivisions he needed to suit thewants of his district or his desire for detaileddescription.

“Starting from the idea that to answer allpurposes and in order to be easily understood andreadily applied by all, I came to the conclusion thata system of classification of arrowheads should bevery simple and general in its scope. It should bebased on the characteristics of an essential part whileall other and secondary features could be used asmodifiers of the type to express local and individualvariations seen in specimens.

The general pointed shape of practically allarrowheads is a natural necessity since the missileis to penetrate into the enemy or the animal hunted.Therefore, since it is common to all weapon points,it cannot be used as a criterion of classification.The size of the point varies according to the gamehunted and the size and strength of the bow; hence,it is only a modifying feature of the arrowhead.

The simplest possible type of arrowhead that onemay conceive, and, for that reason, very likely theoldest, is a point without a base distinct from thebody of the artifact, without stem, notch or barb;just a plain, featureless point. This is logically ourTYPE 1, called STEMLESS, as it is the generalcharacteristic of this class. By far the most commonshape of this group is triangular, but, in somecultures, the so-called “leaf shape” is not rare. Nowin order to describe more completely any arrowheadof the triangular type one may add that the base iseither straight, convex, concave, or notched; as todescription of edges, the sides are straight, concave,convex, or with more or less marked shoulders,and finally, some are slug-like, irregular of contourand thickness, rough and primitive; as toproportions, the point is short-broad or squatty,medium, or oblong, or long-narrow.


“All these points have one essential feature incommon: they are stemless, hence belong to Type1. Next, in describing any actual specimen you mayadd, for precision of details, first, type of base;second, type of edges; third, proportions of bodyof point. This should allow correct descriptions ofall arrowheads of this class and any other featuresmay still be mentioned if desired by the collector.

“The first development out of the preceding typecan easily be conceived as the production of a stemto facilitate halting, the mounting of the stone pointon the end of a wooden shaft. This would likelybegin by a short, embryonic stem, hardly projectingfrom the base line; then it would be more clear cut,progressively longer, broader, and varying in shape,thus becoming an important feature of arrowheads.But all stems would be narrower than the maximumwidth of the body of the point and, therefore, acharacteristic easy to recognize. All arrowheadsdisplaying such a feature are called STEMMEDpoints and constitute our TYPE 2, a logicalevolution from the stemless Type 1, according totechnology and typology. Chronologically thisremains to be proved by a series of well-dated finds.

“Now, to satisfy those desiring subdivisions ofthis general class, one may consider the size andthe shape of the stem and its relation to the lateralpoints or barbs. Thus we first have the short-narrowstem, with shouldered edges, but no barb; then, asmall stem, but with medium barbs; the barbsbecome longer and sharper, and they may be abovethe base line; flush with the base line; or extendingbeyond, or lower than, the base line of the stem.Then the stem may be broad and well developed,and associate with shouldered edges, medium, orlong barbs, above, on, or below the base line, asdescribed above. Considering the shape of the base,especially in the case of the broad stem, one maymention: straight, convex, with barbs or barbless,concave, and notched. Of course, this Type 2 mayalso be described as having straight, concave orconvex edge lines or sides. We may also add the“serrated” type of edge. Again, these points maybe squatty, medium or oblong, and there are manystemmed points of this first kind, or broad-short,and a few with a blunt end.

“Thus, by classifying a point as being stemmedor belonging to Type 2, the collector may add anyor all features mentioned and possibly others. Thisdoes not change the system of classification, itmerely supplies details indicating individualvariations of type and it makes the description morecomplete.

The TYPE 3, apparently is a more advancedkind, generally shaped with care and skill. Itcomprises all BASED arrowheads, those having abase as broad or more often broader than the widthof the body of the point. This is a clearlydistinguishing feature if compared with Type 2 withstem narrower than the body of the arrowhead.Besides, Type 3 has notches leading to therecognition of the two sub-types.

“Sub-type A has “Lateral notches,” or two smallnotches, usually rounded, placed one on each edgeor side, merely interrupting the outline of the point,which, otherwise, would continue to the base. Thebase is thus clearly marked off from the body of thepoint, and this helps in readily recognizing thespecimens of this class, for which the abbreviationis L. N. for “lateral notches.” The base line may bestraight, more often slightly convex, practicallynever concave. The points are medium or long,although in some districts there are short-broad onesalso.

“Sub-type B displays a “basal notch” as well asthe lateral notches, that is to say, that like, the edges,the base line also is notched. This seems to be onestep more in the evolution of the arrowhead, addingnew features modifying the contour line, and isfunctionally practical in helping to hold tight thesinew fixing the point on the shaft For simplicitythe designations of this sub-type is abbreviated L.B. N. for “lateral and basal notches.” There are fewvarieties of this sub-type ; the standard form hasthree similar notches. In some districts relativelylarge-sized points of this class are found. The edgesof this sub-type are usually convex.

“A peculiarity of Type 3 is that some specimensare seen with lateral notches not symmetrical, onebeing higher or bigger than the other; or there aresupplementary notches, rarely on the base line, more


often on the sides, and sometimes there is an extranotch on one edge only. These individualpeculiarities do not alter the type or classification.

“A few “half-points” have been found, as if splitlengthwise. They are to be classified the same asthe whole points of the same type. In concluding,may I remark that one should speak of a “complete”point when it is not broken, and not say a “perfect”arrowhead in such cases as this adjective refers toquality of workmanship, symmetrical outline, andfine flaking.”

Coup-De-PoingTo finish with, a few words may be said in regard

to the classical “coup-de-poing.” As statedelsewhere, this term is awkward on account of itslength, spelling, and its French pronunciationdifficult for most Americans. However, so far, nobetter term has been coined, and no satisfactorytranslation can exactly render the full meaning ofthis old and generalized artifact. “Biface” isobviously insufficient, since there are many bifaceimplements other than the coup-de-poing; “handaxe” is not very accurate as most coups-de-poingwere not axes; “cleaver” expresses only onefunction of this tool; and so, until a better name isinvented, we are compelled to keep and use thetraditional name in spite of its faults. It covers avery large group of ancient biface artifacts, usuallyof the core type although sometimes made on bulkyflakes manufactured and used during the long EarlyPaleolithic period, or, by the various cultures ofthe first division of the Old Stone Age. It has beenabundantly found in Europe, Africa and Asia andwas more recently discovered by us in SouthwestWyoming.

The artifacts of the coup-de-poing type had along evolution and are seen in a variety of forms.The description of the Chellean, Acheulean andMousterian coups-de-poing is out of considerationhere. But, remaining with our guiding principle, itmay be interesting to point out the possiblefunctions of the different parts of this typical artifactof Early Palaeolithic.

Thus the tip may be pointed, round or straight.It could have been used for breaking, splitting as ahatchet, possibly a hand-axe, even as a chisel or awedge. Some rare ones could have functioned asgouges.

The sides or edges could have been put to usein a variety of manners according to their shapes,thickness or sharpness: 1—for splitting, as cleaveror chopper; 2—for scraping, as side scraper; 3—for cutting, as a knife.

The butt, especially in the early phase when itwas roundish and bulky, could easily have answeredthe needs of breaking, pounding, crushing, such asany pounder or hand-hammer. It was therefore, amultiple and very serviceable tool, and could evenbecome a weapon, in the hand of primitive man,before further differentiation of needs andspecialization of implements.

ConclusionAs previously stated this classification of Stone

Artifacts has no pretension at completeness anduniversality. It is only an attempt at logicallygrouping the most common and important typesaccording to a simple principle, that of the primaryneeds of man especially in a stage of rather simpleculture. This would give a basic coordination tothe many kinds of implements of all lithic industriesand would also suggest plain and reasonabledesignations common to all tools of the same class,regardless of place and time. It might suggestrelations of origins and evolution between artifactslater specialized, and between tools and weapons,and between Old Stone and modern metalimplements. It would, finally, afford a simpler wayfor the student to learn what, at first sight, seemsto be intricate details, descriptions and terminologyof typology which in reality is very elementary andlogical if referred to the natural basis of primaryhuman needs.

Department of Anthropology,University of Denver,Denver, Colorado.


Fire frequently played a prominent part in theburial rites of the Indians in East Texas. This isproved by various archaeological finds, and verifiedby certain historical accounts. The situation here issimilar to that in widespread areas elsewhere, butthere are certain local variations.

The use of fire in burial ceremonies took ondifferent forms. Most common among suchevidences, are the presence of charcoal in the gravesoil, ashes alone, ashes and charcoal combined,charred articles of food, and cremations. Thefrequency of occurrence varies. While few innumbers, cremations are an outstandingmanifestation of this culture trait.

A cremation as well as ashes and charcoal incertain graves in Northeast Texas was brieflymentioned by Pearce1 in 1932. Much additionalinformation has been secured since that date.

Cremations in Ordinary GravesA definitely cremated burial was found in May,

1931, in a prehistoric cemetery on the J. E. Galtfarm, 3 miles northeast of Winnsboro, FranklinCounty. The site was on a natural knoll, overlookinga marshy area near a large spring. The crematedburial was in brown sand with reddish loamintermixed.

In the grave were the charred remains of a skulland other human bones heaped into a small pile.Some of the bone was calcined while an occasionalfragment was unburned.

All around were earthenware vessels, most ofwhich were crushed. Among the utensils were tworedware pots. Three of the bowls were decoratedwith incised “sun symbols.” A very small funeraryarrowpoint was inside of a medium sized bowl. Thespecimens in the grave were as follows:

Bowls ----------------------------------------- 8Pots ------------------------------------------- 5Polished stone celts ------------------------- 3“Paint Stones,” black ----------------------- 2Arrowpoint, small --------------------------- 1Potter’s clay, lump of ----------------------- 1

Total ------------------------------------- 20

Beneath several of the crushed vessels werelumps of charcoal about 1-2 to one inch in diameter.They seemed to have resulted from the burning ofwood; whereas, the heap of charred remains in thecenter of the grave contained only burned bone.

The pottery with this cremated burial, as well asall that from the cemetery, shows a closeresemblance to so-called Caddo ware found inHopkins, Titus, Morris and Wood Counties, Texas.

In October, 1930, four burials were exhumedon the R. L. Jaggers farm, northwest of Winfield,Franklin County. One of the burials was a cremation.It was at a depth of 39 inches, with the charredbones in a heap 19 x 10 inches. Several bonefragments had not been consumed by fire and wereeasily identified.

At the north end of the charred deposit bothpieces of a broken celt, of Ouachita sandstone, werefound. This suggests ceremonial “killing.” Near thecelt was a crude projectile point of lozenge shape.At the south end was a large earthenware bottle.Its outstanding features are the flat bottom, shortbody and the long tapering neck. The lower portionappears to have been shaped in a bowl or othermold; the upper part of the body bulges slightlyand is covered with punctate decoration. Twelveinches east of the large bottle was a small vase-likebottle or jar, one-tenth inch thick and very light. Ithas two sets of delicately engraved lines, one grouparound the top of the neck and the other aroundthe upper part of the body. Only four specimenswere found with this cremated burial.

FIRE IN EAST TEXAS BURIAL RITES

BY A. T. JACKSON

Fire in East Texas Burial Rites 41

The Jaggers site, located on a tributary ofSulphur River, differs in the following respects fromthe typical culture to the south and east:

1. Presence of cremation.

2. Few mortuary offerings.

3. Burials oriented north-south and northeast-southwest, instead of east-west.

4. Different types of pottery:

(a) Flat bottoms with rounded edges.

(b) Straight-line engraved designs.

(c) Absence of sun symbols.

(d) Absence of fingernail markings.

(e) Absence of hatchwork.

(f) Use of five and seven as “magicnumbers,” instead of three or four.

5. Different types of arrowpoints:

(a) Absence of thin, small points.

(b) Presence of large, crude lozenge-shaped points with burials.

6. An almost complete skeleton at a shallowdepth, suggesting no extreme age. There wasno evidence of European contact.

7. Large percentage of whole vessels.

(a) Absence of large vessels.

Cultural DesignationsObjections have been raised to the practice of

applying the names Caddo and Asinai—linguisticand tribal terms—to archaeological remains. Incertain historic sites it seems likely that the materialsfound were used by Caddo and Asinai Indians.Much of the prehistoric material in those regionsshows a striking similarity to that from the historicsites, thus suggesting that these related tribes livedfor long periods in the respective areas. Since,however, there are certain local differences, suchas those enumerated above, it has long seemeddesirable to adopt other than tribal designations forthe various cultural manifestations.

The writer in a former paper2 used the mainstreams as a means of designation, referring to theRed River, Sulphur River, Sabine River and NechesRiver subcultures. The distinctive features of theseriver basins are quite marked in most cases. But incertain instances the use of this method has provedconfusing.

There are several accepted practices in selectinga name for a particular culture. One is to apply thename of the discovery site, another to use the nameof the nearest town. Again, a name may be derivedfrom some distinctive feature of the culture; e. g.,Red Paint People. It seems to the writer that theuse of the town name has the most to recommendit.

It, therefore, is suggested that, instead of usingthe terms Asinai and Caddo culture, the general EastTexas archaeological pattern be divided into theFrankston, Cason, Talco and Direct phases. Theseare the towns nearest the discovery sites in thevarious regions. The Frankston phase will besynonymous with the Asinai and Neches River; theCason supplants Caddo; Talco replaces SulphurRiver; Direct is the same as Red River. It later mayprove necessary to add a Texarkana phase, orothers.

Probable CremationsFrom May 11 to May 28, 1934, the

Anthropology Department of the University ofTexas trenched an earthen mound on the L. A. Halefarm, south of Winfield, Titus County. Thedimensions of the mound are 147 x 70 x 14 feet.Among the interesting discoveries were six probablecremated burials.

The first of these, at a depth of 80 inches and 25feet from the east edge, was a rounded heap ofhard-packed ashes. It was immediately beneathsandy soil, and measured 56 inches in diameter.Tightly imbedded in the ashes, and incrusted withit, were a number of broken animal bones, musselshells and potsherds. From the bottom of the heap,in burnt soil three inches beneath the ashes, at adepth of 88 inches, came a fragment of a well-madebowl. It was highly polished, black in color and


had delicately engraved lines. The unusual featuresof the ash deposit are as follows:

1. Upper side convex; bottom of deposit on aflat surface.

2. Ashes 5” deep in center and thinned to 1”thick at edges.

3. Above facts suggest the piling or heaping ofashes into a small mound.

4. Ashes extremely hard-packed, as if originallywet and tamped.

5. Very little charcoal in the ash heap; but muchcharcoal, some in large lumps, surrounded the pileof ashes.

6. The brownish-black soil to adepth of 3” to 4” beneath andslightly outward from the ash heapwas burned to a brick-like mass,as if hot fires had been above.

7. There was a greater depositof camp refuse, bones, shells andsherds than usually is the case inan ordinary ash deposit of that size.

There was little to suggest acremated burial. All of the boneswhich apparently were animal,were broken or split; and wereheavily incrusted with ashes, butnot charred. A small mussel shell(Unio sp.) was ground down at oneedge, as if to convert it into aspoon.

Beneath the center of this ashheap, at a depth of eight feet nineinches, was a somewhat crudelychipped chert blade. About nineinches to the northeast of the bladewas a lump of used red ochre,about 2 x 1 x 1 inches. As thesetwo specimens were 20 inchesbelow the ash heap, it at firstseemed unlikely that they had anyrelation. Subsequent finds forceda different conclusion.

A second hard-packed ash heapwas found five feet due west of,and on a level with, the first one.Due to the rapid rise in the slopeof the mound, this one was 114inches beneath the surface. It waslocated at the bottom of a second

PLATE 9.No. (1) Site of a cremated burial. No. (2) Ceremonial knifeblades from a grave. No. (3) Group of eight skeletons.


stratum of red sand, just above hard-packed golden-yellow clay. The diameter of this ash heap was only19 inches. It was slightly convex, being about twoinches thick at the center and one inch at the edges.A small amount of burnt earth, lumps of clay andcharcoal were present in the ash. The ash containedone potsherd, a fragment of the cannon bone of adeer and pieces of several small mussel shells. Therewere no artifacts, nor evidence of human remains,in the ashes. A deep layer of clay beneath wasconfined to the small area covered by the ash heap.

In sandy soil, about 12 inches beneath the bottomof the ash heap, with a considerable quantity ofcharcoal, was a human toe bone. This was at thesoutheast side of the grave.

At a depth of ten inches beneath the ash heap,near its center, was a grooved iron-stone pebble,imbedded in a heap of charcoal. The stone has threedeeply cut lines or grooves, running lengthwise andalmost converging at the rounded point, dividing itinto three more or less equal parts. The groovesare about two inches in length and 1-4 inch deep. Afourth groove, 1 1-4 inches long, is very shallowand on the ridge formed by two of the deep grooves.The stone is in its natural state except for thegrooves and the pointing of one end.

In the northwest part of the grave, also imbeddedin charcoal and in association with charred acorns,was a very crude chert projectile point. It was 15inches below the ash heap at a depth of 129 inches.In sandy soil intermixed with small lumps ofcharcoal were 30 chert chips, a few of which

showed secondary chipping onone edge. They were on a levelwith, and to the east of, thecharcoal deposit in which theprojectile point was found.

The charcoal deposit beneaththe ash heap, at the west side ofthe grave, had a diameter of 11inches. In the mass of charcoaland burnt earth were about adozen carbonized acorns; also asomewhat charred molar thatappeared to be the tooth of ayouth. A few burnt fragments ofhuman bones were found in thisdeposit. There also were a fewsmall animal bones, some ofwhich were not burnt. Fragmentsof mussel shells showed no signsof fire. A lump of burnt clay wasin the mass of charred material.No pottery vessels, but threepotsherds, were found. One wasabove the ash heap, the othersbeneath. Undisturbed earth wasfound 19 inches below the bottomof the ash heap, at 135 inches.

This may have been acremated burial, with the human

PLATE 10.Pottery from site of a cremation. Franklin County.


bones almost totally consumed by fire before beingcovered in the grave or cremation pit. The unburntbroken animal bones may have been food offerings.The large lump of yellow ochre, found a few inchesabove the burial, may have been a special offering.

Seven feet north of No. 2 was a third deposit.The hard-packed ash was at a depth of 138 inches.It was only nine inches in diameter and two inchesthick. There was considerable charcoal intermixedwith the ashes. Neither bones nor artifacts of anykind were found with this deposit. If it representeda cremation it must have been that of an infant.

Six feet west of No. 2 was the fourth deposit ofthis type. It was slightly below astratum of yellow clay, at a depth of121 inches. The dimensions of theash heap were 15 x 12 x 1 inches.Immediately above it was a bone awl3 1-2 inches in length. Only the smallend was worked, it was brought toa smooth, needle-like point.

Considerable charcoal was in andbeneath the hard-packed ash. In thecharcoal, four inches beneath theash, was a mussel shell with 14 smallnotches cut at regular intervalsaround its edge. Near the musselshell were four chert flakes, but nostone artifacts.

Imbedded in the charcoal weresix large acorns, badly charred. Afew small unburned animal boneswere found. Several fragments ofmussel shells showed no evidence offire. There was no discernible traceof human skeletal remains. If any ofthe charcoal represented burnthuman bones it could not beidentified as such. Red sand beneaththe charcoal was baked to a hardcrust.

Six feet west of No. 4 was a fifthdeposit, at a depth of 138 inches. Itmeasured 21 1-2 x 18 x 1-2 inches.The hard-packed ash was very thin

and gave forth a distinct ring when struck with atrowel. Imbedded in the hard crust were particlesof bony material and pieces of charcoal. This ashheap, like all the others, had the appearance ofhaving been wet and intentionally packed. The onlyartifact was a crude awl made of split deer bone. Itcame from a depth of 139 inches, beneath the hardincrustation. There were the usual fragments ofanimal bones, a few mussel shells and charredacorns. No human skeletal material could berecognized.

Ten feet west of No. 4 was the sixth deposit, ata depth of 136 inches. The dimensions were 20 x15 x 1 1-2 inches. There was less charcoal than in

PLATE 11.Unusual pottery from site of a cremated burial.


some of them; the ash was more porous; and thebony material cemented in a brick-like manner.There were fewer charred acorns, more musselshells and about the same number of broken animalbones. A lump of red ochre was beneath the centerof the ash heap. A few chert flakes were scattered

about. No other offerings werepresent, and no identifiable humanskeletal material was found.

Discussion of the Ash HeapsFive of the six hard-packed ash

heaps were in a direct east-west lineand uniformly spaced.

It seems significant that anundoubted cremated burial wasfound on the Jaggers farm less thanfive miles northwest of the Halesite, and another on the Gait farm,about 12 miles southwest.

But these ash heaps in the Halemound are quite different from thecremations in the above mentionedcemeteries. They also are whollyunlike the ordinary hearths or firepits.

Ashes in Non-Cremated BurialsAt several places in Northeast

Texas were found gravescontaining ashes with non-cremated burials. Outstandingamong such places was a burialmound on the T. M. Sanders farm,on Bois d’ Arc Creek 1-2 mile southof Red River, and about 20 milesnorthwest of Paris, Lamar County,Texas.

The village site at the Sandersplace occupied two earthenmounds and a natural ridgeconnecting the mounds. MoundNo. 1, to the east, was completelyexcavated by the University of

Texas from July 23 to August 28, 1931. Thedimensions of this mound are 175 x 70 x 9 feet.There was a natural knoll to which the Indians addedseveral feet of earth. Evidence found in the moundindicates that it was occupied for a time, was laterinundated and subsequently reoccupied by man.

PLATE 12.No. (1) Hard packed ash heap or cremated burial. No. (2)Stone covered grave. No. (3) Burial showing evidence ofgunshot wounds.


In the mound were found 21graves containing 60 skeletons.Twelve of the graves, at depths of8 to 27 inches, had only oneskeleton each. The remaining nine,at depths of 24 to 49 inches,contained 48 skeletons. It will benoted that most of the groupburials were deep while the singleburials were shallow. Five of thesix graves that contained asheswere single burials; one containeda group of four skeletons. Theexcellent condition of the skeletalmaterial indicates no great age,but there was no evidence ofEuropean contact.

In Burial B-1, at a depth of 15inches, a single skeleton lay on abed of ashes more than an inchdeep. There was some middenmaterial six inches beneath thegrave. In Burial B-2, at 27 inches,was a thin layer of ashes under thehips. The skeleton in Burial B-6,at 18 inches, was on a thin depositof ashes, as also was the one inBurial B-8, at a depth of 16 inches.Burial B-11, at 19 inches, hadbeneath the skeleton a layer ofashes one inch deep. The samewas true of B-20, with its intrusionof three skeletons into an oldersingle burial.

In none of these cases did thebones show any traces of fire.Ashes were brought from outside and placed in thegraves or wood was burned in the graves beforedepositing the bodies therein. What was the reasonfor this practice? As possibly furnishing a clue, letus examine into the contents of these graves.

The fact that 4,000 shell beads—of theapproximately 5,800 found with all the burials werewith the six burials where ashes were found seemsto be more than a mere coincidence. It also is worthy

of note that in four of the six graves there werepipes.

These facts, considered along with certaininformation furnished by an early writer, seem tothrow some light on the origin of the ashes in thegraves. Fray Juan Agustin de Morfi in his “Historiade la Provincia de Texas, 1673-1779,” as translatedby Frederick C. Chabot,3 tells of the funeral customsof the Tejas as follows:

PLATE 13.No. (1) Objects found with grave. No. (2) Post holes aroundgrave. No. (3) Artifacts from grave in Upshur County.


“When a Texa dies away from his family, eitherin war or peace, they give him a different funeral. Astone throw from the house a pyre of wood isarranged. All present offer to an old priest tobaccoand corn meal. The offering received, they get up,go around a bonfire, which is lit in the center of thehouse, throw into it a part of the offering. Then thewomen present, at the same time that they offercondolences, offer strings of beads, knives and someclothes. To all of this they add all of the personaleffects of the deceased, and the best gamuzas theyhave, wrapping them up in a mat. Then one of thepallbearers takes the bundle, another a lighted stickof wood from the fire, and the third a bundle ofdried herbs. They all leave the house in a procession,arrive at the pyre, set fire to it all over and throwthe wrapped bundle into the bonfire. They executeall of this according to what they say, so that thesoul of the deceased shall go to the house ofpleasure and so that when it comes to find its bodyit may see what has been done in its honor.”

It seems that Morfi’s account does not tell thewhole story. Were the ashes from the fire thatconsumed the offerings placed in the grave?

Since the cultural practices seem to have beensimilar in the various parts of East Texas, it ispossible that the special gifts of beads as recountedmight account for many beads being in such gravesat the Sanders site. The use of tobacco in theceremony also might explain why a large percentageof such burials had pipes with them.

Burials in Rubbish PitsIn certain cases interments were in what appear

to have been old fire or rubbish pits. These madeconvenient burial places. The ashes and charcoalmay be entirely incidental and have no specialrelation to the burial rites.

Two burials of this type were found at a historicsite on the H. E. Womack plantation on Red River,22 miles west of north of Paris, Lamar County.Burial C-1 that of a small child, was in a pit fourfeet in diameter and two feet deep. The head wasto the north and the bones in a bad state of decay.There were no artifacts in the grave. Beneath the

skeleton the outline of the pit continued to a depthof 4 1-2 feet. The soil in the pit was very dark andcontained much charcoal and potsherd. There alsowere present human and animal bones badlyscattered and broken.

Burial C-8, same site, was in a circular fire pitabout four feet in diameter. The actual burialoccupied a space of 36 x 19 1-2 inches. The pitcontained ashes and charcoal surrounding theskeleton. The bones showed no trace of fire, butwere badly disintegrated. The skeleton had beencrammed into the hole on the right side, the necktwisted and the face turned to the east. The legswere flexed.

Near the ankles at the southeast part of the gravewas a buffalo scapula hoeblade. Other artifactsincluded a flint awl, three crude projectile points,red ochre and flint chips—all deposited in a smallpile west of the right shoulder.

Rock-Covered Grave Associated with CharcoalAt a small site on the P. G. Hightower place, 4

1-2 miles north of Winnsboro, Franklin County,were found three burials. One of them was veryunusual for East Texas in that it was overlaid, at adepth of 27 inches, with a covering of small, flatstones arranged in an orderly manner. The stones—many of them hematite—ranged in size from 1 x 1to 6 x 4 inches. The thickness varied from 1-2 to 11-2 inch. They were laid flat, in mosaic form.Dimensions of the rock covering were as follows:north-south, 5’ 9”; east-west, 6’ 6”. There were748 stones over the grave.

Small lumps of charcoal were just above the rockcovering, as well as beneath it. It was not a firehearth.

The mandible of a small dog was foundimmediately above the rocks at the north edge ofthe grave. The bone was in a poor state ofpreservation.

Six inches above the rock covering, near thesoutheast edge of the grave, was a crude chertprojectile point. Just above the rocks at the southedge was another lozenge-shaped point. Half of a


broken spearhead and a small gouge, chipped fromchert, also were on top of the rocks. Ten inchesbeneath the rocks, at the center of the grave, weretwo chert projectile points.

Charcoal in small quantities was intermixed withthe soil beneath the rocks from a depth of 31 to 40inches. There was no ash. Only a trace of skeletalmaterial remained, the bone having completely

disintegrated. This seems to be an old grave.Another grave, plowed up prior to our work, isreported to have contained a pot and a metalarrowpoint.

The remains of a dog above the human burialresembles certain finds at the Goode Hunt farm,Cass County; E. H. Moore’s plantation, BowieCounty; and Caplen Mound, Galveston County.

Charcoal and Ashes in PotsAt several sites were graves

that contained both charcoaland ashes. Sometimes theywere intermixed with the soilof the grave fill. In two casesthe ashes and charcoal wereinside pots.

In July, 1934, a smallcemetery was excavated on theJ. C. Atkinson place, 7 1-2miles northwest of MountVernon, Franklin County. Thesite is on a hill overlooking atributary to Sulphur River.

Burial W-3, at a depth of 18inches, had a few pieces ofcharcoal at various depths. Oneof the pots, located just westof a bottle and near the skull,contained about a quart ofcharcoal and wood ashes. Thissuggests that the vessel mayhave had fire in it when placedin the grave. There was noevidence of burnt bone in thepot. The vessel is well made,has four raised trianglesseparated by vertical lines, andis typical of certain ones foundin Titus, Upshur and HarrisonCounties. Two redware bowlsin the grave were decoratedwith elaborate “sun symbols.”In association with thesevessels of so-called Caddoan

PLATE 14.Vessels from graves which contained evidence of fire.


ware was a bottle of the typical so-called Asinaitype. This is a common type of bottle 100 milessouth, but it rarely is found in Northeast Texas.

Another grave at this site had small lumps ofcharcoal at depths of 14 to 34 inches. The lowerten inches of the fill consisted of a mixture of sandand yellow clay. The bottom two inches containeda large quantity of ashes.

In a large cemetery on the H. R. Taylor farm,five miles northwest of Harleton, Harrison County,was a pot with a quantity of charcoal and ashes init. The vessel was in Burial A-47 at a depth of 39inches. The so-called “Fire-pot,” one of thirteenvessels in the grave, was inside a large pot slightlysoutheast of the skull.

Partial CremationOnly a trace of a skull and of a few other bones

remained in this grave. The six remaining teethshowed evidence of fire, but the skull did not. Tworibs and traces of what seem to be the remains ofvertebrae likewise were burnt. The bones were intheir natural positions, seemingly articulated. Thissuggests partial cremation, indicating that the boneswere burned in place after being laid in the grave.

Probable Burning of FoodThere have been found a few cases indicating

that the charred remains of foods were placed ingraves.

One such case was in Burial A-64 at the Taylorsite in Harrison County. On the floor of the grave,38 inches in depth, was a deposit of carbonizedmaterial, perhaps food, with a large burnt musselshell in its center. The remains were located sixinches east of two remaining molars. There alsowas some of the material near a small inverted bowlat the south central part of the grave.

Another case of the probable burning of foodwas found, June, 1931, in Burial No. 14, J. M. Rileyfarm, seven miles east of Lafayette, Upshur County.The skeleton was badly decayed, only fragmentsremaining. Elevated six inches above the grave floorwas a pile of charred bones that appear to be those

of deer. Some of the bones were so calcined as tobe unidentifiable. The heap was located near theposition evidently occupied by the right hand. Thefacts suggest a burnt offering or sacrifice of part ofan animal. With the burial were five bowls, a bottle,a pot and an arrowpoint.

Other cases of burnt food were discovered, inAugust, 1932, at the E. H. Moores site on RedRiver, 10 1-2 miles northwest of Texarkana, BowieCounty, Texas. But, due to the burials being inmidden material, there is some doubt as to thearticles of food having been purposely placed inthe graves.

Burial J-2 at the Moores site was that of a child.The skeleton, in good condition, was in middenmaterial with a heavy ash deposit to the south andwest of the skull. There was much charcoal andstreaks of ashes throughout the grave. Near the chinwere 12 pecans and one kidney bean (Phaseolusvulgaris), all charred. In the grave were two smallpots, a small bowl, a polished celt, an arrowpointand several flint chips. The feet of the skeletonextended within the inside of a small hut outlinedby postholes.

Four feet east of the skull was a deposit ofcharred corncobs. Kernels remained on some of thecobs. Due to their fragmentary condition the lengthof the cobs could not be determined. The depositwas confined to an area 8 x 12 inches.

Another child’s burial had a few charred pecansin the soil just above the skeleton. In the grave werea small bowl, a bottle, a bone awl, and anarrowpoint. Burial J-6, an infant, had no artifacts,but six carbonized pecans. Burial J-7 had one burntpecan in the grave. These burials were in a historicsite.

Burning of Hut Following BurialsNot far removed from the burials was a heap of

burnt pecans resting on a charred mat. There alsowere fragments of reeds in the ashes. These factsindicate that the hut may have been fired after theburials were made beneath the floor.


Postholes in Grave with CharcoalAn unusual situation was found in Burial No. 4,

J. M. Riley farm, Upshur County. Near the skulland beside a crushed pot was a small heap ofcharcoal. Charcoal also appeared near the leftshoulder, right hand and feet.

In the grave floor were five small holes thatoriginally may have contained posts for supportingskins or other covering. The single hole,eight inches east of the skull, was twoinches in diameter and nine inches deep.The holes beside the shoulders, 36 inchesapart, were three inches in diameter, tenand seven inches deep. The holes at thehips were three inches in diameter, nineinches deep and nine inches apart. Onewas outside the right leg and the otherbetween the legs. There were no holes atthe feet.

In the grave that contained thepestholes were thirteen pottery vessels,an earthenware pipe, a polished stone celtand 22 well made, small arrowpoints. Thissuggests that the deceased was a personof importance, and might explain why itwas desired to protect his body fromdirect contact with the soil.

The only comparable grave find in EastTexas, of which the writer knows, was inBurial No. 8, P. S. Cash farm. CampCounty. In it there was a pesthole on oneside of the grave near the waist.

Charcoal as Only Evidence of FireMany graves had charcoal in them but

no other evidence of fire. Usually thecharcoal was distributed through the soilconstituting the grave fill. In a few casesit was deposited on the grave floor. Thecharcoal apparently resulted from theburning of wood.

The most outstanding “charcoal site”in East Texas that has come under thewriter’s observation is the Mattie Gandyprehistoric cemetery at the western edge

of Franklin County, very near the Hopkins Countyline.

The top soil at the Gandy site is a red sandyloam, extending to a depth of ten to 15 inches. Thisis underlain with red clay. Several of the graveswere dug into the clay. This is not a commonoccurrence; in most cases the grave floor is justabove the clay.

PLATE 15.Four views of graves which contained charcoal, andvarious pottery and flint artifacts.


The cemetery was excavated in June, 1934. Thedepths of the “graves ranged from 13 to 36 inches,with an average depth of 21 inches. The elevengraves yielded 90 earthenware vessels, four celts,eighteen projectile points and four pieces of redochre.

The charcoal was well mixed with the soil, givingit a mottled appearance. Six of the eleven graveshad such quantities of charcoal that any lump ofthe clayey soil three inches square would includeno less than a dozen small pieces of charcoal. Theabsence of ashes was very noticeable.

The pottery and flint artifacts in the Gandygraves are almost identical with the typical so-calledCaddo culture (Cason phase of the East Texaspattern). The common forms of pottery decorationconsist of sun symbols and equal-armed crossesenclosed in circles.

In most cases the vessels were ranged along theentire length of the graves, with the bottles at theeast end. But there were variations. In a few burialsthere were groupings of vessels in the eastern halfof the grave; and in other cases the bottle was nearthe center of the grave or the center of the groupof vessels.

Cherokee County “Charcoal Sites”More graves containing charcoal have been

found in the northwestern part of Cherokee Countythan in any other East Texas area of like extent.The work in this region was done by theAnthropology Division of the University CentennialExposition. Mr. A. M. Woolsey was in charge ofthe field crew. The facts are gleaned, with hispermission, from the field notes and aresupplemented by observations of the present writermade on the occasions of visits to the sites.

Of 73 graves uncovered in Cherokee County,60 contained charcoal. Of five burials in a smallcemetery on the Blackburn farm, ten at the Fairsite and 18 on the Alien place, all containedcharcoal.

The distribution of charcoal in the graves inCherokee County is very similar to that at the Gandy

site, previously discussed. Usually the small piecesof charcoal are scattered through the soil of thegrave fill.

One of the outstanding discoveries of charcoaldeposits was in Burial AH-8, J. P. Allen farm,northwest of Jacksonville. In the grave soil were afew small pieces of charcoal; beneath was a largequantity. Woolsey, who opened the grave, made thefollowing record in his notes:

“When the grave was cleaned out and dug under,a large amount of charcoal was found. The charcoalarea was 24 inches long, six inches wide and sixinches deep under the bottom of the grave. A pieceof half-charred bark was underneath the small log.The log may have been burned before the body wasput in.”

The skeleton in this grave was in a poor state ofpreservation. With the burial were three potteryvessels. Twenty inches southwest of the skull wasa lump of green pigment that measured 5 x 2 x 2inches. A nearby grave contained several Europeantrade articles.

Disposition of Charcoal in GravesThe following table is based on information from

the entire East Texas area:Number of

Placement Occurrences* PercentScattered through the soil ------ 80 78On floor at northeast comer ------ 1 1On floor at west end --------------- 1 1Beneath floor (skeletal level) ----- 2 2Surrounding the skeleton --------- 1 1Beneath skull ----------------------- 2 2Beside skull ------------------------- 3 3At right hand ----------------------- 1 1At feet ------------------------------- 1 1Beside right leg --------------------- 1 1At shoulders ------------------------ 1 1In earthenware vessels ------------ 2 2Beneath earthenware vessels ----- 3 3Beside earthenware vessels ------- 2 2Near top of earthenware vessels - 1 1

Total ------------------------- 102 100


*There were 92 graves that contained charcoal;but in several of them the charcoal occurred atdifferent places.

Summary By Counties of Graves ShowingEvidence of Fire

Total Number Graves Per CentNumber Showing Showing

County Graves Use of Fire Use of FireAnderson ---- 27 2 7.4Bowie ------- 27 7 26.0Camp9 ------- — — —Cass39 ------- — — —Cherokee ---- 73 60 82.2Franklin ----- 28 16 57.1Harrison ----- 64 3 4.7Hopkins9 ---- — — —Lamar-------- 29 9 31.0Morris ------- 15 2 13.3Titus --------- 89 11 12.4Upshur ------ 23 3 13.0Wood --------- 8 — —

Totals- 440 113 25.7

Summary, by Classes of Evidence, of GravesShowing Use of Fire

Kinds of Evidence NumberGraves Per CentCharcoal only -------------- 83 73.5Ashes and charcoal

combined ------------------8 7.0Ashes only -------------------7 6.2Probable cremations --------6 5.3Definite cremations ---------2 1.7Charred bones

(not cremation) -----------1 .9Ashes and charcoal

with charred bones(not cremation) -----------1 .9

Charred pecans --------------3 2.7Burnt clay --------------------1 .9Other carbonized material - 1 .9

Total ------------------ 113 100.0

Comparison With Other AreasReverence for fire was widespread among the

American Indians. Hence it is not surprising to findsimilar practices in various parts of Texas, Arkansas,Louisiana, and elsewhere.

Charcoal in graves and cremated burials havebeen reported in Central Texas.4 Cremations andcharcoal in graves likewise have been recorded inseveral parts of West Texas.5-9

Moore10 and Lemley11 report cremated burialson the Crenshaw place on Red River in MillerCounty, Arkansas, some fourteen miles east of theTexas state line. They were in pits cut down intothe mound from the surface. Lemley states: “Thecalcined bones were in small fragments. Noevidence of fire was found and apparently thecremations had been made elsewhere and theremains thereafter interred in the mound.”

Harrington12 in a report on excavations at Ozanand Mineral Springs states: “At a depth of four feeteight inches” (in a mound) “were found twodeposits of charred human bones, approximatelytwo feet in diameter and two inches thick at themiddle. In one were found two broken arrowpointsand some fragments of very thin copper ornament;the other held nothing but the bones.” A burial atMineral Springs contained “the calcined remainsof three cremated skeletons—burnt bones and ashesonly—among which appeared a few tinyarrowpoints more or less cracked by fire.”

The finding of charcoal in graves also has beenreported in widespread areas. Harrington13

mentioned it at the Washington site in Arkansas.Moore,14 in discussing his work in Alabama, givesseveral interesting examples of the finding ofcharcoal.

“In the central part of the mound were fiveskeletons associated with charcoal. One of theseskeletons had considerable charcoal near the head.Charcoal was at the head of another skeleton andat the feet of a third.” At another site he reports:“Four feet from the surface, with charcoal aboveit, was a full length skeleton on its back.Immediately by the side” (of that burial) “was anelongated bunch of bones beneath charcoal.” With


regard to other burials were these notations: “On alayer of charcoal, three feet from the surface, lay askull with a pair of femurs two feet distant. A skulland certain scattered bones lay 20 inches from thesurface, with charcoal beneath them.”

Walker,15 in describing a burial at Natchitoches,Louisiana, states: “Covered by red sandy silt it lay

two feet below the surface on white sand in whicha few fragments of charcoal were present.”

Beyer16 mentions a burial on Red River inLouisiana as follows: “The layer of red clayenclosing the bodies was 18 inches thick, and aboveit was an ash bed in which some of the wood hadbeen reduced only to charcoal. Over this wasanother ten inches of red clay overlain by still

another ash bed. There was very littlecharcoal in this upper bed.”

What seems to have been theremains of burnt food in a grave inMorehouse Parish, Louisiana, is recordedby Moore17 as follows: “At the bottomof a pit in the central part of the cemeterylay Burial No. 16 extended on the back.Near the skull were many fragments ofcharcoal and some bits of burnt shell andof calcined bones—which latter havebeen determined probably to be nothuman, but to belong to the deer.”

Significance of PracticesMany similar cases could be cited, but

these are sufficient to show thefundamental unity of this cultural practice.

What is the explanation of thisreverence for fire and its use in burialrites? Yarrow18 suggests that fire wasthought to purify the soul, drive awaydemons, furnish light for the journey tothe other world, and heat to cook the foodwhile on that journey.

Hough19 approaches the subject in apractical way:

“Excavation in the ancient Pueblocemeteries invariably show masses ofcharcoal and ashes appearing as a layerin the earth above the skeletons. In somecases ashes were placed with the bodiesat the time of burial. So far as can beascertained there is no present Pueblocustom by which the ancient custom canbe checked up. Many excavations show

PLATE 16.Views of four graves found in Cherokee County, Texas,showing burial furnishings.


that burials were made in village rubbish heaps inwhich ashes and charcoal are large components,and in this case it is not always possible to trace thedefinite use of charcoal and ashes as in undisturbedearth. In reconstructing the custom, recourse maybe had to the grave fire of several Indian tribes. Itis presumed that at the time of ancient Pueblointerment a fire was built near the grave and theashes and charcoal thrown in as the excavation wasbeing filled.

“The custom of burning the belongings with thedead has wide extension arealy and in time. Someidea of sacrifice inheres in the custom, and also thatof transmitting the things burnt to the spiritualworld. This custom is often connected withcremations.”

One may thus see how the facts regarding theuse of fire in burial rites in a given area may dovetailwith those from remote regions.

It is by gathering small bits of evidence andpiecing them together that we may some time havea fairly complete record of primitive man inAmerica.

Department of Anthropology,University of Texas,Austin, Texas.

1. Pearce, J. E., The Archaeology of East Texas, AmericanAnthropologist (N. S.), Vol. 84, No. 4, October-December,1932, p. 681.

2. Jackson, A. T., Types of East Texas Pottery, TexasArcheological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 6, Abilene,September, 1934, pp. 56-67.

3. Chabot, F. C., Indian Excerpts, Naylor Printing Co., SanAntonio. 1932, pp. 38-39.

4. Jackson, A. T., The Fall Creek Sites, University of TexasPublication No. 8802, Anthropological Papers, Vol. Ill, No.1, Austin, 1938, p. 58. Also Jackson, A. T., Field Notes onExcavation of a Burial Site, Fred Acree Farm, CoryellCounty, Texas, 1931, p. 20.

5. Pearce, J. E., and Jackson, A. T., A Prehistoric RockShelter in Val Verde County, Texas, University of TexasBulletin No. 3327, Anthropological Papers, Vol. I, No. 3,Austin, 1933, pp. 61, 69.

6. Setzler, F. M., Cave Burials in Southwestern Texas,Explorations and Field Work of the Smithsonian Institutionin 1933, Washington, pp. 35-37.

7. Ray, Cyrus N., Some Unusual Cremated Burials NearColorado, Texas, Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety, Vol. VIII, Abilene, 1936, pp. 9-16.

8. Morrow. James G., A Prehistoric Cremated Burial of theAbilene Region, Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety, Vol. VIII, Abilene, 1936, pp. 17-20.

9. Martin, George C., Archaeological Exploration of theShumla Caves, Big Bend Basket Maker Papers No. 3, WitteMemorial Museum, San Antonio, 1933, pp. 20-21.

10. Moore, C. B., Some Aboriginal Sites on Red River,Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,1912, p. 623.

11. Lemley, Harry J., Discoveries Indicating a Pre-CaddoCulture on Red River in Arkansas, Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. VIII, Abilene, Sept., 1936, p.33.

12. Harrington, M. R., Certain Caddo Sites in Arkansas,Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum of the AmericanIndian, Heye Foundation, New York, 1920, pp. 37, 91-92.

13. Harrington, M. R, Ibid, p. 76.

14. Moore, C. B., Certain Aboriginal Remains of the LowerTombigbee River, Journal of Academy of Natural Sciencesof Philadelphia, Vol. XIII, Philadelphia, 1905. pp. 167-168,270.

15. Walker, W. M., A Caddo Burial Site at Natchitoches,Louisiana, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 94,No. 14, Washington, December, 1935, p. 3.

16. Beyer, G. E., The Mounds of Louisiana, II, LouisianaHistorical Society Publication, Vol. II, No. 1, 1897.

17. Moore, C. B., Antiquities of the Ouachita Valley, Journalof Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1909, p.163.

18. Yarrow, H. C., Mortuary Customs of the North AmericanIndians, First Annual Report, Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Washington, 1879, p. 198.

19. Hough, Walter, Fire As An Agent in Human Culture,Bulletin 139, U. S. National Museum, Washington, 1926,pp. 167-170.

Discovery of Sauk Valley Man of Minnesota 55

The discoveries of human remains made inMinnesota in the past few years promise to give aseries of skeletons, some with associated artifacts,that will lead to real knowledge of the Late Glacialand Post-glacial inhabitants of North America. Thediscovery in June, 1935, of a skeleton in a gravelpit near Lake Guerney in West Union Township isone of this series (Plate 19). The gravel is obviouslyof a considerable antiquity as it stands 70 feet abovepresent drainage and is a mere remnant left bystream dissection. The skeleton has certain primitivefeatures not consistent with those of the modernIndian. A consideration of these circumstances ledto the mapping of the site, and a brief geologicinvestigation, the results of which are here set forth.

The discovery was made possible by the promptintervention of one of the writers, the Rev. HenryRetzek, who recognized the probable value of theskeleton, named it The Sauk Valley Man, andpreserved the skeleton for scientific study. Throughhis influence the other two writers who wereinspecting the sites of the Minnesota, and theBrowns Valley men, under the guidance ofProfessor A. E. Jenks, became interested in the find.From the evening of June 26 to July 1, 1935, Bryanand McCann were the guests of Father Retzek andare indebted to him for hospitality and for guidancein the locality.

Circumstances of DiscoveryA gravel pit on the land of Daniel W. Fraser (Lot

1 of NE¼ section 11, T. 127 N., R. 35W) in WestUnion Township, Todd County, Minnesota, hasbeen the source of gravel for the improvement ofthe county roads (see Plate 20). The gravel is dugby hand and the ordinary procedure has been toshovel from the base of a 20-foot face. As the upper4 to 6 feet of gravel is slightly cemented, it tends tobe undermined and forms a dangerous, overhangingledge. Consequently it is the custom for two mento be sent above two or three times a day to strip

the loam by spading and throwing it to one side.They clear the loam to the gravel for a distance oftwo or three feet back from the edge and then cavedown the face.

All the workmen agree that the first unusual sightwhich attracted their attention was a bone thatprojected from the face 2 or 4 feet below the top ofthe bank. This bone with two smaller bones werepulled or fell down the face of the bank. These boneswere thrown to one side into the “rock pile” or“waste pile” where over-size boulders werediscarded. In the late afternoon of June 11, twomen were on top stripping loam and caving the bankin. One of them, Earl Tompkins, struck bone as hethrust his shovel into the gravel below the loam.He recognized what he had struck, but just then alarge mass of gravel caved and fell, carrying thebones with it. As it was the end of the day, they allquit work without looking at this gravel. The nextmorning, June 12, they found a skull and other partsof a skeleton, and laid them to one side until theywere claimed and taken by Daniel W. Fraser to hishome. Each of the workmen has been interviewedand depositions under oath have been taken. Theseindividual statements are discussed in laterparagraphs.

Andrew Marthaler notified Father Retzek of thefind on the afternoon of June 12. Retzek wentimmediately to the pit, interviewed the men, andthen obtained the bones from Fraser. The followingday he took the photographs which illustrate thisarticle. On June 17, Retzek and one of the workmenrecovered the long bone and one of the two smallbones from the “waste pile.” The long bone provedto be a tibia. At various times Retzek searched theroad on which the gravel was used and found somesmall pieces of bone.

In several ways the details of discovery areimportant. The bones occurred deep below thesurface and all the workmen are agreed that thewell bedded gravel showed no disturbance. There

DISCOVERY OF SAUK VALLEY MAN OF MINNESOTAWITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE GEOLOGY

BY KIRK BRYAN, HENRY RETZEK AND FRANKLIN T. MCCANN


is no dispute that the first bone seen, the tibia, laybetween 3 and 4 feet below the surface and in thegravel. Some of the workmen thought that it camefrom the rubbly layer of coarser pebbles about 4feet down, and others from the finer gray layer about3 feet down. The other bones seem to have beensomewhat shallower but definitely in the gravelbelow the humus.

No artifacts were found by the workmen, norby Father Retzek, although diligent search wasmade for them. The inside of the skull was filledwith packed limonitic sand, which was removedseveral days later by Father Retzek.

The circumstances pointing to the conclusionthat the skeleton was entombed in the gravel bynatural processes and that it was not a burial are asfollows: (1) No visible disturbance of an unusually

well-bedded gravel; (2) Disposition of the bonesover a zone from 2 to 4 feet below the surface; (3)No artifacts, such as would be expected with aburial; (4) Brain case packed with sand similar tothe rest of the deposit.

On the other hand, no qualified person waspresent whose testimony as to lack of disturbancewould be conclusive. The workmen were intent ontheir task and only mildly interested in the find. Thedetection of an ancient burial, such as that ofBrowns Valley man,1 requires close observation.In that instance only the presence of an acute localobserver with the presence of mind and skill to makeexcellent photographs has enabled us to be certainthat Browns Valley man is a burial. In the WestUnion find, however, a good observer reached thepit within a few hours and found no evidence of

PLATE 17.No. (1) Gravel pit showing disconformities between the West Union gravel and the gray.No. (2) West Union gravel showing horizon at which tibia was found.


burial. The lack of artifacts may be due to lossthrough slump despite the diligent search for them.

The fact that the skull was packed with limoniticsand similar to the reddish material exposed at adepth of 4 feet is evidence not only of the depth ofburial but of antiquity. Under thepresent climatic conditions calciumcarbonate is being deposited in thesubsoil. It is found penetrating thelimonitic West Union gravel inseams. If the skull were a recentburial, not only would we expect tofind humus with the bones, but alsoa lime cement in the sand of theskull. The skull must have reachedits position in the West Union gravelduring or before the period oflimonite deposition, or previous toa more humid climate that antedatesthe present semi-arid type ofclimate.

Prof. A. E. Jenks and Dr. L. A.Wilford point out in an oralcommunication that even if theskeleton is a burial, it has aconsiderable antiquity. The localIndians were Sioux, established inthe area for some period previousto 1660 when the historic recordbegins. About the end of the 18thcentury the Chippewa began to huntin this region. The Sioux customarilyburied their dead as bundles of bonesin mounds following exposure of thebody on a scaffold. Jenks andWilford point out that so much ofthe skeleton of Sauk Valley Man isrepresented that the possibility of asecondary or bundle burial isprecluded, and it is unlikely that thisis a Sioux of the historic period.Most Chippewa burials in this areacontain objects of Europeanmanufacture, because these Indians,when they arrived in the area, hadlong been in contact with traders.

Character and Credibility of the WitnessesThe workmen were local men laboring on an F.

E. R. A. project. The group included Ralph Smith,foreman, and Romaine Johnson, Ludwig Elven,

PLATE 18.No. (1) Top—West Union gravel; middle—fading tongue of

clay; bottom—gray gravel facies.No. (2) Approach to gravel pit looking to the northeast.No. (3) Sauk Valley looking toward the northeast from gravel

pit knoll.


Melvin Irwin, Earl Tompkins, Martin Brakken, BobIverson, and Teddy Randall. All of them are men ofgood repute, whose essential honesty cannot bequestioned. It must be borne in mind, however, thatalthough they observe natural phenomena as closelyas the typical workman of the countryside, theywere busy with their work and unconscious of theimportance of their find.

Certain discrepancies in their testimony areapparent, particularly as to the date when the tibiawas discovered. Melvin Irwin claims that onTuesday, June 11, he was working on the face ofthe pit with a pick, above the shovelers, when hesaw the tibia sticking out “between the red graveland the fine sand” about 3 and a half or 4 feet fromthe surface. He remembers pulling out the bone andremarking “looks like we have a dead Indian here”as he handed it to Smith who tossed it onto the

“waste pile.” Brakken believes the tibia was firstseen on Monday, June 10, because he was presentwhen this bone was discovered and he did not workon Tuesday, June 11. Johnson is sure that the daywas either Thursday, June 6, or Friday, June 7. Heremembers that Brakken was working alongsideof him and Melvin Irwin on the face of the pit whenthe long bone, with the two small ones, fell downthe bank. He believes that Brakken picked up thelong bone while he himself picked up the twosmaller ones, and after some general discussion theythrew them on the “waste pile.” Melvin Irwin’sadditional statement that the bone was in a definitelocation and that there was a small streak of blackearth nearby seems valid as to position and hints ata burial, but he also states that both the sand aboveand the gravel below were solid and unbroken whichbespeaks entombment by natural causes. Earl

Tompkins and Teddy Randall testify thaton Tuesday, June 11, they were strippingloam and caving the bank. Earl Tompkinsstruck bones with his shovel at “secondspade depth,” that is, in the gravel afterthe loam had been taken off. BothTompkins and Randall estimate the depthof the bones at 16 to 18 inches.

The discrepancy as to date is not onlyunimportant but characteristic of thetestimony of a group of men concerningsome event which they have witnessed.The conflict in the testimony of MelvinIrwin is probably due to the inability ofan untrained observer to value evidenceof unequal weight. It seems likely that histestimony as to the position of the boneis of value, whereas his testimony as tothe presence of black earth may beunimportant because of the chance ofloam sifting over the face of the pit fromthe soil above. The evidence of Tompkinsand Randall as to the depth at which theystruck bone does not conflict with that ofMelvin Irwin because they were talkingabout different episodes in the sequenceof discovery.PLATE 19.

Sketch map showing the location of the discovery,and its surroundings.


Geology of the Gravel PitAs shown in Plate 20, the gravel pit lies on the

side of a flat-topped spur extending north to thevalley of Sauk River. The valley has a flat andmarshy floor, in which a quarter of a mile eastwardfrom the site lies the shallow body of water calledLake Guerney. The spur is one of a series separatedby small valleys that are broad and gentle in theirupper reaches and narrow and sharp lower down.One of these valleys and part of the ridge to thewest are shown in Plate 20. Both spurs are cut offsharply in a steep, smooth slope or bluff that leadsdown 70 feet to the flat and marshy floor of thevalley in which Sauk River runs from Lake Osakisinto Lake Guerney and through a chain of shallowponds to Sauk Lake. This steep bluff is gentlycurved and looks like an old meander scar. Thenorth slope of the valley is more gentle and ismarked by a welldefined gravel terrace 25 to 30feet high and thus definitely lower than the ridge inwhich the pit lies.

A wall about 20 feet high is exposed in the pit atthe north or active end where the skeleton wasfound (Plate 20). Here, below the black loam, whichis about a foot thick, is 5 to 6 feet of well-stratifiedgravel, coarse and rubbly at the base and containingpebbles 2 to 4 inches in diameter. This layer growsfiner toward the top. It is marked by a heavy cementof limonite which makes it resistant and causes itto stand as a wall or rim. In this gravel, here namedthe West Union gravel, the skeleton was found(Plate 17, No. 2). At the south end of the pit, thisgravel rests on yellow, clayey till which is more than5 feet thick. The till thins northward to a featheredge and rests on slightly deformed gray gravel.The lower, gray gravel is generally of “open” texturesuch as is characteristic of gravel deposited in frontof glaciers. The West Union gravel restsunconformably on both of these materials as shownin the photograph in Plate 18, No. 1, and in thediagram in Plate 21, No. 1.

It is obvious that the till represents an overrideof glacial ice over the gray gravel. The gray gravelis regarded as a limited body imbedded in thegeneral till mass. It represents deposition by meltwater in front of the ice during a temporary halt.

Later forward movement caught up and destroyedall but a small portion of the gravel.

The unconformity at the base of the West Uniongravel is distinct. The gravel is coarse and well-bedded, but lacks “open” texture. The limonitecement is distinctive and is obviously due toprocesses no longer in action. Under the loam, thelimonite is in the process of being leached andcalcium carbonate is being deposited.

General Geology of the AreaWest Union Township is largely covered by till

of the “gray” type derived from the northwest orKeewatin center. It lies east of the distinctiveAltamont-Gary morainic system in an area mappedlargely as ground moraine by Leverett2. He showsone moraine trending northwest from the junctionof Ashley River and Silver Creek through the villageof West Union, and another trending east ward fromLake Osakis along the valley of Sauk River to LakeGuerney and eastward. These moraines aresupposed to be equivalents of the Bemis Morainewhich is the maximum extension of the Keewatinice.3

In fact, however, these supposed moraines donot exist in West Union township. The surface ofthe till plains is primarily erosional. Here and thereare hills and depressions that seem to be relics ofthe original topography. Elsewhere the topographyis erosional. Some of the best examples of theerosional features are the hills on Schwanke’s farmin Section 28. Here three hills in a chain stand aboveflat meadows. A gravel pit shows that the hills arecomposed of deformed gravel typical of the massesincluded within the till. It is obvious that the gravelhas been more resistant than the surrounding tillfor it now stands 35 to 50 feet above the generalsurface.

Ashley River and Silver Creek are normal streamvalleys cut below the general level. Each is borderedby a gravel terrace 20 to 30 feet high. Several gravelpits, including the pit on the Gans Farm in Section26, show that this gravel is fine-grained and containslenses of silt and clay. It has no “open” structureand is rusty in color. Many of the pebbles are broken


fragments, obviously rehandled material.Such material did not come from themelting ice but is the product of theerosion of the till highland.

Fitting these facts together, thediagrammatic section of (Plate 21 No. 2)has been prepared to show the generalrelations in the township.

The valley of Sauk River is a muchlarger feature. Apparently it begins atLake Osakis and continues eastward witha chain of lakes to a main depressionextending from far to the north throughLong Prairie to Sauk Center. Thisdepression is shown by Leverett as filledwith gravel and even a short examinationshows that it is underlain by glacialoutwash with numerous small kettle holesand major ice block depressions. Thisnorth-south depression must have beenone of the principal outlets for glacialwaters. However, the valley of SaukRiver west of Little Sauk and within WestUnion township contains no glacialoutwash gravel but has a terrace 25 to30 feet high, similar in position and intype of gravel to that of Ashley River. It thus appears(Plate 21, No. 3), that this also is a stream-erodedvalley. The lakes are shallow ponds formed on theflat floor of the valley by very recent and distinctlypost-glacial processes.

The topography of West Union township andmuch of the surrounding area is thus erosional andit is not apparent how this period of erosion is tobe fitted into the glacial chronology. Leverett4 hassuggested that certain small areas to the north ofWest Union may be underlain by till deposited bythe Keewatin lobe but of Iowan age. It may be thatin this area also the till is the “old gray” or IowanDrift and not the “new gray” or Wisconsin Drift. Inthis event, the state of dissection, the relatively deepsoil and the concentration of pebbles at the base ofthe humus soil could easily he explained. North ofSauk Center and about 2 miles south of Sauk Lakeis a deep road cut. The section here from top tobottom is:

Soil, irregular in thickness—Till, yellow,calcareous, much weathered --------------6 feet

Sand and gravel, gray -------------------------4 feetTill, compact, with limonite in joint

cracks -------------------------------------- 10 feetSand and gravel, gray -------------------------4 feet

24 feet

This section, especially the lower till, seems morehighly indurated than the till of the Altamont-Garysystem of moraines and lends support to the theorythat the drift of the locality is of very early Wisconsinor Iowan age. If this hypothesis is correct, then thecharacteristic erosional topography of the area wasdeveloped during the Wisconsin stages when thisarea was an ice-free island between the Patricianand Keewatin lobes.

PLATE 20.Map of the Gravel Pit and vicinity.


Relative Age of the Till of the West Union AreaThe relatively early deposition of the till near

West Union compared to the till of the Altamont-Gary moraines to the west is shown not only by theextensive modification of the original glacialtopography but by the comparatively deep soil andconsiderable weathering of the till. The top soil (“A”horizon) is black or brown-black and generally 10to 12 inches deep. The “B” horizon is a clayey mass,brownish yellow in color, and from 2 to 3 feet thick.The original character of the till has disappeared.Limestone pebbles are absent. Only stones ofdurable material such as quartz, quartzite and fine-grained granite remain, except for a few boulders

of coarse granite which have obviously undergonemuch decomposition. Calcium carbonate occurs inlittle veins and soft, minute nodules. Below the “B”horizon and merging with it lies the original till. Itis not wholly fresh but has a marked yellow color.Basic igneous rocks and some of the limestonepebbles are decomposed. Limonite occurs aroundsome of the pebbles and in seams. The impositionof lime on a lower and earlier deposit of limonite iseven more marked in soils developed on gravel. Ithas been noted already with regard to the WestUnion gravel, but it is general in the gravel pits ofthe locality.

Here, as in other parts ofsouthwestern Minnesota,lime accumulation in thesubsoil seems to be normalto the present climate. Inother words, these soils areof the “pedocal” type andindicate relative aridity. Thelimonite accumulation,which is now beingdisplaced, points to a time inthe past when the soils wereof the “pedalfer” type. Thisrelationship seems to indicatea relatively recent change inclimate from a more humidto a more arid type. Theseverity of the recent droughtand the types of prairievegetation present in theregion indicate the kind ofaridity involved.

The general aspect of thesoil on both till and gravel inthe Vest Union area is unlikethat of the areas of the lateWisconsin moraines of theAltamont-Gary series. Therethe humus soil as developedon till is generally thinner.The “B” horizon is hardlynoticeable, and the till isfresher. The color is light

PLATE 21.No. (1) Diagrammatic section showing relation of West Union

gravel to till and gray gravel in Frasers Pit.No. (2) Relation of till upland to masses of gravel embodied in

the till.No. (3) Cross-section of the Sauk River depression.


yellow to whitish. Limestone pebbles are numerousclose to the base of the humus soil.

Observations by us in the till plains mapped byLeverett5 as of Iowan and Kansan age indicate ageneral similarity in the type and degree of soildevelopment to that in the West Union area. In theIowan area south of Pipestone, Minn., thetopography is somewhat similar to that at WestUnion in that a few enclosed depressions andirregular hills remain as remnants of the originaltopography. In the area of the Kansan drift, alloriginal glacial topography appears to have beendestroyed.

Notable among the erosional features of the tillof the West Union area is the lack of boulder fields.The extensive decomposition and disintegration ofthe till is facilitated by its original character. It hasa high clay content and contains many limestonefragments of all sizes. Consequently, on weathering,large quantities of fine mud are produced whichcan be transported on low gradients. The limestonenot only provides material that can be easily carriedoff in solution but as the pebbles disappear,settlement and disruption take place. Thuscirculation of the soil waters is facilitated anddecomposition of more durable stones and bouldersis promoted. For these reasons an erosionaltopography, testifying to a considerable removalof till, amounting in places to at least 100 feet, canexist without accumulation of a continuous surfacelayer of boulders. Gravel is resistant to the processesof weathering and slope-wash because of its lowsurface run-off. Hence the included masses ofgravel, exposed in existing gravel pits, are foundas hills or on hill-tops.

Not only does the till suffer rapid erosion underexisting conditions but it has been subjected to theforces of erosion and weathering characteristic ofseveral differing climates during the progress of lateglacial time. The more arid tended to break up thegranites and related rocks, while the more humidtended to reduce the limestone and basic igneousrocks.

Evidence of intense frost action when the icesheets stood to the west on the site of the nearby

Altamont moraine has not been found, but part ofthe total erosion may be due to this process. Incentral Germany, periglacial frost action6 has beenfound to be of considerable importance in preparingthe surface for the easy removal of material by thebetter known erosive processes. It is particularlyeffective when the ice masses are in close proximityand of decreasing importance as the ice retreatsand the climate becomes more and more equable.

The original enclosed depressions of the moraineeither now hold or once held small ponds or lakes.The waves of these water bodies have tended toenlarge the area of the depressions and shallow thebottoms. A rounded form has in many places beendeveloped.

Age of the West Union GravelThe existence of the West Union gravel as a

formation separate and distinct from the underlyingtill and gravel is uncertain as only one outcrop otherthan Fraser’s pit has yet been found. This outcropis in Sec. 10, T. 127 N. R. 36 W. 4 miles east (Plate19). The distinctive character of this coarse, rubblygravel and the presence of an unconformityseparating it from the underlying material leads tothe assumption that it is a separate formationyounger than the underlying till and its includedgravel. A long period of stream erosion after thedeposition of the till and prior to the incision of thevalleys in which the 20 and 30 foot terraces occurmust have taken place. During this interval therewould be ample opportunity for large streams toform which would be able to deposit such aformation as the West Union gravel at elevationsof about 1310 to 1320 feet. Adjacent to Sauk Riveran erosional plain is very well developed at thiselevation, and the assumption that it was developedby an extensive stream system seems almostinevitable. Such a stream system could be attributedto some part of late Wisconsin time. It must,however, have been earlier than the relatively lateglacial spillway that runs north and south throughthe towns of Long Prairie and Sank Center as thefresh and little weathered gravel in this system restsagainst the till at levels below 1310 feet. The relationof the terraced valley of Sauk River and those of


Ashley River and Silver Creek to the spillway isnot wholly clear, but apparently these valleys arecut into the gravel of the spillway and must thereforebe much younger.

Unfortunately for the hypothesis that the WestUnion gravel was deposited by a stream systemresponsible in part for the erosional topography ofthe local till plains, the gravel does not seem to bewidely distributed. Except for the ridge just westof Fraser’s pit only one other outcrop has beenfound. It is impossible to state dogmatically, on thebasis of these outcrops, that a distinct and separateformation exists. In default of other outcrops, whichfurther investigation may reveal, anotherexplanation for this gravel must be sought. It ispossible that the West Union gravel is only locallyunconformable and that it is part of the till masslike the underlying gray gravel. Under this secondhypothesis, the two known areas of outcrop wouldbecome only parts of gravel masses included in theextensive till mass. Following this viewpoint, whichhowever seems unlikely, the West Union gravelwould be of the same age as the till within which itlies.

Relation of the Skeleton to theWest Union Gravel

The skeleton found in the West Union gravelappears, on the face of the evidence, to becontemporaneous with the gravel. If the gravel ispart of a stream deposit later than the underlyingtill, such a relation is tenable. The race of menrepresented by the skeleton would be no older thanothers postulated as inhabitants of the region.

If, on the other hand, the West Union gravel isof the same age as the till—a mere included massof gravel—it is of a date earlier than the Altamont-Gary system of moraines, which are Wisconsin, and

might be as old as the Iowan. The present trend isto consider the Iowan as the first extension of theWisconsin ice, but even such relative antiquityseems excessive. If the West Union gravel is so old,it seems likely that the skeleton is younger than thegravel, in fact, much younger. It must, in that case,have been placed in the gravel as a burial long afterthe deposition of the gravel and under such aninterpretation might be of no greater age than thelimonitic cement in the gravel.

The results of the investigation, here presented,are disappointing because of the failure to obtainconclusive evidence of the geologic age of the WestUnion gravel. Nor are the circumstances of theentombment of the skeleton in the gravel entirelyclarified. However, the skeleton by reason of thedepth of occurrence and the limonitic gravel in theskull seems to have a considerable antiquity. Itshould be considered as a possible representativeof one of the earlier races of Minnesota.

Geological Museum, West Union,Harvard University, Minnesota.Cambridge, Mass.

1. Jenks, A. E., Minnesota’s Browns Valley Man andAssociated Burial Artifacts, American AnthropologicalAss’n., Mem. Vol. 49, 1937.

2. Leverett, Frank, Quaternary geology of Minnesota andparts of adjacent states: U. S. Geological Survey, Prof. Paper161, PI. 2, 1932.

3. Idem, p. 62.

4. Idem, p. 63.

5. Leverett, Frank supra.

6. Kessler, Paul, Das Eiszeitliche Klima in nicht vereistenGebieten: Stuttgart, 1925.


The Skeletal PartsThe skeleton of the Sauk Valley man is in an

excellent state of preservation as regards bonestructure. Due to its having been dug out of thegravel pit by laborers with no training in the art ofremoving skeletal material, many of the bones werebroken and many of the smaller fragments as wellas many of the minor bones were overlooked andlost.

The cranial vault was found whole, except thatparts of both zygomatic processes of the temporalbones, and both pterygoid processes of the sphenoidwere missing. The upper portions of the nasal bonesand of the nasal process of the right maxilla areattached to the nasal process of the frontal bone.See Plate 22, No. 2. Three additional fragments ofthe face are present. The first includes the rightmalar bone complete and attached to the majorportion of the right maxilla. The latter lacks mostof the palatal process and the anterior portion ofthe alveolar process, but the sockets for the thirdand second molars are complete, and the lateralportion of the sockets for the first molar, thepremolars and the cuspid are present, though noneof the teeth. The lower part of the nasal process ofthis maxilla is part of the fragment and contacts theupper part of the process which is attached to thefrontal, completing this process. Hence the lateralmargin of the nasal aperture is present.

The second facial fragment includes thecomplete left malar to which is attached a part ofthe left maxilla. The latter lacks the palatal andalveolar process, and the nasal process is brokenoff so that no contact is made with the frontal bone.But the fragment does include the lateral margin ofthe nasal aperture.

The third facial fragment is a nearly completemandible. Both rami are broken off in much thesame manner, the break beginning on the anteriormargin at a point a little below the level of thebottom of the sigmoid notch and running obliquely

downward and backward. (See Plate 22, No. 1).The posterior margin of the right ramus is presentfor 29 mm. from gonion, and of the left for 28 mm.The second premolars are present, as are all of themolars except the right third molar. All of the othersare missing except that the root of the right lateralincisor is present in the socket.

The status of the bones of the skeleton otherthan the skull is as follows:

A. Shoulder girdle.1. Scapulae—both missing.2. Clavicles—both are present, but each has

both ends broken off.B. Trunk.

1. Vertebrae—two thoracic and one lumbarvertebrae are present, all others missing.

2. Ribs—ten short portions of rib and fourrib fragments are present.

3. Sternum—missingC. Pelvic girdle.

1. Innominate bones—a portion of eachinnominate bone is present. The right lacksthe posterior portion of the iliac crest, thelower part of the ischium and the pubis. Theleft has a nearly complete ischium and thepubis except for the pubic symphysis, butlacks nearly all of the upper portion of theilium.

2. Sacrum—missing.D. Upper extremities.

1. Humeri—both present and complete.2. Radii—most of the left radius is present

with the distal end broken off. Only a smallportion of the distal end of the right ispresent.

3. Ulnae—the proximal half of the left ulna ispresent. Only a small portion of the rightshaft from near the proximal end is present.

4. Bones of wrists and hands—all missing.E. Lower extremities.

1. Femora—both femora are present andvirtually complete.

SAUK VALLEY SKELETON

BY A. E. JENKS AND LLOYD A. WILFORD

Sauk Valley Skeleton 65

2. Patellae—both missing.3. Tibiae—the right tibia is complete. Of the

left tibia only a portion of the shaft fromthe mid-shaft area is present

4. Fibulae—the major portion of the rightfibula is present, including the distal end,with the proximal end missing. The leftfibula is missing.

5. Bones of ankles and feet. The rightastragalus and the right first metatarsal arepresent and complete, all others missing.

Sex and AgeThe skeleton is unquestionably that of a male.

The brow ridges are very pronounced and the rimsof the orbits well rounded. The lines of muscleattachment on the skull are in strong relief with thesupra-mastoid crests very pronounced. Themastoids are large. The angle of the great sciaticnotch of the innominate bone is sharp. The meansagittal diameter of the heads of the humeri is 43.9mm.; the mean transverse diameter is 43.5 mm. Themean maximum diameter of the heads of the femorais 47.0 mm. These diameters are in the male class.

The skeleton is that of a middle aged adult. Allof the epiphyses of the long bones and innominatebones have united. No aid in determining the agecan be had from the scapulae and the pubicsymphysis, which are missing. The teeth show ahigh degree of wear, the dentine everywhereexposed but with no involvement of the pulpcavities. The sagittal suture shows partialobliteration except near lambda and bregma. Theobliteration is greatest in the region of obelion butis not complete there. The coronal suture isobliterated from stephanion downward on the leftside only. There is some obliteration of all thesutures in the region of the left asterion, and theoccipito-mastoid sutures are both obliterated.Elsewhere there is little evidence of obliteration.

The SkullThe principal measurements and indices of the

skull follow. In this table a single asterisk denotesan estimate made necessary by the fact that a pointor points involved in the measurement are missing;

a double asterisk denotes a measurement in whicha possible error of reconstruction is involved.

The Cranial Vault1. Maximum length --------------- 186 mm.2. Maximum breadth ------------- 138 mm.3. Cephalic index ------------------ 74.24. Basion-bregma height --------- 137 mm.5. Height-length index ------------ 73.36. Height-breadth index----------- 98.67. Hrdlicka’s mean height index - 84.08. Cranial module ----------------- 154.39. Auricular height --------------- 111.5 mm.

10. Auricular height-length index - 59.611. Length of skull base

(nasion to basion) ------------- 101.5 mm.12. Average thickness of left

parietal above temporo-parietal suture --------------------- 5.5 mm.

13. Minimum frontal diameter ---- 85.0 mm.14. Fronto-parietal index----------- 61.115. Mean diameter of

foramen magnum --------------- 33.6 mm.16. Maximum circumference

above (not over) browridges - 503 mm.17. Nasion—opisthion arc -------- 364 mm.

Frontal segment ----------- 118 mm.Parietal segment ----------- 117 mm.Occipital segment --------- 129 mm.

18. Transverse arc ----------------- 292 mm.

The Face19. Maximum facial diameter

(bi-zygomatic) ----------------- 142 mm. *20. Cranio-facial index ------------ 103 *21. Zygo-frontal index ------------- 59.9 *22. Total facial height

(nasion to menton) ------------ 115 mm. *23. Total facial index --------------- 80.9 *24. Upper facial height

(nasion to prosthion) ----------- 71 mm. *25. Upper facial index -------------- 50.0 *26. Orbital height— right ---------- 33.5 mm.

left ------------ 33.0 mm. **27. Orbital breadth (dacryon)—

right ---------- 41.8 mm.


28. Orbital breadth (lacrimale)—right ---------- 41.0 mm. *left ------------ 41.0 mm. *

29. Orbital index (lacrimale)—right ---------- 81.7 *left ------------ 80.5 **

30. Interorbital breadth(lacrimale to la.) ---------------- 22 mm.

31. Biorbital breadth --------------- 100.5 mm.32. Interorbital index --------------- 21.933. Nasal height --------------------- 58.0 mm. *34. Nasal breadth ------------------- 27.0 mm. **35. Nasal index ---------------------- 46.5 *36. Nasalia—upper breadth ------- 11.6 mm.37. Condylo-symphysial length--- 111.0 mm. **38. Mandibular body length ------- 87.0 mm.39. Bicondylar width -------------- 131 mm. **40. Mandibular index --------------- 84.7 *41. Height of symphysis ------------ 34 mm.42. Bigonial width ----------------- 122 mm.43. Breadth index of the mandible 93.1 *44. Zygo-gonial index -------------- 85.9 *45. Height of ramus

(above base line) ---------------- 70.0 mm. **46. Length of ramus

(gonion to condyle) ------------ 71.5 mm. **47. Minimum breadth of ramus --- 37.5 mm. *48. Index of ramus ------------------ 52.4 **49. Mean angle of lower jaw ----- 114°50. Total facial angle --------------- 82°

The Skull As A WholeIn norma verticalis the shape of the skull is most

like Sergi’s pentagonoid form. (See Plate 23, No.2). In this aspect there are several notable features.The brow ridges are very prominent and theirexternal angles project outward from the skull in apronounced manner. The frontal immediately backof the brow ridges is very narrow so that there is amarked post orbital constriction. The zygomaticarches are so wide and the fore part of the skull soconstricted that the central portion of each archwould be clearly visible if present.

In norma occipitalis the skull is definitely of thehouse-shaped type, with nearly vertical sides. (SeePlate 23, No. 1). A sharp change of direction occursat the parietal bosses, the upper portions of the

parietals having the appearance of straight linesrunning inward and upward to form a flattened apexat the sagittal suture. In this aspect the mastoidsand the supra-mastoid crests are prominent

In norma lateralis the skull exhibits severalstriking features. (See Plate 22, No. 1). The verylarge malars, the large mandible and the high andapparently prognathous maxilla give the appearanceof a face very large relative to the cranial vault.The brow ridges and glabella are very prominentand their forward projection is the more notablesince the frontal bone behind them has a fair angleof slope. There is distinct lambdoid flattening. Thelower posterior contour is notable in that thejunction of the supreme nuchal lines lies high relativeto the Frankfort plane, the portion of the contourbelow this junction being represented by a nearlystraight line at an angle of 141° to the Frankfortplane. This line has a direction which is nearly atright angles to the contour line of the flattened areaabove lambda so that the area between lambda andthe supreme nuchal lines has a distinct rearwardprojection. The skull is seen definitely as an occipitaltype. The tuberculum linearum projects below inionas a prominent triangular process.

The sutures are notable for their complexity. Thecoronal suture below stephanion is simple, butabove stephanion, for half the distance to bregma,it is very tortuous. (See Plate 23, No. 2). In theregion of bregma it is much simpler, yet is of morethan average complexity for this region. The sagittalsuture is very complex. Throughout its length itconsists of transverse lines close together, whichare shortest at bregma and obelion and which reacha maximum transverse length of 14 mm. at themiddle of the suture. The width of this sutureflattens the apex of the rooflike vault. The lambdoidsuture is very tortuous from lambda to a point about20 mm. above asterion. It has the appearance of averitable maze with an extreme width of 16 mm.An interesting feature of this suture is that in thelower one-half of its course on each side of theskull the posterior border of the parietal bone formspart of one of the temporal lines, and is so thickenedas to project over the suture with a rounded,infolded edge. (See Plate 23, No. 1). A similar


condition is to be found in two other stronglymuscled male crania from this area, though in alesser degree. The form of the sutures at pterion isthat of a narrow “K”.

The lower temporal line is very strongly definedon the frontal and sharply sets off the temporalfossa. (See Plate 22, No. 1). It is poorly defined onthe parietal, passing immediately below the apexof the boss to curve around to the supra-mastoidcrest, where it is very pronounced. The uppertemporal line is well defined on the frontal, runningabout 10 mm. medially from the lower line. It iswell defined on the parietal passing about 16 mm.inward from the apex of the boss, at which point itis 23 mm. above the lower line and 43 mm. fromthe sagittal line of the skull. It continues to thelambdoid suture paralleling the sagittal suture. Athird line begins on the apex of the boss, and, passingtoward the lambdoid suture curved downward andgains prominence, then becomes the prominentinfolded posterior border of the parietal alreadynoted.

The cephalic index of 74.2 is similar to that ofthe Browns Valley Man’s index of 73.5. Both aredolichocephalic in contrast to the more recentIndian population of the area, 29 male skulls frommounds in the state having a mean index of 77.3.

The height-length index of 73.3 is very close tothat of the Browns Valley Man whose index is 73.6.Both are higher than the mean index of 22 malecrania from Minnesota mounds which is 71.7. Theheight difference between the Sauk Valley andBrowns Valley skulls and the mounds crania isshown more strongly in the height-breadth indexthan in the height-length index. The height-breadthindex of the Lake Guerney skull is 98.6 and that ofthe Browns Valley skull 100, whereas the meanindex for the 22 male crania from Minnesotamounds is 91.6.

The auricular height of 111.5 mm. is very lowand in interesting contrast to the good basion-bregma height of 137 mm. The difference in thetwo height measurements is 25.5 mm. Martin1 gives26 mm. as the maximum difference between these

PLATE 22.No. (1) Sauk Valley Skull, lateral view. No. (2) Sauk Valley Skull, frontal view.


two measurements. He states that a wide differencein these measurements is characteristic of suchgroups as the Maori, Papuans, and Old Egyptians,in contrast to the Swiss among whom the differencebetween the two measurements is relatively small.He adds that one of the factors affecting thedifference in the two height measurements is theinclination of the plane of the foramen magnum.The Sauk Valley skull is evidence of the truth ofthe last statement, because in this skull the plane ofthe foramen magnum is actually a positive angle of1.5° relative to the Frankfort plane.

The auricular height-length index of 59.6 is verylow because of the low auricular height. In Martin’stable of this index2 only the Merovingian (male andfemale together) and the Oseberg skulls (female)have lower indices.

The cranial module, based on the length, breadthand basion-bregma height, is 154.3 which is aboutthe average size of Hrdlicka’s Siouan and Algonkinmale crania,3 but the cranial capacity, computed bythe Lee-Pearson formula, based on length, breadthand auricular height is only 1404. cc. This figure is

considerably below the average for the Siouan andAlgonkin crania3 due to the low auricular height.

The maximum frontal diameter of 85 mm. is oneof the outstanding features of the skull. The lowestracial mean listed by Martin4 is that of the diminutiveVedda with 91 mm., the world average being about95 mm. The fronto-parietal index of 61.1 is alsolower than any racial mean given by Martin,5 in spiteof the fact that this skull is dolichocephalic and thatall of the low racial means are found inbrachycephalic groups. Martin’s fronto-biorbitalindex expresses the relation between the minimumfrontal breadth and the diameter between the fronto-malar-temporale points, the outer points of thefronto-malar sutures. His group means6 show aregular series ranging upward from the anthropoidsto Europeans. The anthropoids range from 55.3 to72.5; the Ambitle index is 86.5; Paltacalo Indians,87.1; natives of the west coast of South NewIreland, 87.4; Eskimo, 89.8; Maori, 91.0; Bavarians,95.7; and Ainu, 96.2. The Sauk Valley Man’s indexis 84.5, a primitive index.

PLATE 23.No. (1) Sauk Valley Skull, occipital view. No. (2) Sauk Valley Skull, vertical view.


The maximum circumference of 503 mm. isrelatively low with reference to other racial groups,and also with reference to the length and widthmeasurements. The narrow frontal and ratherpointed occiput are both factors in the lowmeasurement. The sagittal arc is 364 mm., a ratherlow measurement, but quite in accord with thoseof Indian groups generally. This arc is, however,significant in the division of its three segments, forwhile the frontal and parietal segments are aboutequal, the occipital segment is much longer thaneither.

The predominance of the occipital segment is aprimitive trait in that in modern races this segmentis the shortest of the three, and in the gorilla andorangutan skulls the occipital segment exceeds theparietal. This predominance of the occipital segmentis found in the late glacial age Minnesota Man,7

though in a less marked degree than in the skullunder discussion. Martin’s table of racial meansshows that the occipital segment comprises from31.1 per cent to 32.1 per cent of the sagittal arc inall groups listed except the Eskimo8 with apercentage of 32.5. In contrast, the Minnesota Manhas a percentage of 34.3 and the Sauk Valley Man35.4.

The transverse arc of the skull is low primarilybecause of the low auricular height.

Specific Areas of the Cranial VaultThe Frontal: As already stated the brow ridges

and glabella are very pronounced, of the typedesignated by Hooton as the modem torus type.There is a deep nasion depression, with thesuggestion of a wide, tortuous metopic suture fromnasion to glabella. The forehead is narrow and low,but the angle of slope, though more sloping thannormal, is not extreme. The bosses are sub-submedium in development and are overshadowedby a sagittal crest which in the region of metopionis broad and prominent. The very narrow, minimumfrontal diameter and the striking lateral extensionof the orbital border has already been discussed.

The Parietal: The forward part of the parietalhas a definite sagittal elevation, which is, however,

much flattened by the wide suture. There is no post-coronoid depression. The bosses are above averageprominence for a male. Across the bosses theparietal area is of average fullness but in its forwardpart is of submedium width. (See Plate 23, No. 2).There is only one foramen at obelion. This is at theleft of the sagittal suture and above average in size.The index expressing the length of the inferiormargin relative to the length of the sagittal marginis 85.5. This is a high and primitive index for adolichocephalic skull, though not so primitive asthe index of the Minnesota Man, which is 91.6.9

The Temporal Area: The temporal region isnotable for the pronounced supra-mastoid crest andthe large mastoids. The left mastoid has a clearlymarked external petro-squamous suture 32 mm. inlength. This suture is present on the right mastoidbut only for a short distance near the tip.

The length-breadth index of the squamousportion is 60.0 indicating a long, narrow bone. Suchan index is primitive and below that of theMinnesota Man, whose index is 61.5. Both of theseare considerably below the European average andclose to the Australian.

The Occipital Area: The curve of the occiput isone of its most striking features and has alreadybeen partially discussed. The low vaulted skull, withits long occipital arc, lambdoid flattening and thehigh angle of its lower posterior contour, presentsa projecting occiput, narrow and low. Fromopisthion the mid-line of the skull runs backwardand upward in a nearly straight line to the junctionof the supreme curved lines. The angle made bythe chord between these points with the Frankfortplane is 141°. The first major change of directionoccurs at the junction of the supreme lines. A secondmajor change of direction occurs at a point whichis 23 mm. above the junction of the supreme linesand 30 mm. below lambda. The portion of thesagittal line of the occiput between this point andthe junction of the supreme lines is nearly vertical.(See Plate 22, No. 1). This portion represents theextreme backward extension of the skull in theFrankfort plane and also the height of the bun-likeprojection.


From the point mentioned as that of the secondmajor change of direction, the contour turnsforward and upward to lambda. The chordmeasurement from opisthion to the junction of thesupreme lines is 70 mm. and the arc length 73 mm.,showing how closely this arc approaches a straightline, and how very little the inferior and superiornuchal lines affect the direction of the sagittal lineof the occiput. The observed high degree ofcurvature of the occiput from opisthion to lambdais affirmed in the chord index. The arc length is129 mm., and the chord length 104 mm., with aresulting index of curvature of 80.6. This low figurerepresents a high degree of curvature as shown fromMartin’s racial table,10 in which the racial means ofthis index range from 81.2 to 83.6. The angle of141° made by the chord from opisthion to thejunction of the supreme lines with the Frankfortplane, shows a definitely downward and backwarddirection of the nuchal plane similar to that foundin Neanderthaloid skulls and that of MinnesotaMan.11

The inferior nuchal lines are well defined butlack prominence and occasion no change ofdirection in the contour of the skull. The superiorlines are strongly defined by the deep fossae belowthem, and a minor change of direction occurs atthese lines. The supreme lines rise high on theocciput. (See Plate 23, No. 1). They are alsostrongly defined and run parallel to the superiorlines. Between the superior and supreme lines is anelevated area in the form of a doubly arched bandforming an occipital torus across the bone. Thewidth of this torus at the mid-line of the bone, is 21mm. The high situation of the supreme lines ischaracteristic of many Indian and Eskimo skulls,and when these lines are strongly defined, the samewide band-like torus extending across the skullresults. The distance from inion to the junction ofthe supreme lines, 21 mm., is high as compared toEuropean skulls, but the same measurement on theMinnesota Man skull is 21 mm., on the BrownsValley skull 18.5 mm., and on three Eskimo skullsloaned by Peabody Museum of Cambridge is 23.3mm., 23.5 mm. and 20.0 mm., respectively.

At inion, the union of the superior nuchal lines,there is a prominent tuberculum linearum, atriangular roughened process which extendsdownward from inion for a distance of 12 mm. Theexternal occipital protuberance at the union of thesupreme lines has little elevation above the rest ofthe torus and is defined only by the presence belowit, and above the inion point, of a roughened fossa.This fossa clearly serves as one of the chief pointsof attachment for the ligamentum nuchae of thetrapezius muscle. The external occipital crest is asharp ridge from opisthion to the inferior lines,above which it is a prominent elevation for 11 mm.to the tip of the prominent tuberculum linearumdescribed above.

The inion point lies 4 mm. below the Frankfortplane, yet the inion-opisthion chord is 50 mm., along chord according to Martin’s table12 showingracial means ranging from 36.3 to 45.7 mm. Thehigh measurement of the chord is probably due totwo factors; the lack of curvature between the inionand opisthion, and the extension of the skull belowthe Frankfort plane as shown in the wide differencebetween the basion-bregma and the auricularheights.

Region of the Skull Base: Perhaps the mostprominent feature of the skull base is thepronounced elevation of the condyles. Between theanterior ends of the condyles the forward wall ofthe foramen magnum also has a pronouncedelevation and appears as a sharp ridge. Thisprominence of the basion region is partiallyresponsible for the long basion-bregmameasurement relative to auricular height, and alsofor the plane of the foramen magnum, which, asstated previously has a positive angle of 1.5°. Apositive angle denotes a foramen magnum directeddownward and backward and is characteristic ofthe anthropoid apes and Neanderthaloids. Anegative angle denotes a foramen magnum directeddownward and forward and is characteristic of allgroups of modern man, though positive angles arefound in individuals of both the Negroid andMongoloid groups.13 It is thus seen as a primitivecondition. The shape of the foramen magnum isalso significant. The mean diameter of this opening


is 34.1, a figure only a little above average. Thelength is 40.0 mm. and the width 28.3 mm., with aresulting index of 70.7. A low index indicates a longnarrow opening. Martin’s table14 shows that in thisindex modern racial means range from 79.4 to 88.8for males. He characterizes as extraordinary the LaChapelle-aux-Saints index of 65.2. Our specimenis seen to be closer to this last index than to thenearest modem mean; hence to be primitive in thisrespect. The jugular processes are pronounced andthe styloid processes above average. The pharyngealtubercle is present and. of medium prominence.

There are two retro-mastoid foramena on eachside. Three of these are of average size but one ofthe two on the right side is above average. (SeePlate 23, No. 1). There is one large post-condylarforamen on the left side, none on the right. Theanterior condylar foramena are large. The jugularforamena (posterior lacerate foramena) are largerthan average, and of about equal size. The medianlacerate foramena are of average size.

The glenoid fossae are long, deep and narrow,with well developed articular eminences and post-glenoid processes. This type of glenoid fossa andthe prominent brow ridges are two features thatdifferentiate this skull from Eskimo skulls, whichcharacteristically have very poorly developed browridges and shallow, wide glenoid fossae. This samedistinction holds true between the Eskimo andIndians generally.

The FaceThe Face as a Whole: In contrast to the

exceptionally complete and well preserved cranialvault, the face is rather fragmentary. (See Plate 22,No. 2). The loss of the medial portions of themaxillae, make many measurements impossible, andsome others can only be estimates with a probabilityof error. Lacking any upper teeth, and both rami ofthe mandible, the exact position of the mandiblewith reference to the skull and face is uncertain.Hence exact measurements are possible for thecranial vault, but not for the face.

The face is large in all respects. The bizygomaticdiameter of 142 mm. is so large that it definitely

indicates that this skull belongs to the Mongoloidgroup. The cranio-facial index of 103 shows theface to be broader than the cranial vault andaccounts for the visibility of the zygomatic archwhen the skull is viewed in norma verticalis. Thislast is an anthropoid characteristic, hence a primitivefeature. The zygo-frontal index expressing therelationship between the facial width and theminimum frontal breadth is important, for theMongoloids as a group are distinguished fromWhites and Negroids by their low zygo-frontalindices. This index in the skull under considerationis 59.9, an extremely low index, which is a primitivefeature, and at the same time is strong evidence ofthe Mongoloid affinity.

The lack of the prosthion point makes itnecessary to estimate the upper facial height, whichis placed at 75 mm., a close estimate, with the actuallength likely to be slightly greater rather than slightlyless than this figure. This represents a long upperface, such as is found only in Mongoloid means.The upper facial index of 52.8 is about averagebecause the face is broad as well as long. The totalfacial length is estimated at 120 mm., which is nottoo high, since the estimated upper facial length is75 mm., the actual symphysial height of the jaw is34 mm., and an estimated height of 15 mm. forteeth would give 124 mm., though the chordmeasurement from nasion to menton is always alittle less than the sum of the three factors. This isalso a high measurement, but the total facial indexof 84.6 is low because of the width.

From the portion of the alveolar process of theright maxilla that is present, the total facial angle isestimated at 82°. This shows less prognathism thanNegroids generally and more than mostMongoloids. The alveolar prognathism cannot beestimated.

Malars and Maxillae: The malars and maxillaeare very large, robust bones. Each is high from thelower border of the orbit to the infrazygomatic crestand the maxilla is high from the orbital border tothe alveolar border. Both the lateral and forwardprojections of the malars are pronounced. Theinfrazygomatic crest is of the type Oetteking15

characterizes as the shallow curve. These he finds


to be associated with shallow canine fossae and highalveolar processes. This correlation is perfect in thisspecimen for there is no canine fossa, the face beingvery full, and the high alveolar process is probablythe principal factor in the great facial length. It is inthis respect that this skull differs most from theBrowns Valley skull, the latter having a deeplycurved infrazygomatic crest, a deep canine fossaand low alveolar process which gives it a very lowface and facial index.

The Orbits: The orbits are wide and low and theoutward and downward slope is less than average.The orbital indices, based on the lacrimale widthare right 81.7 and left 80.5, both very low indices,particularly among the Mongoloids. The interorbitalbreadth measured between the lacrimale points is22 mm., a low measurement.16 The interorbital indexis also very low.17.

The Nose: Enough of the nasal or frontalprocesses of the maxillae are present so that thewidth of the nose can be fairly accurately determinedand a good estimate made of its length. Themeasurement of the length is 58.0 mm., and of thebreadth is 27.0 mm. This is a long nose, correlatedwith the long face. The index is 46.5, which is atthe upper range of leptorrhiny. Leptorrhine nosesare not common among modern Indians, but arecharacteristic of the Eskimo and certain Indiangroups with marginal distribution along the Atlanticand Pacific coasts. Both the Minnesota Man skulland the Browns Valley skull have leptorrhine noses,so that this condition, so far as Indians areconcerned, seems to be a trait of the earlierpopulation.

Only a short portion of the upper end of the nasalbones is present The upper breadth of the nasalia is11.6 mm. The bridge has a good average height, sothat again this skull is distinguished from Eskimocrania with narrow flat nasalia. The high bridgednose also distinguishes this skull and that ofAmerican Indians generally from the flat noses ofthe Mongols proper.

The Mandible: The mandible of many Indianmale crania is massive in contrast to that of modernwhite crania. But even compared to Indian

mandibles the Sauk Valley jaw is distinguished byits size, especially in the great thickness of the bodyand the extreme bigonial diameter. The body is long,the measurement from the chin to the mid-point ofthe line connecting the gonia being 87.0 mm. Thisis in strong contrast to the wide, short BrownsValley jaw, the body length of which is only 71.5mm. The ramus angle of the jaw cannot be directlymeasured, but observation of the stubs of the ramiindicates definitely that that angle is very low. Areconstruction of the rami to fit the glenoid fossaeand place the jaw in proper position beneath thetwo complete sockets for the right second and thirdmolars of the upper jaw gives an estimated condylo-symphysial length of 111 mm., a bicondylar widthof 131 mm., and a ramus angle of 105° (the anglemeasured on the basal plane). Indian and Eskimojaws tend to have lower ramus angles than Whitesand Negroids; hence have shorter condylo-symphysial lengths relative to the body lengths. Acondylo-symphysial length of 111 mm. is seen fromMartin’s table18 to be relatively long; hence therelative length of the body would be even greater.Mongoloids characteristically have relatively widepalates and mandibles correlated with great facialbreadth. The mandibular index of our specimen is84.7. This is a low index, showing that though thejaw is relatively long, its relative width is evengreater. Martin’s table18 shows that the Australianexceeds other modern groups in both the condylo-symphysial length and the bicondylar width of themandible with mean measurements of 112 mm. and122 mm., respectively, but this table does notinclude Eskimos nor Indians other than Peruvians.Fourteen male mandibles from Minnesota moundshave a mean condylo-symphysial length of 108.7mm., a mean bicondylar width of 126.8 mm., and amean index of 85.7. Hence the Indian jaw is aboutas large as the Australian jaw, exceeding the latterin width about as much as the Australian jawexceeds it in length. Our specimen is seen to havemuch the same mandibular index as the moundsIndians, exceeding the latter in both dimensions.

The bigonial width of the Sauk Valley jaw isoutstanding. Martin19 gives modern racial meansranging from 93 mm. to 103 mm., the Le Moustierjaw as 88 mm., and the Mauer jaw as 110 mm. The


Browns Valley mandible was notable for its verywide bigonial diameter of 118 mm., but the SaukValley jaw exceeds that by 4 mm. Probably theEskimo and northern Indian jaws would exceed 103mm. in their mean bigonial diameter. Nine mandiblesfrom Minnesota mounds have a mean bigonialdiameter of 107 mm., and Hrdlicka’s 8 maleMunsee20 have a mean diameter of 105 mm. A maleEskimo loaned by the Peabody Museum atCambridge has a bigonial diameter of 115 mm. andOetteking21 lists one male Eskimo with a diameterof 109 mm. The bigonial breadth relative to the 1bicondylar breadth gives the very high index of 93.1.The thickness of the body of the mandible is alsooutstanding. Measured by Hrdlicka’s method22 thebody at the left second molar is 21.0 mm. thick.Measured in the same way the cast of the Mauerjaw has a thickness of 19.2 mm. Hrdlicka’s Munseemales22 have a mean thickness of 15 mm., and rangefrom 13 mm. to 18 mm. At the chin and at the goniathe body of the Lake Guerney jaw is much thickerthan that of the Mauer mandible. The symphysialheight of 34 mm. is also high. The body of themandible is thus seen as large in all dimensions, atruly massive jaw.

The rami are relatively less robust than thecorpus. The estimated minimum breadth of theramus is 37.5 mm., with an index of 52.4, based onan estimated ramus length of 71.5 mm. The widthmeasurement is above average, but the index islower than that of most modern primitive groups.

The index is considerably less than that of theMinnesota Man and Eskimos generally, but isnotably higher than that of Browns Valley man.

The chin formation is modern. It is extremelythick and heavy with a prominent externalprojection. The genial tubercles are well developedand there is a no genial pit or fossa.

The gonial region is also very thick and heavy.Both gonia are very much thickened, especially onthe inside, and both internally and externally thesurface is strongly ridged. Powerful musculature issuggested here.

The Teeth: As already noted, only 7 teeth werefound, all in the lower jaw. These are the two secondpremolars and all the molars except the right thirdmolar. All are much worn so that the crown patternsare nearly effaced. The teeth are large and notablein the comparative lack of reduction of the secondand third molars. The following table of the meancrown diameters of the lower molars of thisspecimen compared with those of Browns ValleyMan, Minnesota Man and Dewey’s23 modernaverage is instructive.

It is seen that the crowns of the Sauk Valleymolars are about equal in size to those of theBrowns Valley teeth, larger than Dewey’s means,and smaller than those of Minnesota Man. Dewey’smeans show that though the mesio-distal diametersof the crowns of all three lower molars haveundergone an absolute reduction, the second and

Mesio-distal Labio-lingualTable: Diameter Diameter

Lower molars M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3Dewey’s mean 11.2 10.7 10.7 10.3 10.1 9.8Minnesota Man 12.9 12.1 12.95 12.3 12.1 11.7Browns Valley Man 11.6 11.2 11.1 12.2 11.5 11.0Sauk Valley Man 11.3 11.7 11.3 11.7 11.4 10.7

Crown ModuleLower molars M1 M2 M3

Dewey’s mean 10.7 10.4 10.2Minnesota Man 12.6 12.1 12.3Browns Valley Man 11.9 11.3 11.0Sauk Valley Man 11.5 11.5 11.0


third molars have suffered a greater reduction thanthe first. The Sauk Valley teeth do not exhibit thelatter condition since in the mesio-distal diameterthe second molar exceeds the first, while the thirdmolar equals the first. This relative lack of reductionof the second and third molars is accepted as aprimitive characteristic.

The Long BonesThe Humerus: Both humeri of this skeleton are

complete and in almost perfect condition. Themeasurements and indices of these follow:

Measurements and Indices of the Humeri

Table: Right LeftMaximum length ------------ 320 mm. 320 mm.Major diameter at mid-shaft -24.7mm. 22.5mm.Minor diameter at mid-shaft -17.8mm. 15.9mm.Index----------------------------72.1 70.7Maximum diameter

at mid-shaft ----------------25.0mm. 23.1mm.Minimum diameter

at mid-shaft ----------------17.8mm. 15.9mm.Index----------------------------71.2 68.8Minimum circumference -----67.0mm. 62.0mm.Length-thickness index -------20.9 19.4Circumference of head ----- 142 mm. 134 mm.Sagittal diameter of head ----44.7mm. 43.1mm.Transverse diameter of head-45.0mm. 42.0mm.Index of diameters of head 100.7 97.4Transverse upper diameter---50.9mm. 49.5mm.Maximum epicondylar

breadth ----------------------64.0mm. 63.6mm.

Both humeri have strongly marked lines ofmuscle attachment. The tuberosities are not largebut are rather angular, the lesser tuberosity beingespecially sharply defined. From the latter tuberositya very prominent crest, the crista tuberculi minoris,extends downward for about 60 mm., the crestbeing more prominent and more sharply definedon the left humerus than on the right. The bicipitalgroove is deep and extends downward to the endof the crista tuberculi minoris. The pectoral ridgeis prominent. On the right humerus, this ridge has a

shallow fossa along its medial side, which fossa isstrongly defined by a sharp crest along its medialborder. This fossa is very much less pronouncedon the left humerus. The deltoid eminence is veryprominent on both bones. That of the left for adistance of 55 mm. upward from the mid-line ofthe bone is a distinct crest, about 8 mm. wide andsharply defined on each edge. “That of the right ismore extensive but less sharply defined. The spiro-muscular groove is well defined on the left humerus,but poorly defined on the right. Neither bone has asupra-condyloid process. Neither septum isperforated, the left being 2 mm. in thickness, andthe right 5 mm.

The greater angularity of the muscle ridges ofthe left humerus is probably due to the fact that it isa less robust bone, the right humerus exceeding itin every measurement except length. The length-thickness index indicates bones of averagerobusticity.

The most notable feature presented by themeasurements is the index of the diameters of thehead. The sagittal diameter is normally considerablylarger than the transverse diameter. Martin24 statesthat the normal range of this index in man is from90 to 95, but can vary from 88 to 98, giving anelliptical shape to the head. In anthropoids the headis nearly circular. In the gorilla and HomoNeanderthalensis the transverse diameter exceedsthe sagittal, while in La Chapelle-aux-Saints the twodiameters are equal. The indices of the heads of thehumeri of this specimen, 100.7 and 97.4respectively, are thus seen as primitive.

The indices of the mid-shaft show a pronouncedflattening or platybrachy. American Indianscharacteristically have very low indices, but ourspecimen is lower than the Indian average.

The Radius: As noted, the left radius is nearlycomplete, though the distal end is missing. The rightradius is only a short fragment from the distal end,but is greater than that portion of the left radiusthat is missing. Hence a fairly accurate estimate canbe made of the left radius. Some measurements ofthe left radius are as follows:


Maximum length (estimated) ---------- 258 mm.Least circumference below mid-shaft -- 41 mm.Length-thickness index

(based on maximum length) ---------- 15.9Transverse diameter at mid-shaft ------- 14.8 mm.Sagittal diameter at mid-shaft ----------- 11.7 mm.Index of diameters at mid-shaft --------- 79.0Radio-humeral index --------------------- 80.6

The radius is above average length, with thelength-thickness index about medium. The indexof the diameters at mid-shaft indicate a developmentof the medial crest above average. The mostimportant feature is the high radio-humeral index,a primitive index. The Negroid group as a wholehas a higher radio-humeral index than Mongoloidsand much higher than Whites, but many Indians—notably the Munsee25— have high indices.Minnesota Man also has a notably high index.26

The Femur: The femora are complete and innearly perfect condition. The principalmeasurements and indices follow.

Right LeftMaximum length -------------454 mm.459 mm.Bicondylar length ------------451 mm.454 mm.Mid.shaft diameter-

anterior-posterior ---------- 33 mm. 30.8mm.Mid-shaft diameter-lateral --- 27.5mm. 26.8mm.Pilastric index-

By Wilder-Martinmethod ---------------------120 114.9By Hooton-Hrdlickamethod ---------------------- 83.3 87.0

Robusticity index ------------- 13.4 12.7Circumference at mid-shaft -- 95.0mm. 90.0mm.Length-circumference index - 21.1 19.8Antero-posterior diameter

below lesser trochanter --- 25.5mm. 24.6mm.Lateral diameter below

lesser trochanter ----------- 35.0mm. 36.0mm.Index of platymeria ----------- 72.9 68.3Neck length (oblique

proximal breadth) --------- 88.0mm. 88.0mm.Index of neck ------------------ 19.5 19.4Vertical diameter of neck ---- 34.0mm. 32.5mm.

Sagittal diameter of neck ---- 30.0mm. 29.0mm.Index of diameters of neck -- 88.2 89.2Lower shaft diameter-

sagittal ---------------------- 33.0mm. 32.0mm.Lower shaft diameter-

transverse ------------------- 43.0mm. 40.0mm.Popliteal index----------------- 79 80Angle of torsion --------------- 18° 29°Maximum diameter

of the head ----------------- 47.0mm. 47.0mm.Humero-femoral index ------- 70.9 70.5

The femur is of good average length withrobusticity a little above average, and with verystrong musculature markings. The linea pectinea isweakly developed but the spiral line is stronglymarked. There is a pronounced linea aspera and apronounced gluteal crest. At its upper end, eachgluteal crest, especially that of the right, terminatesin an elevation that forms a moderately developedthird trochanter. A deep, well roughened glutealfossa follows the gluteal crest laterally, and is about40 mm. in length on each femur.

The pilastric index is very high (very low by theHrdlicka method) because of the highly developedpilaster. The index falls in with the means of thoseprimitive groups having the most highly developedpilasters, such as some Indian groups, the Eskimo,and some of the Negroid groups.

The index of platymeria is very low and in thisrespect the bone belongs with those groups havingthe greatest platymeria, the Polynesians and Indians.A high degree of platymeria is in general aMongoloid trait.

The angle of torsion is interesting because ofthe asymmetry of the right and left bones in thisrespect.

The Tibia: The right tibia is complete, but of theleft only a section from mid-shaft was recovered.The principal measurements and indices follow.

Right LeftLength (exclusive of

intercondylar spine) ------ 385 mm.Circumference at mid-shaft --- 92 mm.


Length-thickness index --------23.9Antero-posterior diameter

at mid-shaft -----------------31.0mm. 30.0 mmLateral diameter

at mid-shaft -----------------21.9mm. 21.8 mmIndex of mid-shaft

diameters --------------------70.7 72.7Antero-posterior diameter at

level of nutrient foramen --37.0mm.Lateral diameter at

level of nutrient foramen --26.5mm.Index of platycnemia ----------71.6Tibio-femoral index ------------85.4

The bone is sturdy with well developed margins.The popliteal line is pronounced and theinterosseous crest above average. The lateralsurface for some distance near mid-shaft is slightlyconcave.

The platycnemic index and the index of thediameters of the mid-shaft both show a well filledout bone which lacks the flatness usually found inIndian tibiae.

Martin’s range of the tibio-femoral index in malesis from 77 to 86.6. The white races have low indices,Negroids and many Mongoloids high indices. TheEskimo is rather low, the Indian high. Our specimenis thus seen to have a high and primitive index.

Stature: The living stature of our specimen asdetermined from Manouvrier’s table is 167.6 cm.or 66 inches. By the Lee-Pearson formula it is 167.0cm. or 65 3-4 inches. This stature is only a littleabove the average for males generally. The use ofthe table and formula shows strikingly the lengthof the long bones relative to the stature. Relativelythe longest bone is the radius, followed by the tibia,femur and humerus in that order. This sequenceaccounts for the very high radio-humeral index, andthe high tibio-femoral index. The long bones of theMinnesota Man exhibit exactly the same sequenceand comparable indices.

The Racial Type of the SkeletonThe great size and width of the malar bones alone

would indicate strongly that this individual was amember of the great Mongoloid branch of mankind.

Those characteristics of the skull which arefound in all Mongoloid groups are a high orbitalindex, a high index of the upper alveolar arch,shovel-shaped upper incisors, a high bi-zygomaticdiameter, a high zygo-frontal index, a lowinterorbital index, a high alveolar process of themaxilla, a shallow canine fossa, a shallow curve ofthe inferior zygomatic crest, and a forward jut ofthe malar bone. The index of the upper alveolararch and the shape of the upper incisors of ourspecimen cannot be known. In the other respectsMongoloid traits are exhibited except in the orbitalindex. The low orbital index is in part due to thepronounced brow ridges.

Within the Mongoloid group affiliations of ourspecimen clearly are with the Indians. In its lowcephalic and nasal indices, and pronounced browridges, it is very different from the Mongols proper.The large mastoids, deep glenoid fossa, heavy browridges and high bridged nose are very different fromthose features in Eskimo skulls. But prominent browridges, large mastoids, high bridged noses and deepglenoid fossae are characteristic of the skulls ofmany Indian groups. Low cephalic and nasal indicesare not characteristic of modern Indians generally,but are found in what are regarded as the earlierIndian groups of North America.

Primitive Features of the SkeletonThose characteristics of the Sauk Valley skeleton

that may be classified as primitive are as follows:

1. The cranial capacity is low.2. The auricular height is low.3. The skull in norma occipitalis is house-

shaped.4. The skull is an occipital type with a

projecting bun-shaped occiput.5. The occipital segment of the sagittal arc is

long relative to the parietal.6. The squamous margin of the parietal bone

is long relative to the sagittal margin.7. The temporal squama is relatively long.8. The supreme lines rise very high on the

occiput.9. The nuchal plane of the occiput is directed


in a more backward direction than isnormal in modern crania.

10.The plane of the foramen magnum ispositive.

11.The index of the diameters of the foramenmagnum is very low.

12.The mastoids have retained much of theexternal petrosquamous suture.

13.The upper temporal line lies high on thecranial vault.

14.The supra-mastoid crest is verypronounced.

15.The minimum frontal diameter is extremelylow.

16.The brow ridges are very prominent andof a modern torus type with pronouncedlateral extension.

17.The fronto-biorbital index is very low.18.The face is large relative to the cranial

vault.19.The malars are very wide and high and the

zygomatic arch is visible in normaverticalis.

20.The zygo-frontal index is very low.21.The infrazygomatic crest is shallowly

curved and is associated with a highalveolar process and a lack of canine fossa.

22.The mandible is massive, with an extremelythick body and an extremely wide bigonialdiameter.

23.The lower molars are relatively large andthe mesio-distal diameters of the secondmolars exceed those of the first molars.

24.The index of the diameters of the head ofthe humerus is very high.

25.The radio-humeral index is high.26.The tibio-femoral index is high.

In general skeletal features are rated as primitiveaccording to the degree that they vary from thecondition found in normal skeletons of the highlycivilized modern Europeans. The latter are thustaken as the standard of comparison, and asrepresenting the most advanced human type. Onthis basis nearly all non-European peoples are

primitive in varying gradations. This is true of theAmerican aborigines so in comparing the SaukValley skeleton with the modern Indians it must beborne in mind that the latter are ranked as primitiveand that certain individuals may and do exhibit moreprimitive traits than the group as a whole. The listof primitive characteristics of Sauk Valley Man,however, is so impressive that it seems more logicalto conclude that the specimen is separated fromthe modern Indian by a considerable time intervalthan to believe that it represents a highly aberrantmember of a modern group.

Minnesota is fortunate in having two skeletonsthat on geological and archaeological grounds areknown to be older than the recent Indian remainsfrom the area. They therefore offer an excellentopportunity of comparing our subject with earlymaterial from the same locality.

A Comparison of the Sauk Valley Skeleton withthe Minnesota Man and Browns Valley Skeletons

A comparison of this specimen with MinnesotaMan shows many similarities, bearing in mind thatthe former is an adolescent female and the latter isan adult male. Many of the primitive characteristicsof the former are found in the latter, yet each hassome features definitely primitive that are lessprimitive or not at all primitive in the other.

The auricular height of the male is low, that ofthe female is higher though below average, so thatthe latter has a good cranial capacity, the former arelatively lower capacity.

Both skulls are house-shaped in normaoccipitalis, and both are occipital types, the malehaving the more projecting and bun-shaped occiput.In both, particularly the male, the occipital segmentof the sagittal arc is very long relative to the parietalsegment, and in both this condition is correlatedwith a long temporal squama and a long squamousmargin of the parietal bone. The male, however,lacks the upward thrusting mastoid plate of thefemale.

In both the supreme lines rise high on the occiputand in both the nuchal plane of the occiput isdirected strongly backward. But as regards the


occiput, the female is far more primitive. The wide,flattened occipital torus of the male is not unlikethat of several, more modern Indian crania, but thefemale occiput with its poorly defined superiorcurved lines, its transverse bar of bone or externaloccipital protuberance at the union of the supremecurved lines, and its U-shaped grooves is unique.

The foramen magnum of the male is the moreprimitive with the positive angle of its plane, andthe low index of its diameters. The female has anegative angle and an index, that, while relativelylow, is well within the range of modern means.

The mastoids of each have retained much of theexternal petro-squamous suture. The uppertemporal line does not rise high on the female skullas it does on the male, nor does the former havethe pronounced supra-mastoid crest, partly a sexdifference.

The female skull has an average minimum frontaldiameter and no brow ridges, whereas the male hasa very low minimum frontal diameter andpronounced brow ridges, so that in these respectsand in the fronto-biorbital index the male is veryprimitive, the female not at all. The difference inbrow ridge development is partly due to sex, butnot the difference in the minimum frontal diameters.

As regards the relative size of face to cranialvault, the huge malars and mandible of the malegive it a relatively much larger face than the femalehas, again partly a sex difference. In both the infrazy-gomatic crest is shallowly curved and is associatedwith a high alveolar process and a lack of caninefossa.

The female mandible is far less massive than themale, yet has a stout body for its size and a distinctlyprimitive ramus index that the male lacks. In sizeof teeth, the female is extremely primitive, whilethe male does not much exceed modern macrodontraces. The crown patterns of the lower molars ofthe female are primitive, those of the male notdeterminable.

Among the most primitive features of the femaleskull are the alveolar prognathism and the lack of a

nasal sill. These features are not present forobservation on the male skull.

In the lengths of the arm and leg bones, relativeto stature it was noted that the sequence was exactlythe same in both skeletons-radius, tibia, femur andhumerus. Hence both have high radio-humeral andtibio-femoral indices. The index of the diametersof the head of the humerus is high in both skeletons,but higher and more primitive in the male.

From this comparison it must be concluded thatthe Sauk Valley skeleton exhibits a lesser degree ofprimitiveness than the Minnesota Man.

A comparison of the Sauk Valley skeleton withthe Browns Valley skeleton is also very enlightening.Since both are males of about the same age, thedirect comparison is simpler.

The Browns Valley skull has a good auricularheight, exceeding the Sauk Valley by 12.5 mm. Itlacks the occipital projection of the latter skull, theoccipital segment of the median sagittal arch beingthe shortest of the three segments-the modernrelationship. But both have high supreme nuchallines, and the same type of occipital torus, that ofthe Browns Valley skull being slightly the narrower.Both have much the same type of frontal, with thesagittal crest more prominent than the bosses, andthe same low angle of slope. But the Browns Valleyfrontal is much the longer, exceeding the SaukValley by 12 mm. Both have pronounced browridges of the modern torus type, but those of theSauk Valley skull are the more pronounced. TheBrowns Valley skull has a low minimum frontaldiameter—91 mm., but that of the Sauk Valley hasthe extremely low diameter of 85 mm. Both havebroad faces, but the Browns Valley face is short.Both the malar and maxillary bones of the latterare relatively low and the infra-zygomatic crest hasa deep curve with a deep canine fossa. The BrownsValley mandible is very wide, having a bigonialwidth of 118 mm., yet the bigonial width of theSauk Valley mandible exceeds it by 4 mm. The bodyof the Sauk Valley mandible is much thicker and ishigher and longer, than that of the Browns Valleyjaw, and the index of the ramus is lower. The teethare of the same size.


It is seen that the two skulls have much incommon. Many of these common traits such as theoccipital torus, high supreme nuchal lines, and broadfaces are shared by other rugged male skulls fromthe area. The prominent brow ridges and broadjaws, common to both, are approached by otherrugged males. Of the two skulls, the Sauk Valleyhas the most primitive features and must be classedas the more primitive. But the Browns Valley skullwith its short face and long head, reminiscent ofthe Late Paleolithic period of Europe, isdistinguished from the long faced Indian population,whereas the Sauk Valley Man is like the more recentIndian in this respect.

All three skulls are leptorrhine and the two maleskulls are dolichocephalic. The female skull has amesocephalic index of 77.1. The early populationof this area is seen then as the forerunner of theleptorrhine, dolichocephalic Indian of NorthAmerica. Here, as in Europe, this type seems earlierthan the broader headed broader nosed types, andin recent times has had a marginal distribution.

Skeletal remains cannot be dated on the evidenceof the physical characteristics of the skeleton above.Yet in the absence of definite geological or culturalevidence, the physical characteristics are the bestindication of the possible chronological position ofthe remains. The Minnesota Man is datedgeologically as having been deposited during theearly life of Glacial Lake Pelican, the date of whichis placed by geologists at about 20,000 years ago

and possibly as much as 25,000 years ago. TheBrowns Valley skeleton is dated culturally by itsassociation with a type of chipped implement, whichalso occurs in the lowest level of the Signal Buttesite and tentatively is dated by Strong as from 7,000to 10,000 years old.27 Geologically the BrownsValley skeleton is dated as not older than the TintahBeach of Glacial Lake Agassiz, which is placed atabout 12,000 years old. Thus we have twoskeletons, the more primitive of which, theMinnesota Man, is dated as 20,000 to 25,000 yearsold, and the less primitive of which, the BrownsValley skeleton, is dated as 8,000 to 12,000 yearsold. On the basis of primitive characteristics, theSauk Valley skeleton would be assigned an agecomparable to or earlier than that of the BrownsValley man.

The Sauk Valley skeleton is that of an adult maleof Mongoloid and Indian affinities. It has manyprimitive features, and is rated as more primitivethan the Browns Valley Man, though not asprimitive as the Minnesota Man. In the absence ofconditions permitting a close dating by geologicalor archaeological data, it may be concluded fromthe degree of primitiveness exhibited by the skeletalremains, that Sauk Valley Man is of considerableantiquity, probably even earlier than Browns ValleyMan, for whom a date of 8,000 to 12,000 yearsago is assigned.

Department of Anthropology,University of Minnesota.


1. Martin, Rudolph, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie, 2ndedition, Jena, 1928, p. 796.

2. Ibid, p. 798.

3. Hrdlicka, Ales, Catalogue of Human Crania in the U. S.National Museum Collections. The Algonkin and RelatedIroquois; Siouan, Caddoan, Salish and Sahaptin,Shoshonean, and California Indians, Proceedings of theU. S. National Museum, Vol. 69, Article 5, pp. 46 and 76,1927.

4. Martin, Lehrbuch der Anthropologie, p. 817.

5. Ibid., p. 820.

6. Ibid., p. 821.

7. See Jenks, Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, p. 59.

8. Martin, L. A., p. 762. Note: the occipital segment is givenas comprising 33 per cent of the sagittal arc in the case ofthe French, but from the measurements given, the percentageof the occipital segment is only 31.8.

9. See Jenks, Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, p. 62.


11. See Jenks, Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, p. 75


13. Ibid., p. 851.

14. Ibid., p. 851.

15. Oetteking, Bruno, Craniology of the North Pacific Coast,Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Vol. XI,

Part I, Memoir of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, New York, 1930, p. 309.


17. Ibid., p. 967. Martin’s table of the interorbital index isbased on interorbital breadths measured between the maxillo-frontale points.

18. Ibid., p. 971.

19. Ibid.

20. Hrdlicka, Ales, Physical Anthropology of the Lenape orDelawares, and of the Eastern Indians in General.Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology,Bulletin 62, 1916, p. 31.

21. Oetteking, Craniology of the North Pacific Coast, p. 11of Tables and Measurements.

22. Hrdlicka, Physical Anthropology of the Lenape, etc., p.31.

23. Dewey, Martin, Dental Anatomy, St. Louis, 1928, pp.33-34.


25. Hrdlicka, Physical Anthropology of the Lenape, p. 57.

26. Jenks, Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, p. 138.

26. Jenks, Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, p. 138.

27. Strong, William Duncan, An Introduction to NebraskaArchaeology, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Vol.93, No. 10, 1935, pp. 233 and 239.

Skeletal Remains From Northern Texas 81

The material to be briefly reported on in this paper has been partly donated to the U. S. NationalMuseum, partly submitted to me for examination, by Dr. Cyrus N. Ray, of Abilene, northern Texas. Itproceeds from several mounds and sites in this general region. It is regrettably quite meager, but eventhus it is of exceptional interest in more than one particular. It consists of but 3 male adult skulls, with aseries of humeri, femora and tibiae, but the characteristics of these are such as to be well worth recording.One of the skulls, damaged, from Roberts Mound (1) S (2)1 had already been pictured by Ray2 andreported on by Hooton,3 but it has now been carefully reconstructed and shows slightly differingmeasurements; the other two specimens and the long bones are here reported upon for the first time.

The CraniaThe main interest in these specimens is their pronounced dolichocephaly, especially in the Roberts

mound ( 1 ) S (2) . This skull is the one that has already been reported upon by Hooton, but examinedand measured by him in a somewhat defective repair. Since coming to the National Museum this specimenhas been carefully reconstructed and gives the measurements shown below. It is a normal undeformedmale skull, from an individual of good but not heavy muscularity, quite plainly Indian, and resemblingclosely, on one hand, the more markedly narrow skulls from Coahuila,4 Lower California,5 southeasternUtah, and from other parts of Texas;6 and on the other hand a good many of those of the easternAlgonkins. It is a type which is also met, with modifications, among a large strain of the more northernand the northeastern Eskimo. It is not an ancient type, for it has never been encountered in early man; itappears to be a late land especially American differentiation, though its roots lie doubtless \Somewherein northeastern Asia. It is somewhat akin to the Nordic type of skull of Europe.

Detailed description of the specimen is not called for on this occasion—that found in ProfessorHooton’s article, if the superlatives be left out, will suffice with two or three small modifications oradditions. These relate to massiveness of the skull-this is throughout slightly submedium for an Indian.The supraorbital ridges-these are somewhat ,above the Indian medium in development but otherwisesubdivided at middle as usual in modern skulls and limited to the medium two thirds of the supraorbitalspace on each side; but the whole subfrontal region above the orbits is somewhat shelving forward. Thetemporal regions are actually perceptibly depressed or concave from above downward. The nature ofthe upper incisors, as to shovel-shaped character, cannot be decided, the teeth are worn off too much.And the chin portion of the lower jaw is quite as prominent as it is in an average White of today. Thesatisfactory present state of the specimen makes all this quite plain.

Principal Measurements of Skull R M (1) S (2) (377, 981 U. S. N. M.)Diam. antero-posterior maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19.6Diam. lateral maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ near 12.2Basion.bregma height ----------------------------------------------------------------- near (14.4)7 highCranial index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62.24Mean height index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90.57Height-breadth index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118.03Cranial module ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15.40Capacity, in c.c. --------------------------------------------------------------------approximately 1500+Thickness of left parietal above T. P. suture ------------------------------------------------- 3-5 mm.

SKELETAL REMAINS FROM NORTHERN TEXASBY ALES HRDLICKA


Menton -nasion height ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Alveol. Pt.-Nasion height -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.6Diam. bizygomatic index ------------------------------------------------------------------- near 13.0Facial index, total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Facial index, upper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58.46Basion-alveol. Pt. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Basion-subnasal Pt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Basion-nasion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —

Diam. frontal minim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.9Height of symphysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.6

Height orbit, right ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- near 3.75Height orbit, left ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.75Breadth orbit, right --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0Breadth orbit, left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0Orbital index, mean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93.75

Nose height------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5.4Nose breadthnear ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.4Nasal index ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44.44

Palate: external length ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7Palate: external breadth, maxim. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6.3Palatal index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90.48

Alexander Mound Skull(A. M. (1) S (3), 377, 982 U. S. N. M.)

This, like the Roberts Mound specimen, is a normal skull of an adult male. It is less narrow, hassomewhat less developed supraorbital ridges, better arched front, lower orbits, broader nasal aperture,broader face and palate, less marked occipital crest, and an absence of the subparietal concavity. Alsothe bones are somewhat thicker. The outline of the norma superior is a long ellipse. There are markedsubnasal fossae, medium nasal spine, somewhat above medium alveolar protrusion. Teeth partly worn,normal, bicuspids and canines somewhat above medium in stoutness, incisors missing. Basion and condyleregion elevated. Glenoid fossae deep, styloids submedium, high prestyloid process or sheath each side.No lower jaw.

In shape of vault the skull duplicates some Algonkin crania, in facial features it approaches more theCalifornians. Measurements:

Principal Measurements of Skull A. M. (1) S (3) (377, 982 U. S. N. M.)Diam. antero-posterior maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19.3Diam. lateral maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13.4Basion-bregma height ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.4Cranial index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69.43Mean height index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88.07


Height-breadth index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107.46Cranial module ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15.37

Menton-nasion height ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Alveol. Pt.-Nasion height -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.3Diam. Bizygomatic maxim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.8Facial index, total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Facial index, upper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52.90Basion-Alveol. Pt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.4Basion-Subnasal Pt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.4Basion-nasion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.8Facial angle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73.—Alveolar angle-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59.—

Diam. frontal minim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.7Height of symphysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —

Height, orbits—right ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.4Height, orbits—left --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.2Breadth, orbits—right ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.9Breadth, orbits—left ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.05Orbital index, right -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87.18Orbital index, left ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79.01

Nose height------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5.05Nose breadth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.65Nasal index ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52.48

Palate: external length ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.8Palate: external breadth, maxim. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7.0Palatal index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82.86

Matthews Ranch Skull (M. (1) 377, 983 U. S. N. M.)A slightly asymmetrical and damaged but otherwise normal skull of an elderly male. From a burial

near 7 feet deep, in a stone cist, in charcoal stratum, on Clear Fork of Brazos River.8 Facial partsmissing, save a molar and two fragments of the maxilla. In type much alike the skull from the AlexanderMound, resembling much an Algonkin. Measurements:

Principal Measurements of Skull(M (1) (377, 983 U. S. N. M.)

Diam. antero-posterior maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------ near 19.2Diam. lateral maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ near 13.0Basion-bregma height --------------------------------------------------------------------------- highCranial index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67.71Mean height index --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Height.breadth index ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ —


Cranial module ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Capacity, in c. c. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —

Menton-nasion height ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Alveol. Pt.-nasion height ------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Diam. bizygomatic maxim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- —Facial index, total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Facial index, upper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Basion-Alveol. Pt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Basion-subnasal Pt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Basion-nasion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Facial angle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Alveolar angle-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —

Diam. frontal minim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.0Height of symphysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- near 3.4

Comments on CraniaWhile there are only three specimens at hand and not one perfect, yet there is enough for strong

indications as to the nature of the skulls. It would be superfluous to go into any long discussion on thispoint. The skulls are unquestionably Indian, and were it not for their locality they could only be diagnosedas Algonkin.

These conclusions were reached independently, but I find that Professor Hooton has come to similardeduction on his series. He says,9 “There can be no question that these crania represent a Neanthropic ormorphologically modern type of man. . . . to the present writer the Texas skulls recall more clearly someof the Eastern dolichocephalic Indians.” Dr. Hooton believes to see in the facial parts of the skulls alsosome mongoloid inclination, but this is more or less common in all American aborigines.

Additional Skeletal PartsThe Humerus: There are but 11 male and 1 female humeri. The bones in general are long and quite

straight, but not very massive.

Only two among the 9 male bones that can be examined for the feature, and the 1 female, show septalapperture and this in one is but pin-point, in two small.

The shape of the shaft at middle differs; it is prismatic in one, plano-convex in one (the female), withnearly so in two, more or less quadrilateral (anterior border broadened into a distinct surface) in 6, andintermediary in two. For an American group there is nothing distinctive in this showing.

The length and strength of the bones is shown in the next table:


The Abilene Region Humeri: Length and Strength

MaleRight | Left

Mean Diam. Mod.- | Mean Diam. Mod.-Locality and Length at Middle Len. | Length at Middle Len.Number Max. (Module) Index | Max. (Module) IndexAlexander M’d., 377, 982 ----- — 2.05 — 33.-- 2.-- 60.61Matthews M’d.,377, 983 ----- 33.8 2.10 62.13 33.9 2.03 59.73Roberts M’d., 377, 980------- 30.5 1.90 62.30 30.5 1.83 59.84do., (1) S (1) -------------------- — — — 34.4 1.95 56.69MyattsS (2) ----------------------------- 32.9 2.07 63.07 32.5 1.95 60.--(1) S (2) ------------------------ 33.-- 2.05 62.12 — 1.93 —

FemaleMales, Spec’s. ------------------ (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5)Totals --------------------------130.2 8.12 — 164.3 9.76 —Means --------------------------- 32.55 2.03 62.37 32.86 1.95 59.40In length these Texas humeri are equalled, in aboriginal North America, only by those of the tall

Algonkins. In absolute strength they are close to the general North American Indian average, beingsurpassed slightly in a number of the tribes and surpassing in turn slightly others. Relatively to theirlength they also approach the general average (module-length index in 17 groups of North AmericanIndian males, 62.3). So far as the length and strength of the arms were concerned therefore there isnothing exceptional in this series.

The Midshaft Index: The shaft at middle gives two easily measurable dimensions, the minimum orantero-posterior, and the major or lateral diameter;10 and the percental relation of the former to the latteris the humeral midshaft index, which has racial value. In 1930 humeri of male American Whites (ingeneral), measured by me, this index averaged 83._, in 112 male American Negro 84.1, in 448 Indians ofvarious tribes 73.3. In the Texas humeri the index ranges thus:

Humerus: Diameters and Index at Middle

MaleRight | Left

Site and Number Diam. Diam. | Diam. Diam.Major Min. Index | Major Min. Index

Alexander Md. 377, 932 ---------2.3 1.8 78.26 2.3 1.7 73.91Matthew’s Md. 377, 983 ---------2.5 1.7 68.0 2.4 1.65 68.75Roberts Md. 377, 980 ------------2.2 1.6 72.73 2.05 1.6 78.05do. (1) S (1) ----------------------- — — — 2.2 1.7 77.27do. (1) S (2) -----------------------2.3 1.85 80.43 2.1 1.8 85.71do. (1) S (2) -----------------------2.2 1.9 86.36 2.1 1.75 83.33

FemaleRoberts Md. S (3) ----------------- — — — 1.6 1.2 75.--


There is a considerable uniformity in the measurements, hut for some reason the hones from theMyatt place are appreciably stouter and give higher indices than the rest. If we take only the sevenhumeri from the Alexander, Matthews and Roberts mounds, the determinations are typically Indian:

MALE HUMERI

At Middle of Shaft:

Diam. Major Diam. Min. Midshaft IndexTexas (7) ------------------------------- 2.28 1.68 73.7N. A. Indians in general (448) ------- 2.21 1.62 73.3

THE FEMURGeneral Descriptive Characters

There are 14 male and 5 female femora, representing 9 male and 3 female skeletons, derivedfrom 8 localities in the Abilene region.

The femora are free from disease or malformations. The general impression they convey is that oflong but only moderately strong bones. Taking them by the sexes there are the following notes:

Curvature Forward of Shaft

Near Straight Submedian Moderate, Medium Above, Medium MarkedMale, in ---------— 1 9 3 1Female ---------- 2 — 2 — 1The bones differ much, it is seen, in this respect, but in 11 out of the total of 19 the curvature is but

moderate or medium.

Pilastry: Three of the male bones—all with marked curvature—show very high, doubtlesscompensatory, crista aspera. But pilastry in the male bones of this series appears to be generally abovethe medium.

Gluteal Tuberosity (3rd Trochanter). This tuberosity is rather common in these femora in the males,but is curiously-doubtless accidentally-absent in the bones of the three females.

In the male femora the records show as follows:Gluteal Tuberosities (3rd Trochanters)

Male (13 bones)Oblong Rounded Total

Mod. to Above Med.Absent Slight Medium to Pronounced

5 2 5 1 None 861.5%

A similarly high occurrence of the feature was found by me in mound femora from Louisiana; 11, 12

Costa found 3rd trochanter in 64% of 14 Indian (tribe?) and in 94.5% of the 37 Fuegian femora heexamined. In the North American Indians at large a distinct gluteal tuberosity, all sizes, was found in29.91 % of the male bones.12 In only one other small series, from other parts of the world, namely thatof 16 femora of Canary Islanders examined by Houzé,12 is recorded an approaching frequency (56.2 %)of the feature.


MeasurementsThe Abilene region Texas femora are decidedly long. There are fit for measurements 14 male and 5

female adult bones, proceeding from respectively 7 and 3 skeletons. The average bicondylar length ofthe 12 male bones where the measurement is possible is 46.41 cm., of the 4 female bones 41.95 cm. Themale bones are longer than are those of the general American Whites (45.06 cm.) 13 and correspondapproximately to a stature of 175 cm., or that of the tallest of our Indian tribes, such as the Sioux or theMaricopa.14 In detail the measurements were as follows:

Texas Femora: Length

MaleRight Left

Length Length Length LengthLocality and Number Bicond. Max. Bicond. Max.

Alexander M’d. Brazos Riv.,377, 982 ------- — — 46.3 46.6Matthews M’d. Near Albany, 377, 983------ — — — —Roberts M’d. NE of Abilene, 377, 980 ----- 44.3 45.-- 44.8 45.5do., (3) S (10) ---------------------------------- — — 45.4 45.9do., (3) S (8) ----------------------------------- 47.1 47.2 — —W. Myatt, S (2) -------------------------------- 47.7 47.9 47.4 47.6do., M (1) S (1)-------------------------------- 47.2 47.5 46.7 47.2do., M (1) S (2)-------------------------------- 46.-- 46.3 46.-- 46.4Colorado, S (1) --------------------------------- — — near 48.--Totals ------------------------------------------- (5) (5) (7) (6)

232.3 233.9 324.6 279.2Means ------------------------------------------- 46.46 46.78 46.37 46.53

FemaleBeyer S., (1) ----------------------------------- 42.2 43.3 — —Hildreth S, (1) ---------------------------------- — — 42.4 43.--Roberts’ M’d., (1) S (3) ---------------------- 41.-- 41.7 41.1 41.7Totals ------------------------------------------- (2) (2) (2) (2)

83.2 85.-- 83.5 84.7Means ------------------------------------------- 41.60 42.50 41.75 42.35There is, it is seen, some variability in the dimensions, but the general tendency is to long bones and

hence tall stature.

The differences between the two lengths differ but all fall within the usual in Indian femora-on thewhole therefore the bones are neither markedly more oblique nor straighter.

Proportions at Middle of the ShaftStrength: The robustness of the femur is best determined by the mean diameter of the shaft at the

middle of the bone, and especially by the relation of this mean diameter, or midshaft module, to thelength of the bone, thus:

MEAN DIAMETER OF SHAFT AT MIDDLE X 100Bicondylar Length of the Femur


The Abilene region femora give the following proportions:

Strength of Femora at Middle

N.A. Indians in Gen. U. S. WhitesMale Female (both sides) (both sides)

Right Left Right Left Male Female MaleFemaleFemora (6) (8) (2) (3) (902) (315) (414) (200)Mean diam. at middle (cm.) 2.85 2.86 2.40 2.43 2.77 2.48 2.89 2.63

(5) (7) (2) (2)15 (902) (315) (414) (200)Midshaft index of strength 6.12 6.15 5.79 5.99 6.49 6.05 6.44 6.26do., both sides together (12) (4)

6.14 5.88

Absolutely of good robustness, approaching in males closely that of the Whites and exceeding slightlythat of the North American Indians in general. Relatively to their length the Texas femora here consideredare appreciably more slender.

The detailed determinations show once more a fair individual variation:

Texas Femora: Strength of Shaft at Middle

MaleMean Diameter Percent. Relation to

Locality and Number at Middle Length of BoneRight Left Right Left

Alexander Md., Brazos River.,377, 982 --- — 3.10 — 66.95Matthews Md., near Albany, 377, 983---- 2.85 2.90 — —Roberts Md., NE of Abilene, 377, 980 --- 2.53 2.58 57.-- 57.48do. (3) S (10) --------------------------------- — 2.77 — 61.12do. (3) S (8) ---------------------------------- 2.95 — 62.63 —W. Myatt S (2) ------------------------------- 3.05 3.10 63.94 65.40do. M (1) S (l) ------------------------------- 2.80 2.70 59.32 57.82do. M (1) S (2) ------------------------------ 2.90 2.88 63.-- 62.50Colorado S (1) -------------------------------- — 2.85 — near 59.40

FemaleBeyer S (1) ----------------------------------- 2.45 2.55 59.76 62.04Hildreth S (1) --------------------------------- — 2.45 — 57.78Roberts Md. (1) S (3) ---------------------- 2.35 2.30 55.69 —

Other Parts of the FemurIn dimensions the remaining parts of the Texas femora, i. e., the extremities of the bone, show

nothing uncommon.


Shape of the ShaftBy the shape of the shaft of the femur is meant the outline of the shaft in its cross section, at the

middle of the bone.16 In 1802 male adult North American Indians at large, the shapes were, cylindrical7.7, elliptic 10._, plano-convex 5.6, and prismatic 23.6 per cent, the remaining (53%) being less welldefined or intermediates; the females showing less of the cylindrical and plano-convex, more of theelliptic and about the same proportion of the prismatic shafts. Of the 14 male Texas femora dealt withhere 4 or 28.6% were cylindrical, 7 or 50% near-cylindrical, 1 or 7.1 % plano-convex, another 1 nearplano-convex, and 1 near prismatic. Among the 5 female bones none were cylindrical, 1 was prismaticand 1 nearly so, 1 near elliptic, 1 near plano-convex, and 1 indeterminate. The cylindrical shaft therefore,in this series, shows a much higher frequency than it does in the North American Indians at large, whilein the few female bones it is absent. None of the tribes represented in our general Indian series gave sucha frequency of the cylindrical form, though this rose in the bones from pre-White Tennessee to 11.6%and in those from old burials in Virginia to 15.9%. In no race available for comparison (Eskimo, Whites,Negroes, Old Egyptians) did the proportion of this type, in the adult bones, reach these figures. But thecylindrical type of the shaft, and the elliptic, are the two principal types found in the femora of theyoung.17 The feature in the Texas male bones may therefore much more properly be regarded as juvenilismthan any racial peculiarity. It represents a lack of differentiation, which must have been connected withthe work habits of these males.

A further light on the shape of the shaft is obtained from the two diameters taken at its middle18 andfrom the midshaft index obtained from the two. These diameters and index in our femora are as follows:

Dimensions and Index of the Shaft of the Abilene Region Femora at Middle

MaleRight | Left

Locality Diam.Ant.- Diam. Mid-shaft | Diam. Ant.- Diam. Mid-shaftand Number Post. Max. Lat. Index | Post. Max. Lat. Index

Alexander Md.Brazos Riv., 377, 982 ---- — — — 3.5 2.7 129.6Matthew’s M’d., Near

Albany, 377, 983------- 3.2 2.5 128.-- 3.15 2.65 118.9Roberts M’d., NE of

Abilene, 377, 980 ------ 2.7 2.35 114.9 2.8 2.35 119.1do., (3) S (10) ------------ — — — 3.25 2.3 141.3do., (3) S (8) ------------- 3.4 2.5 136.-- — — —W. Myatt, S (2) ---------- 3.5 2.6 134.6 3.6 2.6 138.5do., M (1) S (1)---------- 3.1 2.5 124.-- 3.-- 2.4 125.--do., M (1) S (2)---------- 3.2 2.6 123.1 3.2 2.55 125.5Colorado, S (1) ----------- — — — 3.1 2.6 119.4Totals (6) (6) (6) (8) (8) (8)

---------------------- 19.10 15.05 — 25.60 20.15 —Means --------------------- 3.18 2.51 126.9 3.20 2.52 127.--

FemaleBeyer, S (1) -------------- 2.5 2.4 104.2 2.6 2.5 104.--Hildreth, S (1) ----------- 2.4 2.3 104.3 2.25 2.35 95.7


Roberts M’d., (1) S (3) -- — — — 2.8 2.1 133.3Totals --------------------- (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3)

4.90 4.70 — 7.65 6.95 —Means --------------------- 2.45 2.35 104.3 2.55 2.32 110.1

The above averages indicate a high pilastry, due to exceptional elevation of the crista aspera. In thisrespect the femora of the Texas males stand at the head of available American series, being closelyapproached only by the S. E: Utah “basket-makers.” This will be appreciated from the next table. Thefemales, curiously, barring one individual (Roberts mound) are not exceptional in this respect, whichgives a strong indication that the peculiarity in the males is less inherent than acquired, that is, ontogenetic,functional. Such a development in the males, while the females remain unaffected, could possibly bebrought about through exceptionally developed and common running habits-it would be difficult tosuggest other factors.

Midshaft Dimensions and Index of the Texas Femora, Compared with Those of Other Indians

Male | FemaleAt | At

Midshaft | MidshaftBoth Sides Diam. Diam. | |Diam. Diam.Together Ant.-Post Lateral Index | Ant.-Post Lateral Index

(14) (5)Texas (Abilene region)-----------3.19 2.52 127.-- 2.50 2.33 107.2S.E. Utah “Basketmakers” ------ (67) (38)

----------------------- 3.-- 2.44 123.9 2.61 2.33 111.9N. A. Indians at large ----------- (638) (370)

----------------------- 3.-- 2.57 116.7 2.57 2.36 108.6

Subtrochanteric FlatteningThis flattening, or platymery, has been discussed recently in my report on “The Femur of the Old

Peruvians” (Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1938, XXIII, No. 4), and is a feature which always deserves attention.It is partly of racial, partly of functional significance. It differs among the American Indians more or lessfrom tribe to tribe, with a general inclination to a more pronounced form than in the Whites or theNegro. The records obtained from the Texas femora and their comparison are given in the following twotables.

Texas Femora: Measurements and Index at Subtrochanteric Flattening

MaleRight | Left

Locality and Diam. Diam. | Diam. Diam.Number Max. Min. Index | Max. Min. Index

Alexander M’d. Brazos River, 377, 982 — — — 3.3 2.7 81.82Matthew’s M’d., near Albany, 377, 983 - — — — 3.3 2.35 71.21Roberts M’d., NE of Abilene, 377, 980 3.2 2.1 65.63 3.1 2.-- 64.52


do., (3) S (10) -----------------------------3.2 2.45 76.56 2.9 2.3 79.31do., (3) S (8) -------------------------------3.5 2.3 65.72 — — —W. Myatt, (S) 2 ----------------------------3.2 2.45 76.56 3.3 2.3 69.70do., M (1) S (1)----------------------------3.7 2.55 68.92 3.2 2.45 76.56do., M (1) S (2)----------------------------- — — — 3.6 2.5 69.44Colorado S (1) ------------------------------ — — — 3.3 2.5 75.76Totals (5) (5) (5) (8) (8) (8)

16.80 11.85 — 26.-- 19.10 —Means ---------------------------------------3.36 2.37 70.54 3.25 2.39 73.46

FemaleBeyer S (1) ---------------------------------3.1 2.1 67.74 3.1 2.15 69.35Hildreth S (1) ------------------------------- — — — 2.7 2.1 77.78Roberts M’d. (1) S (3)--------------------2.9 2.-- 68.97 3.1 1.85 59.68

(2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3)6.-- 4.1 — 8.9 6.1 —3.-- 2.05 68.33 2.97 2.03 68.54

The Subtrochanteric Flattening in the Femora of the Abilene Region, Texas,and in North American Indians in General

Male (Both Sides)Specimens Diam.Max. Diam.Min. Index

Texas ---------------------------------- (13) 3.29 2.38 72.31N. A. Indians at Large -------------- (567) 3.24 2.42 74.86

Female (Both Sides)(5) 2.98 2.04 68.46

(344) 3.-- 2.11 70.38

Both the measurements and the indices of the Texas femora are close to the average of the NorthAmerican Indians in general. They are slightly flatter, but this is equalled and exceeded in good many ofthe Indian groups. The relatively low platymeric index is one of the outstanding characteristics of theAmerican aborigines. It goes a long way toward the identification of the Texas remains as those ofIndians.

TibiaeThere are 14 measurable tibiae of adult males, 4 of adult females. As with the rest of the long

bones the material is small, yet of interest.

Descriptive Features: The first striking character of these bones is their universal straightness. Only 2of the 18 bones could be recorded as ‘near straight’, 16 were ‘straight’ to ‘very straight’. In this respectthese tibiae resemble those of the Negro, but they are very different from these in almost every otherrespect, resembling most on the whole the tibiae of other Indians.

Shape: A second striking feature of most of these bones is the pronounced development of the posteriorvertical ridge, the formation through that from the ordinary single posterior surface, of two, postero-


lateral and postero-mesial, surfaces, and a marked accentuation through the same .agency of the antero-posterior diameter and, secondarily, of the flatness of the shaft. Tibiae of this sort occur elsewhereamong the Indians, and also among the Eskimo, but they are seldom as pronounced and not so frequent.Here again it would be most desirable to know the habits of the tribe or tribes from which the bones arederived, for the development of the striking modification of the posterior surface of the hones could onlyhave been conditioned by powerful and long-lasting special demands on the leg musculature. The tendencytoward the same form also, in the females suggests that the same has already become generalized in thegroup hereditarily, but the much more pronounced degree of the peculiarity in the male tibiae indicatesthat the causes producing it were especially and continuously active in that sex. All this suggests oncemore the idea of extraordinary exercise of the men as runners—there appears in fact no other plausibleexplanation.

The individual records in this connection are very illustrative:

Tibiae: Shape of Shaft at Middle

Male1 2 3 4

(prismatic) (lateral prismatic) (lateral surface fluted) (quadrilateral) (Misc.)2=1 and 3

—— 1 (typical) 6 extreme 1=2 and 33 pron. 1=4 and 3

Female1 2 3 4 (Misc.)

1 pron. 1=2 med. n.4

The percentage of type 4 rises, it is seen, to 75 per cent of the tibiae in each sex, though, as mentioned,the character is much more accentuated in the males than in the females. No Indian tribe, and much lessany other known human group, approaches such a condition. But that cannot be taken for an indicationthat the Abilene region aborigines may have belonged to a racial group different from the Indian. Thefeature in question can only be regarded as essentially functional or ontogenic and not racial. There mayhave taken place here also some sort of selection-but this is speculation.

Additional: The extremities of these tibiae offer nothing special.

MeasurementsThe most useful measurements of the tibia are its length and its two diameters at middle. I take

commonly two lengths, the standard bicondylar and the maximum, mainly for a check on each other. Themean of the two diameters at middle in relation to the bicondylar length of the bone, gives the index ofstrength of the shaft; and the percental relation of the bicondylar length of the tibia to the bicondylarlength of the femur gives the tibio-femoral index, of value in racial identification. The measurements ofthe Texas tibiae follow:


Abilene Region, Texas, Tibiae: Length

MaleRight | Left

Length Tibio- | Length Tibio-Locality and Bicon- femoral | Bicon- femoral

Number dylar Max. Index | dylar Max. IndexAlexander M’d. Brazos Riv. 377, 982 ------- — — — — — —Matthew’s M’d., near Albany, 377, 983 ----- — — — — — —Roberts M’d., N.E. of Abilene, 377, 980 --- — — — 36.8 37.-- 82.14do., (1) S (1) ----------------------------------- 37.4 37.5 — — — —do., (3) S (8) ----------------------------------- 40.5 40.7 85.99 40.5 40.6 —Myatt, S (2) ------------------------------------ 40.4 40.5 84.70 — — —do., S (3) --------------------------------------- 38.6 38.7 — 38.2 38.3 —do., (1) S (2) ------------------------------------ — — — 40.2 40.5 87.39Colorado Cave, (2) ---------------------------- — — — 37.8 38.3 —Totals -------------------------------------------- (4) (4) — (5) (5) —-------------------------------------------------- 156.9 157.4 — 193.5 194.7 —Means ------------------------------------------- 39.22 39.35 — 38.70 38.94 —

FemaleBeyer -------------------------------------------- 34.9 35.-- 85.12 — — —Robert’s (1) S (3) ------------------------------ — — — — — —

The tibiae, it is seen, are long, and the differences between the bicondylar and the maximum lengthare small. The important tibio-femoral index averages in the males around 84, which is higher than inWhites (White tibia relatively shorter), slightly lower than in the Negro (negro tibia relatively slightlylonger), but just about the same as in other North American Indians where the means for differentgroups vary from roughly 83 to 85.

Strength: As with the femur, the best way to bring out the strength of the tibia is through the module:length index, or the percental relation between the mean diameter of the shaft at middle and the bicondylarlength of the bone. The measurement and index in the Texas bones are as follows:

Strength of the Tibia Relative to Its Length

MaleRight Left

Mean Diam. Module Mean Diam. ModuleLocality and Number at Middle Length Index at Middle Length Index

Alexander M’d. 377, 982 ------------- 2.82 — — —Matthews M’d. 377, 983 -------------- 2.85 — 2.80 —Roberts M’d. 377, 980 ------------------— — 2.62 71.33do. (1) S (1) ----------------------------- 2.65 70.86 — —


do. (3) S (8) ----------------------------- 2.65 65.43 2.75 67.90Myatt (2) -------------------------------- 2.75 68.07 2.75 —do. (3) ----------------------------------- 2.75 71.24 2.85 74.61do. (1) S (2) -----------------------------71.24 — 3.-- 74.63Colorado Cave (2) --------------------- 2.60 — 2.60 68.78Specimens -------------------------------- (7) (4) (7) (5)Total -------------------------------------19.07 19.37 —Means ------------------------------------ 2.72 68.83 2.77 71.42

Female

Beyer S ---------------------------------- 2.25 64.47 2.22 —Roberts M’d. (1) S (3)----------------- 2.35 — 2.30 —In various groups of North American Indians, in the males, the averages of the module or mean

diameter of the tibia at its middle range from 2.53 to 2.90,19 the general average being near 2.75. In the14 Texas male tibiae it is exactly 2.75 cm. This crude measurement is however of little value withoutcontrasting it with the length of the bone. When this is done with the bones of different Indian groups theresulting average proportion or index ranges in the males around 72, in the females around 68. In theTexas series in 9 male bones it averages 69.16, which shows that these tibiae, like the correspondingfemora, are relatively somewhat slender. In all probability the people from whom these bones proceedwere in general of a tall stature but rather slender. This would agree with an anticipated build in greatrunners.

The Index of Flatness (Platycnaemy) at Middle: The percental relation of the lateral with the antero-posterior diameter at midshaft in the tibia averages in the North American male Indians roughly from 62to 70, the general mean being around 66. In the Texas bones the measurements and indices offer muchof interest:

Tibiae: Measurements and Index at Middle of Shaft

MaleRight | Left

Locality and Diam. Ant.- Diam.* Midshaft | DiamAnt.- Diam.* MidshaftNumber Post. Max. Lateral Index | Post. Max. Lateral Index

Alexander M’d., 377, 982 ------ 3.45 2.2 63.77 — — —Matthews M’d., 377, 983 ------ 3.7 2.-- 54.05 3.6 2.-- 55.56Roberts M’d., 377, 980----------- — — — 3.45 1.8 52.17do., (1) S (1) --------------------- 3.5 1.8 51.43do., (3) S (8) --------------------- 3.4 1.9 55.88 3.5 2.-- 57.14Myatt(2) ---------------------- 3.2 2.3 71.88 3.2 2.3 71.88(3) ---------------------- 3.4 2.1 61.76 3.5 2.2 62.86(1) S (2) ------------------------ — — — 3.9 2.1 53.85Colorado Cave ------------------- 3.4 1.8 52.94 3.4 1.8 52.94Specimens ----------------------- (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7)Totals ---------------------24.05 14.10 — 24.55 14.20 —Means ---------------------- 3.44 2.01 58.63 3.51 2.03 57.84


FemaleBeyer S ---------------------- 2.9 1.6 55.17 2.85 1.6 56.14Roberts M’d., (1) S (3) --------- 2.9 1.8 62.07 2.8 1.8 64.29

*With anterior border of the bone midway between the two branches of the calipers.The mean midshaft index of the Abilene region tibiae is the lowest on our records. The individual

bones in this respect are equalled occasionally among other Indians, but the general average, i. e., sucha prevalence of the low indices, is not; nor is it found outside of America. The fact is due to the frequencyin these Texas bones of the 4th border and its extraordinary development. It is a highly interestingregional phenomenon. It does not, again, indicate a different race of people, but rather an Indian groupwith some especially developed and persevering habits from which but a few individuals escaped. Thatsome did escape is seen from the bones of No. (2) of the Myatt site, and also somewhat by No. (3) fromthat site, -;’S well as by the male tibia’ from the Alexander mound and the two tibiae of a female from theRoberts’ mound.

Concluding RemarksThese may be very brief. The material here reported upon proved as already mentioned of especial

interest; this however not through its taxonomy, but through the secondary developments, of evidentlyfunctional origin, shown by the long bones of the lower limbs of the skeletons.

The crania and the basic characteristics of the long bones show on the whole definitely that thesebelonged to Indians, of tall stature, and of Algonkin-like type. The secondary modifications are limited,as already said, to the bones of the lower limbs. Evidently it was only those habits which affected themusculature and bones of the lower limbs that were peculiar in this group. This points strongly to agreatly developed habit of running or walking.

Curator, Division ofPhysical Anthropology,U. S. National Museum.

1. Now 377, 981, U. S. Nat. Museum.

2. Ray. Cryus N., Multiple Burials in Stone Cist Mounds of the Abilene Region. Bull. Tex. Archeol. and Paleont.Soc., 1933, Vol. 5, Sept., No., 14-24, pl. VI.

3. Hooton, E. A.., Notes on Five Texas Crania, ibid., 25-38, pl. VII.

4. Studley (Miss C. A.), Human Remains from the Caves of Coahuila, Mex., 16th Ann. Rep. Peabody Mus., Cambridge,Mass., 233 et. seq.

5. See the Catalogue of Human Crania in the U. S. Nat. Mus. Collections, No. 2. The Algonkins, etc. Proc. U. S. N.M., Wash., 1927, LXIX; also No. 4, the Pueblos, etc., ibid., 1931, LXXVIII.

6. Stewart (T. D.), Skeletal Remains from Southwestern Texas. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1935, XX, 213 et seq.

7. From midpoint of line of floors of the auditory canals, 13.0 cm.

8. For details of find see Sci. Amer. Magaz., May, 1929; and Bull. Tex. Arch. and Paleont. Soc., 1929, I.

9. Bull. Tex. Archeol. and Paleont. Soc., 1933, V, 36, 37.

10. Measured with small calipers. The minimum diameter is obtained by applying the fixed branch to the anteriorflattening, the major by applying the rod of the instrument to the same flattening. See writer’s “Anthropometry.”


11. Report on additional collection of Skeletal Remains from Arkansas and Louisiana. J. Ac. Nat. Sci., Phila.,1909, p. 218.

12. In Hrdlicka’s “The Gluteal Ridge and Gluteal Tuberosities (3rd Trochanters).” Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1937,XXIII, 136, 174.

13. See author’” “The Femur of the Old Peruvians,” Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1938, XXIII, 429.

14. do., On the Stature of the Indians of the Southwest and of Northern Mexico. Putnam Anniv., Vol., 1909, 426;and The Anthropology of the Sioux, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1931, XVI, 123 et seq.

15. Only one pair.

16. See author’s “The Human Femur: Shape of the Shaft.” Anthropologie (Praha), 1934, XII, 129 et seq.

17. l. c., p. 140 et seq.

18. Antero-posterior and transverse or lateral. The antero-posterior diameter is the maximum antero-posteriordimension; the lateral is the measurement of the shaft obtained with the branches of the sliding calipers applied tothe sides of the shaft with the crista (linea) aspera in the middle between the two. See also author’s “Anthropometry,”Phila. (Wistar Inst.), 1920.

19. Writer’s unpublished records.

The Clear Fork Culture Complex 97

Its Relation to Other CulturesPrior to the year 1927, when the writer began

his research, an area in Central Texas larger thanthat of some states still remained g blank on thearcheological maps. Almost no scientificarcheological research had been done in a regionnearly three hundred miles long from east to west,and over one hundred and fifty miles wide fromnorth to south.

It is within this territory that the remains of thatpeculiar dolichocephalic human type known asAbilene Man were first found and described by thiswriter.1 It was also within the same area that hefirst found and described the most deeply buriedancient midden levels yet found in America, in whichhe also first found, named and described the crudethick leaf-shaped Abilene Points. The area bearsevery physical evidence of having been lived uponby man throughout a great many millenniums oftime.2

Great Depth of Midden StrataThe great depth of the superimposed geological

deposits in which one may find crude flint toolsembedded3 the thickness of the patination on manyflint implements, the primitive types of humanskeletal materials found,4 the depth at which somehuman crania are stratified, and the bones of extinctanimals found embedded with flint artifacts, alltestify to the ancientness of the human occupationlevels of the Abilene region.

Many Flint Culture TypesThroughout the years many distinct types and

cultures of flint tools have been first found hereand described by the writer. At the present timeenough data has not been collected to enable oneto separate the great diversity of Central Texas flintsinto a complete and ordered chronological series.

Difficulties of Finding Chronological OrderIn the forty or fifty thousand years in which it is

probable that man has occupied this region5 therehas been ample time for erosion and accretion, toact and counteract, to shuffle and to mix anddisarrange the records 60 often that it becomesdifficult to separate the mixtures which haveresulted.

However despite all of the difficulties there arecertain types of artifacts which have been foundhere and there alone, and in pure culture, in otherplaces the same kinds have been let down on olderoded clay soil surfaces together with mixtures ofancient implements.

Occasionally certain types are found embeddedon the exposed edges of deep strata, and one canthen pick a typical implement out of itschronological layer, much as a boy picks raisins outof a cake. Again in a few fortunate instances bladeshave been found by digging back into the edges ofthese deeply buried strata.

Lived in Mountain Valley SitesOne of the most difficult flint culture complexes

to be fitted into the chronology of the river bankstratification has been the Clear Fork CultureComplex. While its gouges were first found on thevery high terraces of The Clear Fork of the Brazosand the Culture takes its name from that firstdescription,6 this flint culture appears to have beeninvented by a type of man who usually lived innarrow mountain valleys, either near to springs oron what are now dry creek branches located severalmiles below what are at present weakly flowingsprings. It is probable that the period of occupationwas so long ago that streams then flowed from thesprings down past the old camp sites. In someinstances there is not now any evidence that a springever was near except that the site could not havebeen occupied unless water once was there.

THE CLEAR FORK CULTURE COMPLEX

BY CYRUS N. RAY


The location of the sites makes it very difficultto correlate these deposits with the stratifiedsuperimposed river valley bank strata of the sameregion.

However the Clear Fork Culture tools erodefrom several feet below the surface even in oldmountain side campsite deposits and from gravelterrace deposits along dry branches of creeks. Inone such site Folsom and Folsomoid flint dart headsare found on the same old much eroded surfaces.7

In this site a Folsomoid point three inches long wasfound July 4, 1938, in the same water borne depositat the same level and almost against the two teethand bones of a mammoth (Elephas Columbi).8

Clear Fork Implements ResemblePaleolithic Types

Several nationally known students of Europeanpaleolithic implements have stated to the writer thatThe Clear Fork Culture contains more of the typicalEuropean paleolithic forms of artifacts than anyother previously found in America, and that if thesehad been found in Europe they wouldunquestionably be considered to be of great age.The handaxes, spokeshaves, burins, and grattoirs,have especially been selected by these authoritiesas representing European paleolithic types.

Clear Fork Culture Flint GougesOne of the most distinctive tools of this Culture

is of a peculiar type perhaps best described as agouge, although its real use is unknown. Within ashort time after the writer initiated the research inthe Abilene region he began to find these unusualtools on the high terraces above the Brazos River,and first described and illustrated them in thisBulletin in Vol. 1, 1929, and named and partiallydescribed The Clear Fork Culture Complex in1934.9

The Clear Fork gouges are usually made of flintbut occasionally of quartzite. The size variesconsiderably in different sites. The smallestspecimen in the writer’s collection is l ½ inches wideat the widest end and is two inches long. The largestis 2 ½ inches wide at the larger end and 5 1/8 inches

long. These implements were made by taking outlarge flakes by the percussion method which gavethe blades a sinuous edge. The blades are quitethick, especially at the larger ends, and not verysharp pointed. One face is convex and is longerthan the other. The other and shorter face is nearlyflat. The larger thick ends of these tools are scoopedout between the ends of the short faces and theends of the long faces, in such manner as to leavecurved cutting edges at the ends of the longerconvex faces. One of these gouges was found bythe writer where it probably had eroded from thesurface of a gravel deposit a few feet distant fromwhere three elephas bones lay embedded in the samegravel.

Clear Fork Planer-GougesFound in the same sites are implements of very

similar type; these have the longest face made byone flat surface instead of the convex much chippedsurface of the longest face of the gouges. The thickends of these implements are either scooped outlike those of the gouges or less often are beveleddown to an edge like a carpenter’s plane. Howeverthe construction is not at all similar to that of anyof the ordinary flint end scrapers of the region.

Both the gouges and the planer-gouges may havebeen used for the same purposes but their differentconstruction would suggest a different use.

The writer suggests that the gouge’s curvedcutting edges may have been used in gouging outhard substances, such as wood and bone, and thegouge-planers in planning the surfaces down. Thewriter has found a total of 250 gouges and planer-gouges in the Abilene region. These are aboutequally divided between the two types.

Clear Fork Culture Dart (1)There are four distinctly different kinds of dart

heads found with the other components of The ClearFork Culture Complex. The writer believes that thisflint Culture was used throughout such a long periodof time that the dart head types went through severalevolutionary changes into at least four distinct kindsduring the time when the other main components


such as gouges, planer-gouges, burins, side scrapersand paleolithic type hand axes were still being used.He also believes that the time of use of The ClearFork Culture Complex was very near to, if notduring, the same period when Folsom and Yumapoints were being used. Just what the relative ageof the four types is has not yet been determined.However Nos. (1) and (2) were found in pureculture in the same sites. The Clear Fork Dart (1)is usually about three inches long, 7-8 of an inchwide, and 3-8 of an inch thick. The dart head has along oval round ended base, without eithershoulders or barbs. Its width is about the samethroughout. It is relatively long, narrow and thick.Its percussion fractured blades are twistedlengthwise similar to the propeller of an airplane. Adart of this type is not beveled but its whole bladeis twisted from the haft to the point. Most of thesepoints are heavily patinated.

Clear Fork Dart (2)The Clear Fork Dart (2) has two subtypes, one

long and not so wide, and one short and ovalshaped. Darts of the shorter type sometimes haveblades which are twisted, but not so much so asthose of Dart (1). The most constant feature of Dart(2) is that the stems of the bases are always beveledto the right. These points have neither barbs norshoulders, and are rather thick. The short broadoval type vary from 2 to nearly 3 inches long, andfrom 1 to 1 3-16 inches wide. The oval type isshaped abruptly to a sharp point while the longrelatively narrow type is shaped more gradually toa point. The longest one of the narrow type is 4 ½inches in length and 15-16 of an inch in width.

Clear Fork Dart (3)This triangular point is larger, longer and thicker

than Dart (4). Its base is straight and square andonly occasionally slightly recessed, and its edges

PLATE 24.No. (1) Eleven Clear Fork hand axes.No. (2) Top row, seven Clear Fork gouges. Second row from top, seven planer-gouges. Bottom

half, sixteen Clear Fork side scrapers.


are straight near the base instead of flared. It alsohas long slender flakes chipped out of the center,up from the base. It is finely retouched all along itsedges to the point, and usually is somewhat serrated.These points vary from about 1 3-4 to 2 1-2 inchesin length, and from 1 1-8 to 1 3-8 inches in width.Nearly all of such points are very deeply patinated.

Clear Fork Dart (4)The Clear Fork Dart (4) is of a broad triangular

shape and is thinned up from the center of the base.It has the form of outline of an old type of Chinesehat. The bottoms of the edges near the base flareoutward and upward. The center of the base of oneof these points is slightly recessed and from thisrecess several long narrow flake channels extendupward toward the point. Like the Folsom pointsthe outer edges of these points are thicker than the

centers, but they lack the minute retouch along themargins, and the shape is entirely different.

Some of these points are beveled to the right,and some serrated, and nearly all are deeplypatinated. These points vary from 1 1.2 to 2 inchesin length, and from 1 3-8 to 1 5-8 inches in width atthe base, which is the widest part.

Clear Fork Gravers or BurinsClear Fork gravers are roughly fractured thick

flint flakes on which short, strong, beak shaped,graver points have been carefully chipped.According to authorities on European graver pointsor burins such points greatly resemble the paleolithictypes found there. It is quite likely that these strongsharp points were made for the purpose ofengraving hard substances such as shell, bone, horn,

PLATE 25.No. (1) Top two lines. Clear Fork dart (1). Third and fourth lines, Clear Fork dart (2). Fifth line,Clear Fork dart (3). Sixth and seventh lines. Clear Fork dart (4).No. (2) Top line, Clear Fork Disks. Second and third lines. Clear Fork Gravers. Fourth line, ClearFork Spokeshaves. Fifth and sixth lines, oval knives.


and stone. Three engraved bone tubes made fromthe lee bones of some uncommonly large bird werefound around the neck of a woman of the AbileneMan type.10 There are several different types ofgravers. While most flakes include only one graverpoint, some have two to three or more points.However those of definite beaked form usually onlyhave one point. There are sixty Clear Fork graversin the writer’s collection. All of these gravers aredeeply patinated.

Clear Fork SpokeshavesClear Fork Spokeshaves are thick flint flakes in

which semi-lunar sharp cutting edges have beencarefully chipped. Usually only one cutting edgewas made in a flake, but some have two cuttingedges. The cutting edges vary considerably in size.These probably were made in different sizes suitablefor rounding off different sized dart, and spearshafts, and ax handles. There are forty-fourspecimens of spokeshaves in the writer’s collection.

Clear Fork Side ScrapersClear Fork Side Scrapers were made by striking

off one thick long flake from a large flint pebble.This flake had an upper convex surface coveredwith the original flint crust, and one flat surface. Ithad one long thick edge and one long thin edge.The prehistoric workman then chipped a retouchall along the long thin edge, and left the originalcrust on the back portion of the artifact. Thisoriginal crust perhaps made a more firm hand hold’in use with less danger of hand injury than withsome other types. These side scrapers vary muchin size and thickness, but most of them are muchlarger than the better finished types of scrapers usedby the later Indians. Authorities on Europeanpaleolithic flints state that such side scrapers aretechnically indistinguishable from the paleolithictypes.

A side scraper of this type was found with aburial of the extremely dolichocephalic Abilene Manin 1932.11 There are more than two hundred ClearFork side scrapers in the writer’s collection.

Clear Fork Coup de Poings or Hand AxesThere are several distinct types of these hand

axes but all have a general resemblance, due firstto the fact that a similar technique in flint chipping(percussion) was used in making them, and second,that they were all made to be grasped in the handwithout the use of a handle.

They resemble several ancient types of Europeanpaleolithic hand axes too closely to be differentiatedfrom, them if one did not know the place of originof either.

Such axes were made by selecting a natural flintpebble large enough so that one end could begrasped in the hand and by percussion flaking offan edge on the other. By this method the originalcrust was left intact on all but the cutting edge.The large flakes produced a characteristic sinuousedged blade. There are a good many subtypes ofthis ax. Only the two most numerous types will bedescribed fully.

In one type the edge was made by chipping offfrom both faces toward the center which made thecutting edge in the center as in modern axes. Someothers were only chipped from one face, whichmade the cutting edge slant toward the flat otherface.

There are two main ax shapes; the No. (1) ax islong, very thick and relatively narrow. The cuttingblade of this type gradually tapers from the thickbase nearly to a point. The cutting end or edge isusually not over an inch wide at the point. A typicalNo. (1) ax is from 5 to 5 3-4 inches long, 2 incheswide, and 2 inches thick. Tie butts of such axes areeither oval or nearly square and are of about thesame thickness from the base to the part where theblade sharpening begins.

The No. (2) ax has a broad flat blade and is notmore than half so thick as the No. (1) ax. In theNo. (2) ax the top or portion which was grasped inthe hand is the narrowest portion and the ax flaresout into a wide flat blade shaped nearer like amodern ax. However the same technical methodswere used in making both types. In this ax also the


original flint crust was left intact on the upperportion so it would not injure the hand of the user.The broad axes have cutting edges from 4 to 5inches broad and are from 4 1-2 to 6 1-2 inches inlength. This ax is very much broader at the bottomor cutting edge than at the top. Some of these axeshave only one row of large flakes taken off of thebottom or cutting edge. Other axes are chipped forfrom one-half to two-thirds of the distance up theblades. All of both types have an ancient thick patinaover the flaked surfaces. Most of the axes are madeof flint but some of the largest are of quartzite. Thereare 63 Clear Fork axes in the writer’s collection.

Clear Fork Almond Shaped and Oval KnivesThese knives are uniformly thick, percussion

fractured, rough knives, which vary in form fromalmond shaped, to a long oval or a leaf shape. Thebases are always rounded however. They vary insize from two inches in length to as large and thickas a large man’s hand. In one case in the Society’sMuseum exhibit in Abilene the writer has on display154 of these oval knives.

Clear Fork Recessed Based KnivesThe Clear Fork Recessed Based Knives were

better made and thinner than the almond and leafshaped types, and possibly may have been laterproducts of a long culture period. These knives werelarge, relatively thick, wide, and long and the baseswere recessed. Such knives were 1 3-4 to 2 incheswide, and 4 to 5 inches long. They were thinned ashort distance up the centers from the recessedbases.

Clear Fork DisksThere are several types of Clear Fork Disks;

there is one round type which is flat on one side,and is chipped to abrupt thick edges all around,which may have been used as a scraper.12 Of thesedisks very small flint, and quite large quartzitespecimens, are occasionally found. Another typehas been chipped from both faces into a disk whichis thick in the middle and thin on the edges. Suchdisks may either have been used as missiles in slings,or the large ones thrown from the hand. Some one

has suggested their use as hammerstones. A fewlarge specimens do show a little bruising on theedges but most do not. Some were too small forsuch use.

Aside from these reasons to doubt such use, thetypical round flint ball hammerstone, which stemsback into early paleolithic times, is just as commonlyfound in Clear Fork Culture Sites as in those of thelate Indians. There are 55 of these disks displayedin the writer’s exhibit in The West Texas Chamberof Commerce Museum in Abilene.

Clear Fork Abrading StonesClear Fork Abrading Stones were usually made

of bard oval quartzite stones of a size suitable tohold in one’s hand, on which one or more of eithergrooves, or of eroded flat depressions, have beenworn down through the original crust by rubbingor sharpening tools or ornaments of bone and shellon them. One of these abrading stones was foundwith the skeleton of a dolichocephalic woman, ofthe Abilene Man type in 1932, along with bone awls,deer horn flaking tools and two flints.13 The endsof some of these abrading stones had also been usedas hammerstones.

Clear Fork Flint Awls or PunchesVery few Clear Fork Flint Awls have been found.

One type of these have thick points with heavy flakebases which have the other ends fashioned into ClearFork Gouge cutting edges. Another rare type is along plain straight awl which is pointed at each end.Only about fifteen flint awls have been found. Thereason for this scarcity of flint awls probably isbecause the Clear Fork people probably dependedmainly on bone awls for such uses. There are tworeasons for this belief, the first is that abradingstones suitable for making bone awls are acomponent of the culture and such awls with anabrading stone were found with a dolichocephalicAbilene Man skeleton in the same region. Thebeaked gravers may also have been utilized for manyof the same uses as awls.


In ConclusionThe reader naturally infers correctly from the

above statements that the writer believes that TheClear Fork Culture was one of the flint cultureswhich were used by dolichocephalic Abilene Manat some period of the vast lapse of time in which heundoubtedly occupied the Abilene section of CentralTexas. The idea also occurs that this also may havebeen the type of man who fashioned Folsom andYuma Points, the writer believes that it was, andthat the Folsom Culture is no older, if indeed soold, as The Clear Fork Culture. However both mayhave been contemporaneous. It will require muchmore research to determine their relative places inthe chronology. In the case of the Abilene Pointsthe writer’s present belief is that these are far olderthan either the flints of the Folsom, Yuma, or ClearFork Complexes.

While there is some evidence, as cited above,that Clear Fork Man’s tools were used by AbileneMan, there has been no instance in the writer’sexcavation of over fifty Abilene Man burials, wherea gouge, planer-gouge, graver, spokeshave, or ahand ax have been found with a burial. EvidentlyAbilene Man had very little of the later Indian’sconception of a hereafter, because of the fact thathe usually buried nothing whatever with the bodies.In the few instances where he did, nearly all of theartifacts were of bone or shell. This condition mayalso explain why Folsom Points have not yet beendefinitely identified with a human type.

The type collection of The Clear Fork CultureComplex is exhibited in a large museum case ofThe Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety in the Museum of The West Texas Chamberof Commerce in Abilene, Texas. The museum casecontains eight hundred and twenty specimens ofthe various types of Clear Fork implements.

Cyrus N. Ray,Box 62, Abilene, Texas.

Bibliography(1) Cyrus N. Ray, Scientific American, May

1929, p.p. 430-431.

(2) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 2, 1930, p.p. 45-52,plates 10-11-14-15.

(3) M. M. Leighton, Geological Aspects of theFindings of Primitive Man Near Abilene, Texas,pp. 34-35, Gila Pueblo Report, 1936.

(4) Ernest A. Hooton, Notes on Five TexasCrania, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 5, 1933, p.p. 25-37,plates 4-5-6-7 and 8.

(5) Harold S. Gladwin, The Archeology of theSouthwest and Its Relation to the Culture of Texas,Vol. 6, 1934, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, p. 20.

(6) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 1, 1929, p. 18, plate1, Nos. 8.9-10-11.

(7) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 2, 1930, plate 10.

(8) Ray and Kirk Bryan, Science, Sept. 16, 1938,Folsomoid Point Found in Alluvium Beside aMammoth’s Bones, p.p. 257-258.

(9) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 6, 1934, Flint Culturesof Ancient Man in Texas, p.p. 107-111, plate 18.

(10) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 5, 1933, MultipleBurials in Stone Cist Mounds of The AbileneRegion, p. 17, plate 8.

(11) Ibid., p. 16, plate 8.

(12) Adolph Witte, Bulletin of TexasArcheological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 7,1935, p. 55.

(13) Ray, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Vol. 5, 1933, p. 16, plate8.


Blue Mountain Rock Shelter is located in theeast side of Winkler County about fourteen milesnortheast of Kermit and approximately forty-twomiles northwest of Odessa. Blue Mountain is reallynot a mountain at all, but is the southern escarpmentof the Llano Estacado. Approaching the escarpmentfrom the north, one travels over a nearly level plainand comes suddenly and unexpectedly to theCaprock. It is only when the escarpment is seenfrom the south that it has the appearance of a long,flat mountain, hence the misleading name, BlueMountain.

The Caprock in the locality of the shelter is alimestone stratum more than forty feet thick. Aboutforty feet of the stratum is exposed at the place,and we could not determine how much deeper theformation went on account of the talus. The toplayer of the limestone stratum is much harder thanthe layers below, and the lower levels have beenmore susceptible to erosion than the harder upperlayer, causing a number of overhanging shelters tooccur.

The shelter which we excavated was the onlyone in the locality which showed’ signs of prolongedoccupation. It faced the east and had roughly theshape of a right triangle with the hypotenuse to thefront. One of the adjacent sides measured twenty-one feet six inches, the other forty-four feet, andthe hypotenuse, or front, forty-eight feet. The ceilingof the shelter was nearly level, but the floor slopedupward toward the South. At the north end theceiling was approximately seven feet from the floorafter excavation of all the debris showing signs ofoccupation, and at the south end approximately fourfeet.

About fifty feet north of the shelter was once aspring. It emerged from a cavity in the limestonetwenty feet below the present surface. Some of theold cattlemen in the vicinity remember when the

spring had a strong and constant flow. They are ofthe opinion that the lowering of the undergroundwater table on the Llano Estacado has hadsomething to do with the spring’s ceasing to flowduring recent years. At the time the adjacent rockshelter was occupied, the spring was no doubt awell known watering place.

Our attention was first called to Blue MountainShelter by M. R. Henderson Shuffler of Odessa.Mr. Shuffler had previously taken Mr. A. T. Jacksonof the University of Texas to the site and Mr.Jackson made a surface survey, but did notexcavate. Dr. O. O. Watts of Hardin-SimmonsUniversity had also previously visited the place.

In March, 1938, an expedition, sponsored byTexas Technological College and the West TexasMuseum completely excavated the shelter as deepas there was evidence of human occupation. Theparty consisted of Dr. C. J. Wagner, H. L. Allen, W.G. McMillan, E. J. Lowery, Winston Reeves, all ofthe West Texas Museum Association, and PorterMontgomery, Jim Roney, Welty Wright, R. F.Madera, Lewis Jones, and Winford Baze, Techstudents. The work was directed by the writer.

Someone had dug a hole in the north end of theshelter approximately three feet wide, five feet long,and four feet deep, or to a depth of about two andone-half feet below the occupation level. The workhad been done carelessly, and no report made sofar as we know. We screened the earth taken fromthe hole and found a number of artifacts. These arethe materials which I later refer to as coming fromthe dump heap.

The fill from the remaining undisturbed part ofthe shelter was taken out in three layers ofapproximately six inches each. All of the earth wasscreened through a quarter inch wire mesh intowheelbarrows and dumped down the slope at thenorth end of the shelter.

BLUE MOUNTAIN ROCK SHELTER

BY W. C. HOLDEN

Blue Mountain Rock Shelter 105

Projectile PointsA total of 30 whole projectile points and 51

broken ones were found. These fall under sevendistinct types. Type 1 we shall describe as beingtriangular and having straight edges, with the basevarying from straight to concave as shown in plate

27, panel 2A, specimens 20 and 21 and specimenNo. 17, Plate 27, panel 2B. Of these there werefive whole points and ten broken ones in the firstlayer, four broken points in the second layer andfour whole ones in the third layer, making 23 in all.

Type 2 has one notch on each side near the base,with a concave base which may or maynot have a notch in its center, as shownin specimens 23, 24, 25, and 26, Plate27, panel 2B. Of these there were fourwhole points and nine broken ones inlayer 1, five whole points and fivebroken ones in layer 2, and none inlayer 3, making 23 in all.

Type 3 has straight edges with astem base, as shown in specimen 15,Plate 27, panel 2A. Of these there wereeight broken points in layer 1 and nonein layers 2 or 3. This fact would seemto indicate that this type was of morerecent origin, or of more recentintroduction, go far as the inhabitantsof the cave were concerned than theother types.

Type 4 has one notch on each sidenear the base, and has a triangular base.The barbs are more narrow than arethe points of type 1. Of these there wasone whole point in layer 1, one wholeone and one broken point in layer 2,and none in layer 3, making threespecimens in all. See specimen 22,Plate 27, panel 2B and specimen 24,Plate 27, panel 2A.

Type 5 has no side notches and atriangular base with flared barbs, asshown in specimen 19, Plate 27, panel2A. Of these there were four wholepoints and six broken ones in layer 1,four whole points and five broken onesin layer 2, and one whole point andone broken in layer 3.

There were 27 fragments ofprojectile points whose types can notbe determined.

PLATE 26.No. (1) General view of shelter.No. (2) Interior of shelter.No. (3) Mortar holes.


A Folsom-Like PointPerhaps of special significance was a Folsom-

like point from layer 3. Stratified with it were twohorse teeth. The point is of gray, translucent flint.Unfortunately it is only a fragment; see specimen3, Plate 28, panel 3A. It has parallel sides, and theremaining edge is ground. The chipping on the faceof one side is like that of an unfluted Folsom point.It has marginal retouching, and what appears to bea flute on one side. This is really not a flute but anunworked surface of the original flake.

KnivesKnives were very scarce in the cave. Only one

whole one was found, specimen 4, Plate 27, panel2A. It measures two and three-quarters inches longand one and one-quarter inches wide at the base. It

is crudely finished by the percussion method. Onefragment of a broken beveled knife came from thedump heap and one from layer 1. Four brokenstraight edged specimens came from layer 1, twofrom layer 2, and none from layer 3.

ScrapersA total of 11 end scrapers were found. Of these,

two whole scrapers and two broken ones came fromlayer 1, seven from layer 2, and none from layer 3.See specimens 1, 2, and 3, Plate 27, panel 2A andspecimens 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Plate 27, panel 2B.

There were 9 side scrapers. Of these, two wholescrapers and three broken ones came from layer 1,four whole scrapers from layer 2, and none fromlayer 3. See specimens 7, 8, and 14, Plate 27, panel2A.

PLATE 27.Type specimens from layer (1).


In addition, there were 34 utilized fragments orflakes probably used as scrapers.

AwlsSeven flint awls were found. Three whole ones

and two fragments came from layer 1, one wholeawl and one fragment from layer 2, and none fromlayer 3. See specimens 9, 10, and 11, Plate 27, panel2A and specimens 14, and 15, Plate 27, panel 2B.

Three bone awls came to light. Two came fromthe dump heap and one broken one from layer 1.See specimen 21, Plate 28, panel 3A.

BeadsSix tubular bone beads were found. Two of these

came from the dump heap and four from layer 1.See specimens 12, and 16, Plate 28, panel 3A. Oneflat shell bead came from the dump heap. Seespecimen 14, Plate 28, panel 3A. One round beadmade from a gastropod shell also came from thedump heap. See specimen 13, Plate 28, Panel 3A.

Worked ShellA single peace of worked shell came from layer

2. It is triangular in shape, slightly rounded at theapex. On the base are twelve notches, and on oneside there are two notches. Part of the oppositeside is missing, but there is evidence that there werealso two corresponding notches there. See specimen13, Plate 27, panel 2B.

PaintFive pieces of paint were discovered. Two pieces

of red hematite came from the dump heap, and twopieces of red hematite and one piece of yellowlimonite came from layer 1.

StoneOne large sandstone metate of the flat, thin

variety came from layer 1 near the back wall of theshelter. On it was a sandstone mano. Three otherfragments of manos came from layer 1.

PLATE 28.Type specimens from layer (2).


Mortar HolesOn the limestone stratum along the edge of the

escarpment are over a hundred mortar holes. Thesevary in depth from eight to fourteen inches, in widthfrom five to nine inches, and in length from sevento fourteen inches long. No pestles were found.See No. 3, Plate 26.

Vegetal MaterialsOnly two items of a vegetal nature were found.

These were small quid-like pieces of Yucca stems.See specimens 3 and 4, Plate 27, panel 2B. Thesequids are unlike those found in the caves and rockshelters of the lower Pecos River country in thatthey do not appear to have been chewed.

No other items of either textiles or food werefound.

PotteryThirteen pieces of pottery were turned up. Three

of these are definitely of Pueblo origin. One is asherd of black on white with a hatched design. Seespecimen 2, Plate 28, panel 3A. Another is a browndesign on gray. See specimen 4, Plate 28, panel3A. The third is a red design on an orange slip;there is no slip on the other side of the sherd. Seespecimen 11, Plate 28, panel 3A. All three sherdscame from the surface.

The other ten sherds are of plain cooking ware.Two of them have thumb print indentations on theoutside.

TeethTwenty-five horse teeth were found. The species

have not been definitely identified.

There was a considerable number of bison andantelope teeth, several teeth of carnivorous animals,and a number of rodent’s teeth. The horse and bisonteeth came from layer 3.

BonesA considerable amount of crushed bone was

found throughout all the layers.

PictographsOn the ceiling of the shelter near the back is a

pictograph of a human hand. It is dark red and aboutthe size of an average adult hand. On the rock faceabove the spring, fifty feet north of the shelter is agroup of approximately thirty pictographs done ina light red color. One is a portion of a human handwith a part of the little finger and all of the indexfinger missing. Another no doubt is a female figure.One may be a deer, an antelope, or a dog. One is aman. Another is probably a plumed serpent. One isa horse looking over a fence. This is the only picturewhich can definitely be dated this side of the adventof the modern horse. Another is probably a sunsymbol. It is the largest of the group, measuringapproximately two feet across.

In another rock shelter, which showed noevidence of occupation and which is locatedapproximately two miles southwest of the spring,were two pictographs done in light red paint. Onewas circular, about two feet in diameter, and hadmany diagonal lines which made a number ofgeometric patterns. The other picture was small andwas of a snake. Very suitable for the locality wethought, as we killed four rattlesnakes in theimmediate vicinity while climbing to the shelter toinspect it.

ConclusionOur main purpose in excavating Blue Mountain

Rock Shelter was to determine if its culture hadany relationship to the basket maker culture of thelower Pecos and Big Bend region on one hand, orto the Pueblo on the other. Located as it was directlybetween the two cultures, we thought perhaps BlueMountain would afford a tie-up, or an over-lappingof the two, in such manner that it would be possibleto roughly date the culture to the south. In theexcavation of Murrah Cave in March, 1937, wefound nothing tangible which could be used toapproximate the age of the culture, other than thatit was prehistoric. By this we mean it showed noevidence of contact with the Anglo-American.Professor J. E. Pearce and A. T. Jackson reachedthe same conclusion in their report, “A Prehistoric


Rock Shelter in Val Verde County, Texas,”University of Texas Bulletin, Bureau of Researchin Social Sciences Study No. 6, AnthropologicalPapers, Vol. I, No. 3.

We were disappointed in the achievement of ourprimary objective; that is, the finding of a cultural“tie-up.” We found nothing at Blue Mountain whichshowed any connection with the culture of MurrahCave. None of the dominate flint types of MurrahCave turned up at Blue Mountain. There were nogouges, fist axes, war spikes, bone crushers, utilizedpebbles, nor bone tools other than awls. There wasno’ basketry, cordage, cordage knots, netting, skinwrapped cords, leaf and fiber knots, yucca sandals,articles of skin, feathers, fiber mats, reed artifacts,wooden artifacts, items of vegetal foods, nor cactusspine needles. Murrah Cave had no pottery; BlueMountain had a gray cooking ware.

On the other hand it is likely that the BlueMountain culture was non-Pueblo. Had it been, itis probable that a greater abundance of Pueblopottery would have been found. The three Pueblosherds were found on the surface. One, belonging

to Pueblo III, was not in the shelter but near thespring some fifty feet north of the shelter. Withoutdoubt the place was known to the Pueblos whoused it on buffalo hunting excursions. But due tothe absence of stratified Pueblo materials it isdoubtful if the Pueblos were responsible for theeighteen inches of accumulated debris in the shelter.

We are convinced that if a cultural tie-upbetween the Pueblo and the ancient inhabitants ofthe lower Pecos is to be found, we are going tohave to look farther south for it.

If the Blue Mountain culture has no relationshipwith the lower Pecos, and if it is not Pueblo, wemay inquire as to what kind of a culture it was. Weare not prepared to say. With farther exploration inthe region, its relationship will possibly beestablished at some future time. At the present aboutall we can conclude is what it is not, rather thanwhat it is.

Texas Technological College,Lubbock, Texas.


Like other dry rock shelters located in the BigBend of Texas, the one described in these pagesyielded evidence basic to the territory and rather tobe expected in all such investigations. Also, likethe others, it developed certain interestingcharacteristics of its own. In this case points ofspecial interest lie in the variety of rock carvings atthe site; additional sandal types; unusual sizes incorn cobs; and a greater variety of flint artifacts,including two hafted hatchets, than is usually foundin similar shelters.

Carved Rock Shelter is one of a number ofsimilar sites in the Sunny Glen Canyon, near Alpine,where conditions were most favorable foragriculture, because of the flat overflow land ofthe valley, as well as for hunting and other foodgathering pursuits. The indications which seemedto promise profitable excavation at the site werethe proximity of water, an area almost untouchedby vandals, the extensive rock carvings mentioned,a profitable test which yielded fire sticks and afragment of coiled basket, and the presence of aconsiderable fall of rock which seemed to indicatefull protection for materials caught underneath. Theowners of the land, Mr. Perry Cartwright and hisfather, Mr. T. J. Cartwright, to whom we areindebted for permission to excavate, recalledvisiting the shelter before the fall of rock which, inaddition to protecting artifacts, formed a permanentbarrier to complete excavation. Earlier falls areattested to by the presence of fully formed mortarscovered by the later fall.

The variety and extent of rock carving at thesite seems to have been encouraged by a relativelysofter and more easily worked type of stone plus aconsiderable amount of natural pitting which gavethe workers a favorable start. This rock workappears in three forms: the drilling of small holeswith lines or grooves suggesting a tabulation; thecarving of radial lines about rock pits; and, mostcommon of all, the carving of innumerable lines

(“V” shaped grooves) in irregular directions, sizes,and forms though the general direction or trend oflines is vertical. The evidence with respect to therelative age of the carvings indicates that the drilledholes represent the oldest group, since they arefound on the bottoms of early rock falls upon whichthe fresher line carvings mentioned occur upon thesides and tops. It seems evident, from anexamination of the position and nature of thecarving, that falls occurred throughout long periodsof time during Indian occupation and with a largerhistoric fall in 1914, and some additions during theearthquake of 1931. A typical cist, for example, wastucked in between rock falls with recent carvingbut with older carving and habitation evidencebelow.

My own observation of this, and similar carvingsat widely scattered sites, results in no soundexplanation concerning the carving phenomena justdescribed. Some have attributed this work to thesharpening of instruments. The fact that such workis not common to all sites will preclude this theory.Other solutions suggesting themselves include areligious or “magic” motive back of the carving;tabulations; sex signs; and the idea of making one’s“mark” where others have also left similar examples.At any rate, only five or six sites in the Big Bendyield evidence of rock carving similar to that of thecave described herein.

The general form of the overhanging ledge isthat of a shelter eighty feet long with an extremedepth of forty-five feet. The procedure in excavationwas to block out five foot squares from a base lineapproximating the overhang of the cliff. Specimens,as found, were recorded as to depth and positionso that, where desirable, the findings could bereconstructed exactly in their original siterelationship for study or verification of conclusions.Thus 250 numbered specimens were tabulated andare summarized as follows:

CARVED ROCK SHELTER

BY VICTOR J. SMITH

Carved Rock Shelter 111

106 flint flakes from general digging.33 specimens of rock carving or drilling fromcliff or rock falls.20 cobs or cob fragments.16 wooden objects, including 6 shaped sticks,8 pieces of tire making apparatus, etc.15 mullers or muller fragments.12 hammer stones, 3 to 20 ozs.14 metates or metate fragments.11 sandals or sandal fragments.5 scraper forms.7 blades.7 points.6 worked rocks.5 worked flints.3 hatchet blades, two hafted (wood).2 notched arrow fragments.2 pictograph fragments (3 also on cliff).2 twilled matting and also evidence of checkermatting.2 pieces rawhide string.2 pieces animal skin.2 pieces gourd sherd and one piece sewedgourd.1 fist hatchet.1 awl form (stone).1 polished rock surface.1 each fragment coiled basket, twined matting,tied bone, and tied stick.

Miscellaneous vegetable materials include reedpit lining, grasses, cuds, sticks, leaves, cactus,prickly pear, cane, etc. Deer and antelope horn, aswell as a number of unidentified bones were found.About 70 pieces of cordage includes knots ofseveral types, string, etc. The main features of thisgroup are discussed as follows:

Cordage, Matting, and BasketryAn unusual feature of the cordage found lies in

the large number of square knots observed. Mostof these knots seem to be made from narrow stripsof fibre which had been tied in circular form fromthree to six inches in diameter. From evidence foundelsewhere, we presume that these ties were used tosecure bundles of desert fibre materials, sage, orother useful plants. Large coarse knots in

considerable number form another feature of thecordage group. Few pieces of two-strand twistedcordage are in evidence but the diameters from 3-64” to 3-32” indicates the small size range thoughthe shelter yielded the largest single mass of thisfine cordage which has come under my observation.An interesting use of cordage appears in thespecimen of cacti roots tied together for ease incarrying.

Fragments of matting indicated a limited use ofchecker weave, not uncommon in the area. Twilledmatting, with weave two over and two under(woven elements from 1-8” to 5-32” wide), isrepresented by two good specimens. One, quite newand clean in appearance, was found at a depth of10” in the rear shelter, and another, quite dark incolor, but with a portion of selvage, formed a partof the pit lining described later. A third type ofmatting, represented by a small fragment, is thetwined type, in this case a small, flat, two-stickbundle held together by twined cordage at intervalsof 3-8”.

Only two fragments of basketry have beenrecorded from the site, both being the Big Bendtype of coiled basket assembled with a V split stitchdescribed in Bulletin No. 7 of the TexasArcheological and Paleontological Society.

Other interesting forms of the use of cordage,which uses have been observed to the West as faras Van Horn, Texas, are: the sewing of gourds; thetying of cordage to sticks as it to make a trigger;and the use of reed, probably for making mats. Thespecimen of bone tied with cordage, however, isthe first such use observed.

SandalsAmong the eleven sandals located are, as might

be expected, the usual fish-tail and weaves ofcoarser texture.* The writer has, however, beenparticularly interested in two sandal types notcommonly found, at least with such distinctroundness of toe as the ones located at Carved RockShelter. At depths of 15 1-2” and 18” (in pit lining)these Round Toe Sandals suggest ages relativelyolder than the more common types, though one fish-


tail sandal was discovered at the unusual depth of19”. Another diagonally woven sandal suggests avariation of assembly which is out of the ordinary.

Wood and Carts ObjectsAside from hatchet handles, discussed in a later

paragraph, the most interesting wooden objectswere numbers of parts of fire making apparatus(hearth and drill) as well as sharpened sticks. A fewcanes, near the surface, suggest their use as arrowshafts. More definite notched arrow shaft fragmentswere found at four and two inch depths.

Cobs, Gourds, and SkinsRunning water and overflow lands in the valley

below provided favorable conditions for agriculturewhich is evidenced by a number of cobs, two ofwhich reached the unusual length of 7”, whileseveral fragments are of similar or larger size. Therow count on the larger varieties is ten and twelve.No evidence is available indicating a change in cobsize over a period of time.

Gourd sherds added their testimony to theaccumulating evidence of their use as utensils andthe practice of sewing or mending broken fragmentswith thread of desert fibre. Gourds have beenlocated elsewhere which were covered with formed,twined matting such as the small fragment describedin an earlier paragraph. A similar practice ofpunching and sewing the skins of animals isillustrated in the rawhide specimens found. Thepractice of making fur cloth from a woven base ofcordage wound with strips of fur is illustrated byfragments of a single specimen.

Mullers and MetatesA single 15” deep mortar in relatively soft rock,

together with 15 mullers and 14 metates (includingfragments), indicate the types of food grindingutensils. As usual, the evidence points to a morerecent use of the mortar and pestle, with the mullerand metate distributed from the surface to theextreme depths. The fact that the metate groupincludes, for the most part, thin and poorly formed

PLATE 29.No. (1) Hafted hatchets. No. (2) Cist between rock falls

Carved Rock Shelter 113

utensils is attributed to the fact that it would beextremely difficult to carry rocks of more acceptablesize from the valley below up to the shelter.

CistsThe five small cists or storage pits

were all typical of similar devicesobserved elsewhere in the Big Bend.While none actually containedmaterials of value, several yieldedspecimens by virtue of the fact thatsandals and matting fragments wereused as lining in the construction ofthe pits. These cists are circular inform and shaped somewhat like abasin, usually about 18” in diameterat the top and well lined with sticks,grasses, leaves, and other vegetableproducts.

Stone ObjectsIn addition to the carved lines

previously described as a feature ofthis shelter, several smallerindividual stones show similarcarvings, such as grooves, or drillingon two sides. The illustrationindicates clearly the complete varietyand relative sizes of points andblades found in relation to depth.While the number of such flintarticles was not large, the quality andform were above the average formost of the caves. We know of noother double barbed point foundunder similar conditions in WestTexas. The heavy fist hatchet waslocated 31” under normal grade andwas situated in a small extension ofthe shelter which, when excavated,formed an addition to the rear. Thissituation suggested a greaterantiquity for this particular specimenthan for much of the other materials.Particles of charcoal and a fragment

of bone were the only finds near this interestingartifact. Such fist hatchets are more common inCentral Texas but are seldom found beyond thePecos.

PLATE 30.No. (1) Cobs, pierced rawhide, gourd and fragments of

fur cloth.No. (2) Blades and points.


When first observed, the type of hafted hatchetillustrated was thought also to be unusual to theBig Bend. Subsequent research, however, hasshown a number of similar blades from a variety ofsites, which suggests the possibility of general usein the district. These most interesting specimenswere evidently of relatively recent origin as theywere found on top of one of the older rock falls,and under a more recent slab. The well preservedcondition is surprising for articles unburied. Wepresume that these hafted hatchets were used incutting fibrous desert plants since it is evident thatthey are not substantial enough for weapons orheavy cutting of any nature. A third blade, withouthaft, was located in the nest of a rodent a shortdistance from the two surface specimens.

Unlike several other sites, the scrapers foundare few in number and rather crude in workmanship.Hammerstones are more plentiful, however, beingrepresented by twelve in typical ranges of size andshape. Two grooved stones complete the run ofstone work assortment. One of these, about the sizeof the thumb and an inch long, has a circular grooveabout the top of the globule shaped articlesuggesting its probable use as a weight, but iswithout association suggesting definite use. Theother is deeply grooved but it otherwise suggeststhe typical sinkers of the river country, although itis larger and likewise foreign to the usual run ofcave artifacts.

PictographsThree small pictographs were observed on the

walls of the shelter. Two are in the typical cinnabarred, and represent forms like a wishbone and arectangular area with a small circle within. The third,orange in color, is a circle with two diagonal lineson an angle of about 45 degrees.

General DiscussionNo evidence whatever was found indicating the

use of pottery. No pipes were located, no definiteburials found, and no European influence observed.Evidence seems also to point to the fact that thisshelter was not a workshop site in the sense of

extensive flint working. The few flint specimensunearthed, however, were of unusual variety andquality. Among these the three hatchet blades, firsthatchet of the coup de poing type, double barbedand other points are most interesting. We havepreviously called attention to the variety and extentof rock carvings and that additional types of sandalswere discovered.

Further evidence was accumulated pointing tothe fact that the muller and metate were useduniversally by the older inhabitants of the Big Bendcaves and that the mortar and pestle were morerecent additions to the utensils employed in thepreparation of food. It is also evident that the basin-like cists or storage pits which have been describedmust be added to the list of definite characteristicsof the Cave People. The common practice ofchewing cacti fiber is also evidenced here, aselsewhere, by a number of chewed “cuds.”

Carved Rock Shelter has also addedconsiderably to the information with respect toagriculture as evidenced by larger sizes of corn cobsthan had heretofore been found.

Carrying distinct and interesting features of itsown, Carved Rock Shelter, nevertheless, fits wellinto the pattern of the Big Bend Cave Culture. Ithas supplied typical sandals, matting, fire sticks,cuds, cordage, and evidence of food, lacking onlythe rabbit or throwing stick to make the patternalmost complete.

It has been the intention of this summary toprovide another chapter in the developing story ofthe Big Bend Cave people. For students who seekmore detailed information, the complete field notesare available at the museum in Alpine.

Sul Ross State Teachers College,Alpine, Texas.

*See Bulletin No. 5 of the Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, Abilene. Round toe sandalsand other sandals from this shelter are illustrated inthis Bulletin in plate 12, fig. 25; and plate 13, fig.30.

Spanish Fort, An Historic Wichita Site 115

The Wichita were of Caddoan stock and earlyEuropean observers reported their presence inKansas in 1541.1 They were related linguistically,to the Pawnee and Arikara whose normal habitatwas in the High Plains region. Other members ofthe Wichita Confederacy ranged as far south asCentral Texas. The date of the initial occupation ofthis area by the Wichita is not known. Explorationsby the author in certain thick, rich, middens in thissection of the Red River drainage has disclosed along occupation by Indians whose culture complexwas similar in a number of respects to that of theprehistoric Pawnee.2 Many dissimilarities areapparent when these local midden cultures arecompared with the Texas Panhandle Cultures.3

Grass Covered LodgesCastaneda and others have left us descriptions

of the large grass-covered habitations of theWichita.4. One observer reports a diameter for thesehouses of as much as 25 feet.5 Athanase deMezieres, who visited Spanish Fort in 1778,described the dwellings as numbering 123, and eachcontaining 10 or 12 beds.6

It is not known definitely, just who was the firstwhite man to visit the Spanish Fort Indian Village.However, it is apparent from the written recordsavailable that the spot was a veritable crossroadsfor early explorers, missionaries, traders, travelers,army expeditions and Indian Tribes. The ill-fated

SPANISH FORT, AN HISTORIC WICHITA SITE

BY ADOLPH HENRY WITTE

PLATE 31.No. (1) Top row, image of horse, image of horse’s head. Second row, Copper cross with purple

stones. Third row. Copper arrow points. Fourth row. Copper link and tubes.No. (2) Top row. Flintlock gun hammers. Second row. Iron points. Third row. Small axes.


Santa Fe expedition likely passed near thesettlement while enroute to New Mexico in 1841.7

The final abandonment of the site and the migrationinto Oklahoma perhaps occurred within the nextfew years.8 However this puts us slightly ahead ofthe story. Austin’s map of Texas in 1829 showedthe location of this village.

Dr. Robert T. Hill, the geologist and historian,has carefully studied the disputed journal ofCoronado. Dr. Hill thinks that the expeditionentered Texas on the great plains, descended intoRed River through the Palo Duro Canyon, andthence eastward to a large Indian Settlement at thepresent site of Spanish Fort. Dr. Hill also thinksthat De Soto’s men entered Texas after the deathof the great leader, and pushed westward as far asSpanish Fort. This was in 1542, and it is nowthought that through information from the Indians,De Soto’s followers had learned of the white men(Coronado’s Expedition) and had sought to makeconnection with them.9 In 1719, La Harpe may havebrought the French into contact with the Wichita.It is claimed that the French flag was flying at theWichita villages before 1750. Without doubt,supplies of flintlock guns were in their hands at anearly date. Metal parts of flintlock guns are foundin large numbers in the site even today after yearsof careful search by hordes of collectors.

The bow and arrow remained in use for manyyears in this area after the introduction of firearms.In 1853, the expedition of Lieut. A. W. Whipple,met two Waco Indians in what is now McClainCounty, Oklahoma. The Indians carried bows ofBois d’arc, three feet long and quivers filled witharrows about 26 inches in length with very sharpsteel heads. This statement describing the steelarrow-heads is of special interest. The copper andiron arrow-heads from Spanish Fort were carefullyshaped with thin, sharp lateral edges and penetratingpoints. The copper points vary greatly in size forsome unknown reason.

First HorsesRobert La Salle wrote in 1682, that the Pawnee

possess horses which they obtain from the Kiowa,who steal their supplies from the Spaniards of New

Mexico.12 W. R. Wedell, referring to Nebraskatribes; reports that certain Indians south of thePlatte, possibly had horses as early as 1600. Wisslerthinks that the Pawnee may have had horses as earlyas 1630. It is likely that the Indians of the SpanishFort area obtained horses as soon as if not prior tothe above cited dates.

Apparently after 1700, French trade with theWichita at Spanish Fort was important and wascarried on through the Arkansas posts. The Indianstraded horses and mules stolen from the Spanishsettlements and Apache slaves intended for theLouisiana plantations.13

A climax was reached in 1758, when the Wichitaand their partisans destroyed the San Saba Mission,located hundreds of miles from Spanish Fort. Aretaliatory Spanish expedition marched from SanAntonio the next year in August. Captain DonDiego Ortiz was in command. He found the Indianson Red River, strongly fortified within a ditch anda stockade.

Battle of Spanish FortParrilla probably had previous knowledge of this

entrenched village and was well supplied withcannon. A decisive battle was fought on October 7,1759, and Parrilla received a humiliating defeat. Hehurriedly withdrew leaving baggage and two cannonin the hands of the Indians. Only last year (1937) asmall iron cannon ball was discovered in a nearbyfield; possibly a relic of this battle.

MeteoriteAthanase de Mezieres visited portions of North

Texas in 1772, but was unsuccessful in recoveringParrilla’s lost cannon. While on the trip he receiveddescriptions from the Indians of a great iron mass.Presumably, this is the meteorite in The Universityof Texas collection that was obtained by CaptainNeighbors in 1856. The locality for this meteoriteis given as on the east side of the Brazos Riversixty miles from Ft. Belknap, direction not given.15

Some students have placed the locality for thismeteorite in Clay County, just a few miles west ofthe area under discussion in this paper.


1778 Expedition 16

De Mezieres reached Spanish Fort in 1778 andnamed the village, Don Teodora. The two long lostcannon were returned to him before he left the town.During his stay in the locality, he wrote a numberof wonderful, descriptive letters. The writer’sinvestigations have corroborated some of the thingsmentioned in these letters. The Grand Forestmentioned, is of course the well known WesternCross Timbers that followed the strike of the TrinityFormation for many miles southward into Texas.De Mezieres wrote—The quarries furnishwhetstones, metates, white stones for lance heads,flint stones for arrows and to make fire. The metatesfrom the site are usually specimens of induratedsandstone from the Lower Permian strata whichoutcrop at no great distance.

The white stones are from the base of the TrinityDivision of the Lower Cretaceous which outcrop afew miles south and eastward of the locality. Thebase of the Trinity formation is marked by aquartzose conglomerate composed of well roundedquartz grains. This bed was evidently deposited inclear water as indicated by the fact that there ishardly any mud or silt in the conglomerate.Conglomerate appears to be present everywherein the base of the Trinity and is a reliable andpersistent horizon.16 The stone is usually wellcemented, and fractures easily across the grains intolarge conchoidal flakes, which usually have a white,vitreous luster. Artifacts of this material aresometimes found in brownish hues; the stone altersto this color when exposed to fire. These Trinitybeds were one of the major sources of “flint”supplies for the Indians of this region; tools of this

PLATE 32.No. (1) Top row, sandstone pipe. Second row, pottery pipe. Third row, marl pipe and bowls.

Fourth row, pipe stem of hematite.No. (2) Stone artifacts.


stone are found throughout a vast area of NorthCentral Texas.

Flint specimens from Spanish Fort often carryfossil fusilinids, graptolites, etc. The sources of theseancient flints were doubtless certain Paleozoicoutcrops in adjoining counties to the south, or inthe Arbuckle Mountain region of Oklahoma.

Site of Spanish Fort VillageThe village site is located on the Pleistocene

floodplain of Red River, within a great oxbow bend.Village Creek, a spring-fed brook is near thelocation. The rich alluvial soil of the valley furnishedthe sedentary Wichita with huge crops of corn,melons, beans and tobacco as mentioned by severalobservers.17 The use of tobacco must have beencommon to a greater extent than was usual in Indianvillages as pipes and pipe fragments are morenumerous here than in any site, examined by thewriter in North Central Texas. (See Plate 32).

The site has been intensively cultivated for manyyears and thousands of stone and metal artifactshave been exposed. Many of the latter are presumedto be of Spanish or French origin. Concentrationsof bone fragments occur. Bison and deer bonesappear to be the most common, with someevidences indicating that the horse was also usedfor food.

Students of archeology and history will bedisappointed to learn that this spot with itsprehistoric and proto-historic relics has beencarefully searched for years by commercialcollectors and the objects have been widelyscattered. Many of the best finds were shipped todealers in distant states. A small collection of localrelics, formerly on display in the Public School

Building has been dispersed. This collectioncontained several large grooved mauls, which aresomewhat uncommon in this region. The potsherdsconsisted of plain, undecorated pieces as well asincised and paddle-marked sherds. One sherd wasa Pueblo black-on-white specimen. A second Pueblosherd was found in the site by the writer.

The plates with this paper show some of thetypical copper, iron, stone, shell, and potteryartifacts in the writer’s file. Iron hoes, pots, andguns were re-worked into points, chisels, small axes,etc. Copper bracelets, rings, points, tubes, and etc.,apparently were formed from sheets of copperobtained from European or American sources.

Pipes From Spanish FortThe writer’s investigations in this area indicate

the use of pipes was only by those Indians whoseculture complex included pottery. Pipe fragmentsin the Spanish Fort site are numerically common,and the large number of different materials utilizedis surprising. One large fragment of a gray, potterytrade pipe was discovered. In sharp contrast to theIndian pipes, this artifact was formed by molding,and the outside was finished with a vitreous glaze.A brief analysis of types and materials follow.

No decorative technique has been observed onany of the pipes except on one gray marl pipe, whichexhibited delicately incised geometrical lines aroundthe middle of the bowl. Large stems were fitted tomost of these pipes and usually the bowl wouldcontain only a small amount of tobacco. Aninformant who lives near the site, described a pipewith a bowl shaped like a man’s head, which hefound years ago in the area. He disposed of thepipe and was uncertain about the material.

Type Material SourceElbow, 130 degrees. Permian sandstone. Local See plate 32Elbow, 90 degrees. Permian sandstone. Local Not shownElbow, 90 degrees. Brown pottery Unknown See plate 32Elbow, 75 degrees. Gray marl. Unknown See plate 32Elbow, 120 degrees. Red hematite. Unknown See plate 32Platform, (large fragment) Red steatite. Unknown Not shown


Shell ArtifactsSeveral small cylindrical shell beads were found

which may have been made from the columella ofthe conch shell. Shell disc beads were alsodiscovered. Fossil crinoid stems, drilled andunworked were gathered.

One small (fossil) univalve was neatly drilled forsuspension near the “lip.” The conch shell foundand a portion of other shell material in the site arenot local in origin and perhaps came from the Gulfof Mexico.

BeadsGlass trade beads of various colors and types

are common. The author will not attempt to classifythese as this should be done by an expert.

Flint ArtifactsFlake knives, large end scrapers, choppers, small

triangular points, and hammer-stones were found.Large points with strong tangs are not uncommon.A fragment of a bevelled, four-edged knife wasdiscovered. Since most of these stone artifacts arepatinated to a considerable degree, part may havebeen lost on the spot long before the historicoccupation. Unpatinated flints for the flint-lock gunare numerous.

BurialsThe discovery of numerous burials within the

area has been reported. Up to the present datehowever, the writer has not had the opportunity tostudy any of these cemeteries.

ConclusionSpanish Fort, originally was perhaps the richest

archeological site in North Texas. Today, most ofthe wonderful antiques from the village andbattlefield are scattered far. This being the situation,it is doubtful if the complete story can ever beunraveled.

Henrietta, Texas.

Bibliography1, 4, Winship, George P. The Coronado

Expedition, 1540-1542.

2. Wedel, Waldo Rudolph, An Introduction toPawnee Archeology, Bulletin No. 112, Bureau ofAmerican Enthnology.

3. Witte, Adolph Henry. Kitchen Middens of theUpper Red River Drainage. Vol. 8, 1936. Bulletinof Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society.

5. Bushnell, Jr., David I. Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin No. 77.

6, 13, 15, 17, Bolton, H. E. Athanase deMezieres and Louisiana Frontier.

7, 9, Hill, Robert J. Santa Fe Expedition, DallasMorning News, 1938, and Texas Almanac and StateIndustrial Guide, 1936.

8. 12. Friend, Llerna. History of Spanish Fort.Wichita Daily Times, 1936.

11. Margary, Pierre, 1874. Margary Papers.

14. Sellards, E. H. Economic Geology of Texas,1934. Page 218.

16. Bullard, Fred M. and Cuyler, Robert H. APreliminary Report on the Geology of MontagueCounty, Texas, 1930. The University of TexasBulletin No. 3001.


The term beveled has come to be applied to aparticular type of flint implement which may havetwo or more cutting blades. These blades are foundon alternate sides of the implement. There are fourmain types of the beveled knife, as follows: Type Ais a beveled knife with four cutting edges, the twoon the shorter end of the knife not being as definitelybeveled as are the ones on the longer blade. Type Bis the diamond shaped four edged knife. Type Cmay be called the spiral knife. Type D is the twobeveled knife. Except in extremely rare cases,usually where the flint or other material had a verypoor fracture, all beveled knives will fall into oneof these four types. Quite a bit of confusion hasresulted from the fact that there are many varietiesof knives which appear to be beveled on two sides,but are not of the four types seen in most abundance.With definite criteria in mind for definition ofbeveled knives, the writer has studied at first handas many of these variations as possible. Thosebeveled on alternate sides and faces, having onlyminor workings on the under side of each bevel,are all that have been considered. The writer wasreluctant to list as beveled knives those with whatseem to be only incidental bevels, especially withoutpersonally examining the specimens.

A great many theories have been advancedregarding the use of the beveled knives. Dr. Pearceof the University of Texas expressed the opinionthat the knives were mainly for the purpose ofreaming out holes in wood. However, Dr. Kidderwrote in his Artifacts of Pecos that he thought ithighly improbable that the knives were ever usedfor drilling or boring or reaming as the case mightbe, because the blades were too wide and flat touse in a rotary motion.

Beveled knives were made of all types ofmaterials ordinarily used for making artifacts.Knives of the same type are found in the extremecorners of Texas made from material common tothe locality where they are found.

Taking the history of beveled knives inchronological order, we find many facts to supportthe theory that they are very recent. By far thegreater majority of beveled knives are found on thesurface, in every locality where they are found atall. Obviously, however, too much credence shouldnot be given to the position of artifacts founddirectly on the surface of sand blow-outs; whichoccur frequently in the semi-arid Southwest. Windaction would naturally take away the fine lightmaterial, and the flint and stone being heavier wouldsift down and become closely related with lowerlying material.

In certain sections of the country under thislimited survey, beveled knives have been founddeeply stratified, sometimes even in company withYuma and Folsom material. From a Small ScraperCulture site in Taylor County, Dr. Cyrus N. Raycollected several patinated four edged knives. Inthe same site were channeled Folsom-like points.1Mr. Adolph Witte found patinated points in ClayCounty which are of the same type as those foundin historic and late prehistoric sites, and which arenowhere found in earlier deposits. Patination,usually taken to be an indication of great age, doesnot apply to flint from the Alabates Creek alongthe Canadian River, because Alabates flintapparently does not patinate. Mr. PorterMontgomery, Sr., and his son both verify thisstatement. Both are collectors of long experiencein the Alabates region. Mr. Montgomery, Jr., said,“I have numbers of times found Folsom points ofgray flint and Folsom points of Alabates side byside, the gray flint point heavily patinated and theAlabates unchanged. I have found this so often,together with the fact that I have never seen apatinated Alabates piece, makes me certain that thistype of flint does not patinate at all.” Deeplystratified beveled knives have been reported fromWyoming, Oklahoma, and the Panhandle of Texas.South of a line extending from Lubbock toTexarkana, no beveled knives were found belowtwelve inches beneath the surface.

THE OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BEVELED KNIVES

BY SYBIL POTEET

The Occurrence and Distribution of Beveled Knives 121

Mr. William B. Baker, a collector of someexperience in the Panhandle region, reported findingwhat he calls the side-notch point in relation to thebeveled knife throughout the Panhandle territory.The side notch is a small arrow point with a notchon each side of the base perpendicular to the axis.They are distinguished from the so called cornernotch points of about the same size, whose notchesare chipped in at about a forty-five degree angle tothe axis. The corner notch point, according to Mr.Baker, is typical of one stem of western culture,and the side-notch point belongs to another, thePost Basketmaker of the Plains. “I am inclined tobelieve that the side notch point belonged to theage of Pueblos four and five,” he added.

In the Large Scraper sites of the Abilene region,Dr. Cyrus N. Ray finds the beveled knives at plowdepth associated with a spruce or pine tree shapedtype of arrow head common in upper levels ofstratification throughout central Texas. These pointsare thin and sharp pointed, one face is flat, and theother is minutely chipped all over. The barbs arelong and sharp, and the tangs are long, round,slender and brought to sharp points. The outlineresembles that of a pine or a spruce tree. In theSmall Scraper sites the entirely different type ofarrow head most commonly found with them issmall, thin and triangular in shape, and has one notchon each edge near the base and some times one inthe center of the base.

Since the beveled knife is not a universal typebut one that seems to have appeared rather late inthe scale of history of the Southwest, it is acceptedto be a kind of tool that evolved by the naturalprocess of selection. The various types of leafshaped knives that were used before and along withit may have been the predecessors of the truebeveled knife. In the collection of the TexasUniversity are several knives similar in shape to thebeveled knives. These knives, however, were notfound in any place definitely below the bevels. Itwould seem reasonable to believe that, if the beveledknife did have a predecessor, that it would be foundat the center of dispersal; that is, where the knivesare found consistently in the lower levels.

The southernmost limit of recorded beveledknives is in Calhoun County.2 Only a very faintbeveling, almost indistinguishable, can be seen onthis specimen. Two pieces, one beveled and theother unbeveled but having the same shape, weremade of black and of brown flint and were fairlywell worked. Both were surface finds and similarto the Type A beveled knife.

In Kinney County were found three knives onthe surface. One has four bevels. The other two arevery Yuma-like and the shapes are identical;however, one is beveled near the smaller end. Colorsrange from gray to rosy-cream.

From the surface of Uvalde County came fourbeveled knives from one farm and two others fromthe banks of the Nueces River. All are of Type Cwith Yuma-like flaking. Three are of gray andcreamy-brown flint and the materials of the otherthree are unreported.

To the northeast of the above is Kerr County,where two very definite Type A knives were foundon the surface. Both were of a purplish gray flintand one was reworked on the shorter leaf blade.Bevels on the two are deep and straight and theworkmanship is excellent. The pieces average fourand one-half inches in length. Also there was foundhere one of the flat thin diamond shaped kniveswhich resemble the beveled ones. The piece wasbeveled slightly, while the leaf blade was like theceremonial knives from the Red River region. Thisspecimen is of the gray flint found on the Edwards’Plateau.

Hays County has to its credit only one of thebeveled knives. It is a specimen almost five incheslong, of blue gray flint and is four edged, being inthe Type B class. It was a surface find.

Travis County has yielded three beveled knivesthat are here recorded. Two are of Type A and oneis of Type D. The Type D knife, of blue flint, wasexcavated about ten inches from the surface of amidden deposit and was found in relation to a glassbead and a metal button. The two Type A kniveswere about an average length of four and one-halfinches, while the two beveled knife was


exceptionally short. The longer knives are of darkgray flint and the workmanship is excellent. Anotherbroken specimen about three inches long, of brownand white flint, was found fifteen inches deep in amidden deposit in association with potsherdscommon to coastal campsites.

From Bastrop County we have a record of fourbeveled knives. Three of these are of Type A, andone is of Type B. All are of Brown to cream coloredflint and all were surface finds.

Only one knife is recorded from Fayette County.It is two and one-quarter inches long, of brownflint and of fair workmanship. It was a surface find.

The only knife recorded from Colorado Countyis a Type A knife of light brown flint. The specimenis four and three-fourths inches long and was asurface find. The workmanship is good but the flintwas poor.

From a rock shelter in Bosque County came abeautifully worked Type A knife of blue gray flint.The specimen is almost five inches long and wasfound on the surface of the cave floor.

Anderson County, as far as beveled knives wereconcerned, was one of the most prolific countiesstudied. Over ten specimens have been recordedby the writer from this county, and all of the knivesfrom that county in the Museum at the Universityof Texas were not accessible. Since the beveledknives and others studied for their similarity, camefrom five different farms, it will be best to take upthe findings from each farm separately.

The Patton farm, three miles southeast ofFrankston, yielded four beveled knives. Three ofthese are of Type C and one is of Type A. Type Cspecimens average three inches in length and theType A knife is five and one-half inches long. Allare of grayish tan flint and the workmanship is good,

PLATE 33.Typical beveled knives.


except in the case of one of the Type C knives,which is very blunt on one end from carelessworkmanship. All were found in a grave or graveson the Patton farm, and one of the Type C kniveswas found in definite relation to a glass bead.

The Donnell farm, three and one-half miles southof Frankston, yielded one knife of cream white flintfrom a grave. The workmanship is very good andthe knife is Type A, and five and one-half inches inlength.

From the McKee farm came five beveled knives.Only one, a Type A knife, could be definitelyclassified. The rest are variations of no particulartype. One knife, three inches long, of gray flint andof good workmanship, is beveled on opposite faceson each point for a space of two-thirds the lengthof the edge of one side and one-third that length onthe other. Another, a creamy gray well workedpiece, is beveled almost all the way down each faceon the left edge. The points are very blunt fromuse. The flaking is Yuma-like. Another variation offinds from the McKee farm includes a knife of theshape of Type A but which is beveled all the wayaround on one face only, the other face beingperfectly plain. The third variation of the beveledknife found on the McKee farm is of a tadpole shapewith the longer blade being apparently reworkedinto a drill and the shorter blade not being beveledat all, but leaf shaped. All of the McKee knives werefound with burials.

On the Cook farm, one and one-half miles southof Frankston, was found the only beveled knifereported from this vicinity. This knife is a variationof Type A and was found in a grave.

The Jowell farm, two and one-half miles southof Frankston, yielded two very peculiar specimenswhich are not beveled. Both came from the samegrave, apparently a fairly modern one; both are ofcreamy gray flint and both are of the same longthin shape. Both have Yuma-like workmanship. Inoutline, they resemble the Type C knife.

From Cherokee County came two knives whichare rather interesting for their position and similarity.These two knives, one beveled, and the other

unbeveled, were both found with burials and eachin the same relative position in regard to theskeleton: both were on the skeleton’s right sideabout sixteen inches from the top of the skull. Therewas no evidence of European contact. The beveledknife shows signs of use and the unbeveled onedoes not.

Only one beveled knife is recorded from HopkinsCounty. It is from the Culpepper farm, seven milesnortheast of Weaver. The knife is Type A, fairlywell worked and definitely beveled. It is of lightgray flint and was picked up on the surface.

From Lamar County the writer has record offour beveled knives and four unbeveled knives thatare very similar.

On the Sanders farm one mile west of Direct,four of the beveled and unbeveled knives werefound. They are so much alike in outline that it isimpossible to tell one from the other without verycareful scrutiny. The knives average three and one-half inches long by slightly over a half inch in widthand are not over two millimeters in thickness. Allhave Yuma-like flaking. The bevels on the beveledpieces cause the implements to have a spiralappearance and they may be placed with the TypeC knives. Nowhere else has the writer seen theselong thin finely worked blades in relation to thoseexactly like them which are beveled. They all showa little sign of wear. All came from graves but theexact position within the grave is unrecorded.

Another long thin Yuma-like blade was pickedup on the surface of the ground near Bois d’ ArcCreek in Lamar County. This piece, which is seveninches long by one inch wide, is of cream gray flint.

On the Womack farm, twenty-two milesnorthwest of Paris, Texas, was found a very smallType A knife and a variation of the Type B. TheType A knife, a surface find, measures only twoand one-half inches long and is of black flint. It isbeveled only on the longer blade and appears tohave lost its sharp point from use. The other knife,also black and also a surface find, has four bevelsbut the two on each face are on the right side only.It is three and a quarter inches long.


Only one beveled knife has been reported fromBowie County. It is a Type D knife only two andone-quarter inches long and would be considered aprojectile point except for the fact that it is verythick and blunt at the larger end. The bevel is thickand deep and irregular. The knife was found in agrave ten and one-half miles northwest ofTexarkana.

Only one true beveled knife was found in MorrisCounty. In outline it has the shape of the Type Cknife, but it has only two cutting edges, one on theleft side of each face. The flint is cream coloredand the workmanship is very good.

From Brown County the University of Texas hassixteen beveled knives. This county is the farthestlimit of the flat thin diamond shaped knife referredto previously. The specimen found on the surfacein Brown County is only three and one-fourth inchesin length and is of cream colored flint and very wellworked, as are all of the knives of this type. Theseventeen beveled knives divide themselves intoseven type A’s, one Type B, two Type C’s with sixvariations and one Type D. Three of these are ofthe creamy brown semi-translucent greasyappearing flint called “beeswax.” The others areof cream colored and blue flint. The knives averagefour inches in length, with the longest single bladebeing of the Type D, measuring four and one-thirdinches. All of the knives are the products of excellentworkmanship, some approaching the Yuma inexcellence of technique. All were surface finds.

From the records of Dr. J. T. Patterson cameinformation that beveled knives had been found ina mound in Uvalde County and caves in Val VerdeCounty. These knives are not recorded in full.

From the surface finds of Brewster County cametwo beveled knives. One is questionably of brownflint and the other is of gray chert. They are fourand five and one-half inches long, respectively.

Ward County yielded five beveled knives, threeof Type C and one of Type B. All were poorlyworked and all but one are of gray flint. Theremaining one is of gray chert. These knives aremuch smaller than the same type seen elsewhere,

averaging only three inches for the three Type Cknives. All these knives were found on the surface.3

From Howard County came only one beveledknife. It is of light tan colored flint and of very poorworkmanship. It is a crude Type C and measures alittle over three inches.

It is singular that out of 3000 flint specimens atthe Hays Museum at Monahans, only three arebeveled knives.

PLATE 34.Types A, B, C and D beveled knives.


There are over one hundred specimens, includingfragments of beveled knives in the collection of Dr.Cyrus N. Ray of Abilene, Texas. These all camefrom three different types of sites. First, of course,are those picked up at random on the surface. Nextare knives which have been found in what Dr. Rayterms the Small Scraper sites in which pottery isfound; then there are the finds from the LargeScraper sites. These sites are mostly situated inTaylor County, with only a few specimens fromJones and one in Mitchell. In five sites alone, all ofwhich are situated in Taylor County, Dr. Ray listedninety-one bevelled knives. The greatest numberto a site was forty-five and they were found in SiteSeventeen, a Small Scraper Culture Pottery Site.4

Of the forty-five found in this site only seventeenwere unpatinated. However, in most sites nearlyall four edged knives are unpatinated. Prevailingtypes of flint in this region are the blue grayEdwards’ Plateau flints, and a sandy colored flintwith occasional reddish enclosures. These areapparently the same types of flints that came fromthe Taylor County Edwards’ Plateau mines and theJones County sand dunes.5 These flints do not occurin the natural state in West Texas nor in NewMexico.6 Of the specimens examined, thirty-five areindistinguishable as to being a definite type; sevenare of Type D, five are of Type C, one is of Type B,and ten are of Type A. Also characteristic of TheSmall Scraper Sites are thick beveled dart headswhich are stemmed and barbed, and are usuallyabout 2 1-4 inches long and 7-8 of an inch wide.

Lynn County has only one find of a beveled knifeon record. It, as well as the finds from Lamb andHale counties, belong in the collection of Mr. W.G. McMillan of Lubbock. The specimen is of tancolored quartzite and measures two and one-quarterinches, both ends being broken off. It was anisolated find on the surface in the sand hills of thewestern part of the county.

Lamb County has four beveled knives to itscredit. One is Type A, two are Type B, and one isType C. All were sand hill surface finds. Two, theType B knives, are of Alabates material, while theother two are of quartzite and of gray Edwards’Plateau flint. All are well worked and average three

inches in length. One of the Type B knives is quitean odd variation. There are four bevels, and all aremore or less equal in length, but one side of theimplement is almost straight, when normally eachside would be very much like the other. The kniveswere found near a number of side notch points.

From Hale County the West Texas Museum has,from the collections of Mr. Floyd Seaman and Mr.W. G. McMillan, eight beveled knives. Four of theseare of Type A, three are of Type B, and one is ofType D. One of the Type A and one of the Type Bare of Alabates flint; one of the Type B is of creamcolored and the rest are of gray Edwards’ Plateauflints, some having quartzite enclosures. Averagelength is three and one-quarter inches, with theshortest being a two and one-half inch specimen,of Type B, with elongated parallel sides. Theworkmanship is very good on all the knives fromHale County.

Mr. Floyd V. Studer reported eleven beveledknives from the “Panhandle” ruins of that region.All are of Alabates material and all are of Type B,showing a striking similarity to each other. Six ofthe eleven came from Ruin No. 55, which is thirty-eight miles north of Amarillo. Four of the knives inMr. Studer’s collection came from Ruin No. 28 andone from Ruin No. 84.

Length of these knives ranges from six to fourinches, most of them being about four and one-halfinches long. Widths average an inch and a quarter.Typical artifacts found in relation to those knivesin these ruins are cord marked pottery and the sidenotch point.

The Antelope Creek Ruin in Hutchinson Countyyielded twenty-four beveled knives. Nine of theseare fragmentary. The greater majority of the knivesare of Alabates material, and the remainder are ofgray flint with brown enclosures. There are fiveType A’s, three Type B’s, one Type C and one TypeD in the group consisting of complete knives. Theremainder have one blade missing so that it isimpossible to tell to what type they originallybelonged. The beveled knives were found in alllevels of the ruin except the two top layers, whichwere full of Plains material. One knife, four and


one-half inches below the surface in Room 19, hada very evident splotch of paint on the blade.Throughout the ruin all the types were found inrelation to cord marked pottery. Glaze IV and VPueblo pottery, and the side notch point.

Also in Hutchinson County, Mr. W. G. McMillanfound a Type A knife of Alabates. It, however, wasa surface find.

Hartley County yielded five beveled knives.These are in the collection of Mr. PorterMontgomery in the West Texas Museum. Three ofthese are of Type B, one is of Type C, and one isindefinite as to type. All are of cream colored flintand average three and one-quarter inches in length.All were surface finds.

Dallam County is also represented in thecollection of Mr. Montgomery. Ten beveled knivescame from that county. Of these surface finds, threeare of Type A, two are of Type B, two are of TypeC, and three are of Type D. Seven of the knives areof Alabates and four are of gray material. One ofthe Type D knives was found near Folsom materialin a blow out. Others were found with late Plainsmaterial. The knives average four and one-thirdinches in length, the longer ones being Type A andthe shorter ones being Type B.

From an undetermined county location in theextreme northern Panhandle, came five of thebeveled knives. Two are Type A, one is Type B,and two are Type C. The longest piece is a Type A,four inches long, and the shortest is a Type C, notquite three inches.

The writer has letters from collectors in Iowa,Oklahoma, Colorado, and Wyoming indicating thatbeveled knives are found in those places.

Mr. Paul Rowe of Glenwood, Iowa, reportedfour bevels of Types C and D from that vicinity.

Miss Dorothy Field Morgan of Tulsa, Oklahoma,reported five beveled knives from Tishimingo,Mississippi, and Cherokee Counties Oklahoma. Allare two bladed or Type D knives, and appear tohave been hafted. They would be consideredprojectile points if it were not for their unusuallength and thickness. The shortest of the five

measures over four inches. They were all found onthe surface.

The Colorado Museum of Natural History,according to Miss Betty Holmes, acting curator ofarchaeology, has a great number of the beveledknives gathered from all parts of Colorado. Nineknives were reported from the Anderson collectionfrom Yuma, Colorado, which were found in blow-outs in relation to Yuma and Folsom material. Twoare of Type A, one is of type B, and the rest arefragmentary. Argillite, quartzite, and chalcedony aremate-rials used in these knives. There is a noticeableabsence of Alabates material. The whole knivesaverage three and one-third inches in length.

From Mr. R. G. Atwood of Rawlins, Wyoming,came the information that the type D of beveledknife was very numerous in that vicinity. A cornertang beveled knife was reported by Mr. Atwood tohave been found four feet below the surface. Sixothers of type D were found on the surface in thevicinity of Dade, Wyoming. These knives are ofquartzite, quartz, and argillite and average threeinches in length and an inch and a half in width andare very thick.

In Michigan and Arkansas, the beveled knivesare not found according to Mr. James B. Griffin ofthe University of Michigan Museum at Ann Arbor,and Mr. Harry J. Lemley of Hope, Arkansas.

The beveled knife seems to have been distributedfairly well throughout the bison country. The limitsof its culture, insofar as the writer has been able todetermine, outline a large portion of the great Plainsregion, embracing the states from Wyoming toIowa, narrowing down toward the south, where itssouthernmost limit was the Texas Gulf Coast. ThePueblos of New Mexico seem to have had little orno trade (with the exception of Pecos) with thepeople from the Panhandle, which would accountfor beveled knives not being found in the Puebloregion. The people living to the east of the bisoncountry were sedentary and had, in most cases,rather poor material to work with, which mightaccount in part for the knives’ failure to spreadthere.


Different types seem to be more prevalent incertain places. For instance, almost all the beveledknives found in Wyoming are of Type D, the greatmajority from the Panhandle Culture Ruins are TypeB, and in Oklahoma are Type D knives also, butthese show distinct variation from the knives inWyoming. The farther south the study progressed,the more of a mixture of the different types wasfound. Knives from different localities were madeof flint or other material from that locality or nearby, indicating that the technique of making the knifewas exchanged and not merely the knivesthemselves. The reasons why people in a certainplace should adopt and cling to the making of onetype of beveled knife in particular, are only to beconjectured. Perhaps one particular craftsman likedto specialize in that type of knife and made most ofthe knives in the community; perhaps a certain typeof knife was easier to make with the materials athand or perhaps they had that type of knife and theinhabitants lacked the reason and initiative to makeanother type.

It is believed that a great deal more light couldbe shed on the problem of the hows and whys ofdistribution of flint artifacts if more time were givenby authorities on flint in preparing papers on thedistribution of types of flint throughout the regionstudied. It would be invaluable in ascertainingwhether an article was intrusive or a home product.

Distribution of Beveled Knives in Texas

County NumberAnderson ------------------------------------------- 10Bastrop ----------------------------------------------- 4Bell --------------------------------------------------- 1Bosque ----------------------------------------------- 1Bowie ------------------------------------------------ 1Brewster --------------------------------------------- 2Brown ---------------------------------------------- 16Calhoun ---------------------------------------------- 1Cherokee --------------------------------------------- 2Colorado --------------------------------------------- 1Dallam ---------------------------------------------- 10Fayette ----------------------------------------------- 1

Hale --------------------------------------------------- 8Hartley ----------------------------------------------- 5Hays -------------------------------------------------- 1Hopkins ---------------------------------------------- 2Howard----------------------------------------------- 1Hutchinson ----------------------------------------- 24Jones -------------------------------------------------- 6Kerr --------------------------------------------------- 2Kinney ------------------------------------------------ 3Lamar ------------------------------------------------- 4Lamb ------------------------------------------------- 4Lynn -------------------------------------------------- 1Mills -------------------------------------------------- 5Mitchell ---------------------------------------------- 2Morris ------------------------------------------------ 2Nolan ------------------------------------------------- 4Palo Pinto -------------------------------------------- 3Potter ----------------------------------------------- 12Stonewall -------------------------------------------- 4Taylor ----------------------------------------------- 91Travis ------------------------------------------------- 3Uvalde ------------------------------------------------ 4Val Verde --------------------------------------------- 3Ward -------------------------------------------------- 5

Total ---------------------------------------- 249

New Lynn School,Tahoka, Texas.

1. Ray, Dr. Cyrus N., “The Pottery Complex Artifacts of theAbilene Region,” Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety Bulletin, Vol. 7, 1935.

2. All knives recorded from the east side of a line drawnfrom the mouth of the Pecos River to Red River at about theninety-seventh parallel, are from the collection of theAnthropology Museum and Dr. J. T. Patterson’s privatecollection of Austin.

3. J. Chas. Kelly to Wm. M. Pearce. Mar. 19, 1938.

4. Hay. Dr. Cyrus N., “The Pottery Complex Artifacts of theAbilene Region,” Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety Bulletin. Vol. 7, 1935.

5. Sayles, E. B., “Some Flint Sources in Central West Texas,”Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society Bulletin,Vol. 3, 1931.

6. Dr. Leroy Patton to S. P., interview, April 4, 1938.


Under conditions similar to those of otherrecently reported finds1, 2 mammoth bones and aFolsomoid point have been found together in alocality about thirty miles southwest of Abilene. Thissite lies on a dry branch of Mulberry creek, wherean alluvial cap on bed rock has been eroded by thechannel of the main stream, and its tributaries.

The site was discovered by Cyrus N. Ray in July,1929, and reported by him in 1930 as a localitywhere he had found large channelled points ofFolsom appearance.3 In that report severalgeneralized Folsom and other flint artifact typesfound in this place were described, and illustrated,as well as the center of one Folsom point similar tothose found at the original locality. The illustrationsalso show two components of the Clear ForkCulture Complex4 from the same site, a flake sidescraper found embedded in a vertical bank at a depthof eight feet below the top soil surface, and a ClearFork gouge.

The flints typical of the Clear Fork CultureComplex,5,6 such as paleolithic type Coup de poings,gravers, spokeshaves, side scrapers, flint gouges,planers, and the four distinctive dart head types havehere been found by Ray on the same old deeplyeroded surfaces with channelled points.

In this site in 1935 Ray found a mammoth’sskeleton embedded in a hummock of gravelly earthoverlying bed rock,7 and with the assistance of Dr.E. H. Sellards and Dr. Otto O. Watts, themammoth’s teeth were removed, encased in plaster,where they have remained to the present date. Atthat time only a small semilunar excavation wasmade in the bank, of sufficient size to remove theteeth.

A Clear Fork planer-gouge was found on thesurface within a short distance from the mammothbones.

On July 4, 1938, while on an inspection tour ofthe deeply buried sites discovered by Dr. Cyrus N.

Ray, Prof. Kirk Bryan and his student assistant,Samuel Vaughan, were conducted to the site, andwhile Bryan and Ray were inspecting theoutcropping bones, Vaughan noticed about an inchof the exposed base of a flint dart head firmlyembedded in the red earth of the bank, on the samelevel as the bones, and on the north edge of thesmall hole excavated by Drs. Sellards, Ray andWatts in 1935.

This blade is 3 9-32 inches long, although it isestimated that about one-fourth inch of the tip ofthe point has been broken off. Its width at the base,1 1-16 inches, is about the same for about 1 1-2inches, where it begins to gradually taper off towardthe point. The blade narrows slightly at about aninch from the base, and the edges near the base arepolished smooth. The blade is of local bluish flint,and it has the same kind of mineral incrustationsthat are so common on the Clear Fork Culture flintsat the same site. The channel on one face is 1 5-8inches long, and that on the other face is 1 1-16inches.

Although smaller it is of the same generalappearance as the points reported and figured byFiggins and Sellards in recent publications. It islonger and different from the greater number ofpoints found with bison at either the original Folsomlocality or at the Lindenmier site.8 It is thereforereferred to here as of Folsomoid type. The depositin which the point lay was unusually hard andcompact and of a type which erodes slowly. Recentuncommonly heavy rains had exposed the pointembedded on the edge of the old excavation. If the1935 diggers had dug an inch farther north, the pickwould have hit the blade.

On the same day, and about three hundred feetaway, in the same site Ray found an unusuallybeautiful “Yuma” point, embedded in the surfaceof a similar red alluvian, but it was not with anybones. Its edges near the base are also polishedsmooth, and are as straight as though made by an

LONG CHANNELLED POINT FOUND IN ALLUVIUMBESIDE BONES OF ELEPHAS COLUMBI

BY KIRK BRYAN AND CYRUS N. RAY

Long Channelled Point Found in Alluvium 129

instrument of precision. It is 3 1-16 inches longand is 1 1-8 inch wide at its widest point 2 1-8inches from the base. It is only 5-8 of an inch wideat the base.

On July 14, Ray and Bryan agreed to carry on ajoint excavation at this place which was directedby T. N. Campbell of HarvardGraduate School, and TexasUniversity, assisted by Vaughanand some local laborers.

A trench 40 feet long was dugand additional shallower holeswere made to expose the bones.Only one flint chip was found.The number and disposition of thebones show that they werebrought to place by the streamthat deposited the gravelenclosing them and the finer-grained reddish alluviumoverlying them. The Folsomoidpoint must have been carried bythe same current. The alluvium ofthis locality overlies bed rock andhas a variable thickness reaching10 feet. It is hard and compactwith limey concretions and thushas a considerable antiquity. Thenear position of the mammothbones and the Folsomoid point isthe result of an ancient flood inwhich both were transported. Itis an interesting speculation thatthe Folsom point may have beenlocated in the fleshy part of thehead but the excavation of the siteaffords no definite evidence tothis effect. The skull, variousother bones and the point seemto have been rolled in together.There is also no certain evidencethat the Folsomoid points arecontemporaneous with any partof the Clear Fork Culture. It is,however, fair to conclude that theFolsomoid point is as old as the

mammoth-bearing alluvium, which also containsremains of other, as yet unidentified, animals.

That other Folsomoid points and some of thetypical Clear Fork flints weather from deeply erodedbanks of similar material in the same locality appearsto imply more or less contemporaneity. There is,

PLATE 35.No. (1) Long Channelled Folsomoid Point embedded in

place and in close relation to bones and teeth ofelephas Columbi in Site Mc.

No. (2) Perfect Yuma Point embedded in place in Site Mc.


however, present in this locality a younger alluviumgenerally indistinguishable from the older. The ClearFork flints or some of them may be derived fromthis younger alluvium whereas the Folsomoid pointfound on July 4 is definitely from the oldermammoth-bearing material.

Dept. of Geology and Geography,Geological Museum,Harvard University.

Texas Arch. and Paleont. Society,P. O. Box 62,Abilene, Texas.

1. Figgins, J. D., A Further Contribution to the Antiquityof Man in America, Proceedings of the Colorado Museumof Natural History, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 4-8, plates 1-2, 1933.

2. Sellards, E. H., Artifacts Associated with FossilElephant, Bulletin The Geological Society of America, Vol.49, pp. 999-1010, plates 1 and 3, July 1, 1938.

3. Bay, Cyrus N., Report on Some Recent ArcheologicalResearch in the Abilene Section, Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society Bulletin 2, Sept. 1930, pp. 45-46,plate 10, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10.

4. Ray, Ibid., plate 10, Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Ray, A Differentiation of the Prehistoric Cultures ofthe Abilene Section, Vol. I, Sept. 1929, Bulletin of TexasArcheological and Paleontological Society, p. 18, plate 1,Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11.

6. Ray, Flint Cultures of Ancient Man in Texas, Vol. 6,Sept. 1934, Bulletin of Texas Archeological andPaleontological Society, pp. 107-111, plate 18.

7. Ray, Editorial, Folsom Sites, Bulletin Vol. 7, 1935, ofThe Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, pp.127-128-129, plate 17.

8. Roberts, F. H. H., Jr., A Folsom Complex, PreliminaryReport on Investigations at the Lindenmier Site In NorthernColorado, Smithsonian Institution, 1935.

Reports and Editorials 131

The Museum of The West TexasChamber of Commerce

Until this year archeological research in theAbilene region has been greatly handicapped by thefact that no museums were located within the area.On June 15, 1938, the West Texas Chamber ofCommerce opened an all West Texas museum, inits Headquarters Building in Abilene, Texas. Theroom assigned, 30 by 60 feet, will be kept openevery day, and maintained as a free museum by theWest Texas Chamber of Commerce.

Its Governing Board consists mainly ofrepresentatives of the various colleges, and of theregional scientific societies of West Texas. It is theintention of the Board to include in the exhibits oneor more museum cases from each college,university, and regional scientific society whichmaintains headquarters in West Texas.

Thus far thirteen large museum cases have beeninstalled, which have been filled with exhibits bythe various institutions represented. The TexasArcheological and Paleontological Society hasbought and paid for five large museum cases, whichare installed in the museum, and filled withcollections made by the Society’s president. Onecase contains only specimens of the Clear ForkCulture Complex (820 specimens). Another casecontains only specimens of the Small ScraperCulture Complex, which are mainly from one site.One large case contains skeletons of the AbileneType of Man. Two other cases contain variedcollections of archeological, historical andpaleontological specimens. In one of these areshown specimens of Folsom and Abilene pointsfound near Abilene, and other types of very ancientflint artifacts.

New Evidences of Ancient Man in Texas,Found During Prof. Kirk Bryan’s Visit

During the past summer three very importantdiscoveries of evidences of ancient man have been

made in the Abilene region in three different sitessituated many miles apart, and these have beenwitnessed by a geologist. Prof. Kirk Bryan ofHarvard University, and his student assistant,Samuel Vaughan, Jr.

During the early summer the writer found anElephas bone embedded in gravel about fifteenhundred feet up the creek from the place in theGibson Site where he had previously discoveredAbilene Points, and many flint flakes (in 1930),embedded 24 1-2 feet deep in a charcoal layer belowa stratum of gravel. (See Vol. 2, 1930, The Society’sBulletin, pp. 50-52, Plates 11-14-15; also see Plate37, No. 1 of this issue of the Bulletin). Fearing thatrains would wash the evidence out before ageologist could see it in place, part of the bone wasremoved, but the articular end was left stillembedded in place in the gravel.

Prof. Kirk Bryan was informed of the discovery,and arrived in Abilene on July 1st and on July 3rd,1938, helped remove the remainder of the bone.On the same day Prof. Bryan was conducted to asection of the same high vertical bank 1500 feetdown the creek, referred to above. Here Bryan alsofound several man made flint flakes embedded inplace. It is quite probable that the gravel depositup the stream, which contained the Elephas bone,is of the same age as the stratum of gravel whichoverlies the three midden levels situated lower downstream in the same creek bank.

The writer discovered the whole Abilene seriesof deeply buried sites in the years 1929-1930, andfirst described some of them in Science News-Letter, Traces of Ancient Man Reported, Dec. 21,1929, and the deeper Gibson Site series in Vol. 2,1930 Bulletin of this Society, pp. 47-52, plates 11-14-15.

The writer has always considered that theportions which contain the three superimposedmidden strata, and those where he recently found

REPORTS AND EDITORIALS


the Elephas bone are all included in the same site,which he named the Gibson Site in January, 1930.Later that year the site was shown to E. B. Saylesand much later (1934) Sayles showed it to MorrisLeighton.

Still later in 1936 Sayles and Leighton publisheda report on the writer’s sites. In their later reportthey divided the Gibson Site’s series of ancient levelsinto Station 5, and Station 6. Leighton distinguishedthe two series of beds the Elm Creek Silts and theDurst Silts. The Abilene points reported in thisSociety’s Bulletin came from below theunconformity in what Leighton terms the Durst Silt.

On July 2nd, 1938, the writer took Prof. Bryanand assistant, on a tour of ancient buried middenlevels along the Brazos River, and at the HodgesSite situated eighteen miles from Abilene, the writerfound an Abilene point firmly embedded in silt at adepth of 21 feet below the soil surface. Mr. Vaughanthen photographed it in place, (See Plate 37, Nos.2 and 3) and Prof. Bryan then dug it out. At thissite there are three superimposed midden strataabove where the knife was found. Also see Vol. 9,1937, of the Society’s Bulletin, Plate 37, Nos. 1-2-3, for pictures of this Site’s midden strata. The bladefound while Prof. Bryan was present was 1 1-2 feetbelow the lowest stratum outlined in the 1937pictures, and as Professor Bryan pointed out wasin the Durst Silt.

CYRUS N. RAY.

Deep Sites Near Abilene TexasOn July 2 to 4 I had the privilege of visiting

some of the localities of archeological interest nearAbilene through the courtesy of and accompaniedby Dr. Cyrus N. Ray.

I inspected the Gibson site on Elm Creekdescribed by Ray1 and confirmed the geologicaldescription by Leighton.2 (Station 5) The Durst siltsare a hard compact reddish alluvium containingirregular bands of clay or gravel. The most notablecharacteristic of these beds is the leaching of muchof the lime from the upper portion and thedeposition of films of illuvial clay in the holes leftby solution of concretions and also in films through

the mass of the beds. The culture horizons withflint and charcoal are well within the Durst silt andbelow the erosional contact on which the Elm Creeksilts rest.

Led by Dr. Ray to a place about 1500 feet upstream (part of Gibson Site, Ray 1930, or Station6, Leighton 1936), I helped him excavate a part ofa mammoth bone, previously discovered and partlyexcavated by him. The bone lay at the base of thebank almost at creek level. Although no artifactshave been found at this place, the material is red,compact, and contains plates of illuvial clay. It isobviously the same formation as at the localityoriginally described by Ray downstream. See Plate37, No. 1.

The bone was worn and incomplete andobviously transported by the ancient Elm Creekwith the gravel of the Durst silt. However, thebreaks were not sharp breaks nor were there presentother evidences of mineralization and hardening ofthe bone before transportation. It would, therefore,seem that the bone is evidence that the mammothswere contemporary with the Durst silt, anassociation not previously established.3

At the Hodges site situated on the Brazos Riverabout 18 miles north of Abilene, I was fortunate inbeing present when Dr. Ray found a well-workedpoint projecting from the hard compact Durst siltsat a depth of about 21 feet below the bank. Thispoint is a characteristic rough-chipped Abilene typesuch as Dr. Ray collected from the Gibson sitepreviously mentioned. See Plate 37, Nos. 2-3.

The characteristic appearance of the Durst silts,their obvious antiquity compared to the overlyingand unconformable Elm Creek silts affords anunparalleled opportunity for further collecting andexcavation. Adequate collections of materialsdefinitely in place in these two formations wouldthrow much new light on the chronology of earlyman in Central Texas.

Kirk Bryan,Dept. of Geology and Geography,Geological Museum,Harvard University,Cambridge, Mass.

Reports and Editorials 133

Scientists Visit Texas Sites In December Dr. A. E. Jenks, Head of the

Anthropology Department of the University ofMinnesota visited Abilene for several days and againexamined Site Mc. (where the Folsomoid Point waslater found). Dr. Jenks had previously examined thissite with the writer in 1929. At the time of Dr. Jenks’

visit conditions were quite dry and no evidence wasshowing of the later found artifacts which cameafter some heavy rains had further eroded the silts.Dr. Jenks also then examined the superimposedmiddens of the Gibson Site, where the other elephasbone was later found in gravel. During the winterMr. William H. Campbell and Mrs. William Crozier

Campbell of Twenty Nine Palms,California, visited Abilene and examinedthe flint collections. In March Profs. J.Charles Kelley of Sul Ross StateTeachers College, and Thomas Campbellof Texas University, visited the deeplyburied sites at Abilene. In June Dr. W.C. Holden of Lubbock and someresearch students studied the flintcollections in Abilene.

The Society’s Finance CommitteeUntil this year the Society’s president

has had to look after the raising of specialfunds for carrying on the differentactivities of the Society, as well as doingthe great amount of work involved inediting the Bulletin. Even though theeditorial work is spread out over a year’stime, and can be done a little at a time,the burden has been an ever increasingone, as the Bulletin has expanded in size,and the Society’s interests haveincreased.

Therefore the president has this yearappointed a committee of members totake over the details of the financing ofspecial funds, and other sucharrangements.

This Committee is composed of R.B. Leach, Chairman, and RussellStephens, D. G. Barrow, and C. W.Hanley. All of the Committee live inAbilene except Mr. Hanley of FortWorth.

The Committee has already donemuch valuable work. Through Mr.Hanley the sum of $65.00 has been raised

PLATE 36.Two views of Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety’s museum cases in the West Texas Chamber ofCommerce Museum in Abilene, Texas. No. (1) ClearFork, and Small Scraper Culture cases. No. (2) Inforeground, Abilene Man case of skulls, and generalview.


outside of Abilene during the past two years, fora fund to pay for labor in excavations.

Early this year the Committee raised $605.00in Abilene to pay for the building of the Society’sfive museum cases. While this is being writtenthe Committee is engaged in raising a fund locallyto supplement the Society’s publication fund.

ErrataThe pottery vessels shown in Plates 1, 2, and

3 of Vol. 9 of this bulletin, September, 1937, inconnection with the paper of Harry J. Lemleyand S. D. Dickinson entitledARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ONBAYOU MACON IN ARKANSAS, wereimproperly numbered through error of theengraver and, therefore, the numbers as shownon these plates do not correspond with the legendon the opposite pages.

The proper numbers are as follows (beginningat the top of the respective plates and readingfrom left to right); Plate 1: first row, 3, 2, 1:second row, 6, 5, 4; third row, 9, 8, 7. Plate 2:first row, 3, 2,1; second row, 5, 4; third row, 8,7, 6. Plate 3: first row, 2, 1; second row, 4, 3;third row, 7, 6, 5.

The following corrections should be made inthe text of the paper above referred to: page 47,first line, substitute “Collins” for “Chambers”;page 47, seventh line, substitute “atypical” for“typical.”

1. Ray, Cyrus N., Report on Some Recent ArcheologicalDiscoveries in the Abilene Section, Texas Arch. andPaleont. Soc. Bull., pp. 60-62 and plates 11-14-16, Sept.,Vol. 2. 1930.

2. Leighton, M. M., Geological Aspects of the Findingsof Primitive Man, Near Abilene, Texas, Medallion Papers,No. 24, 44 pp., 1936.

3. Sayles, E. B., An archaeological survey of Texas,Medallion Papers, No. 17, p. 46, 1935.

PLATE 37No. (1) Dr. Kirk Bryan of Harvard Universityexamining- flint flakes in deeply buried middenlevels in Gibson site; about 1500 feet farther upthis bank an elephas bone was excavated fromgravel formation July 3, 1938. No. (2) Abilenepoint found embedded in silt 21 feet below soilsurface and witnessed by Dr. Bryan and SamuelVaughan (Hodges Site). No. (3) View of Dr.Kirk Bryan pointing to Abilene Point in DurstSilt.

Report of Treasurer 135

REPORT OF THE TREASURER OF THE TEXASARCHEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL

SOCIETY

Report for the period from the annual meeting on October 29, 1937, to October 3, 1938.

RECEIPTS:Balance on October 29, 1937 -------------------------------------------------------------- $60.92

15 Memberships for 1937 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 45.00

62 Memberships for 1938 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 186.00

1 Membership for 1939 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.00

Bulletin Sales--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 184.30

Donations on Museum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 605.50

Donations on Publication Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ 106.00

Donations on Excavation Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- 10.00

Collections for Annual Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------- 18.50

Banking Commission Dividend -------------------------------------------------------------- 5.80

Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1225.02

DISBURSEMENTS:Balance on 1937 Printing Bill ------------------------------------------------------------ $111.00

Banking Commission Checks to Abilene Ptg. & Sta. Co.-------------------------------- 11.60

Expenses for 1937 Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10.00

Postage, Stationery and Typing -------------------------------------------------------------- 27.65

From Excavation Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16.00

Tax on Account ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .50

Museum Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 590.00

Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $766.75

Bank Balance on Oct. 3, 1938 --------------------------------------------------------------------- $458.27

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:For 300 Copies of 1938 Bulletin ----------------------------------------------------------For Engravings in 1938 Bulletin-----------------------------------------------------------


1937-1938 MEMBERSHIP LIST

HONORARY MEMBERS

Harold J. Cook, Cook Museum of Natural History --------------------------------------------- Agate, Neb.Dr. Robert T. Hill, Dallas News ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dallas, TexasAlbert G. Ingalls, Asso. Editor, Scientific American ----------------------------------------- New York City

MEMBERS

Abilene Chamber of Commerce ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasAbilene Printing & Stationery Company ------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasAmerican Museum of Natural History ------------------------------------------------- New York City, N. Y.American Philosophical Society --------------------------------------------------------------Philadelphia, Pa.A. E. Anderson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brownsville, TexasDr. K. H. Aynesworth, 601-602 Praetorian Bldg. -----------------------------------------------Waco, TexasD. A. Bandeen, West Texas Chamber of Commerce ----------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasD. G. Barrow -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasH. J. Bass ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasMrs. Wayne W. Bonner, 918 Parkview Ave. ---------------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasFrank Bryan, Gulf States Bldg. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasDr. Kirk Bryan, Harvard University -------------------------------------------------------- Cambridge, Mass.John P. Byram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasC. M. Caldwell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasPrice Campbell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasProf. T. N. Campbell, University of Texas ----------------------------------------------------- Austin, TexasMrs. Elizabeth W. Crozer Campbell --------------------------------------------- Twenty Nine Palms, Calif.Sam Chamberlain --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Refugio, TexasCleveland Public Library ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland, OhioColumbia University Library ----------------------------------------------------------- New York City, N. Y.Dr. Stewart Cooper ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasCox, Hunter, Hall Agency ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasCol. M. L. Crimmins, Ft. Sam Houston ------------------------------------------------- San Antonio, TexasW. N. Crossthwaite ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDallas Public Library------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasEllis Douthit --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasHenry E. Elrod, 316 Petroleum Bldg. --------------------------------------------------------- Houston, TexasField Museum of Natural History ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago, Ill.W. S. Fulton, 170 Hillside Ave. -------------------------------------------------------------- Waterbury, Conn.Judge O. C. Funderburk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eastland, TexasHarold S. Gladwin, Gila Pueblo ------------------------------------------------------------------- Globe, Ariz.C. W. Hanley, 2307 Fifth Ave. -------------------------------------------------------------- Fort Worth, TexasR. K. Harris, Box 1771 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasMajor John B. Hawley, 411 Capps Bldg. -------------------------------------------------- Fort Worth, TexasR. W. Haynie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, Texas

Membership 137

Mrs. Dwight B. Heard, Heard Museum ------------------------------------------------------- Phoenix, Ariz.Dr. T. Wade Hedrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasDr. T. L. Hodges ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- de Roche, Ark,Dr. W. C. Holden, Texas Technological College -------------------------------------------- Lubbock, TexasHouston Public Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Houston, TexasFrank P. Howell, 424 Page St. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasDr. F. E. Hudson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stamford, TexasJ. C. Hunter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasA. T. Jackson, University of Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Austin, TexasHenry James --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasProf. Elmer H. Johnson, Bureau of Business Research--------------------------------------- Austin, TexasMorgan Jones ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasPercy Jones ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasRoland Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasW. E. Kaufman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abilene, TexasProf. J. Charles Kelly, Sul Ross State Teachers Col. ------------------------------------------ Alpine, TexasEd. King ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasForrest Kirkland, 416 N. Texas Bldg. ------------------------------------------------------------ Dallas, TexasProf. E. M. Landers, Hardin-Simmons University ------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasR. B. Leach ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasHarry J. Lemley, 200 National Bank Bldg. ---------------------------------------------------------Hope, Ark.W. J. Leyland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cleburne, TexasEli Lilly, 5807 Sunset Lane------------------------------------------------------------------- Indianapolis, Ind.Dr. Charles H. Mayo, Mayo Clinic ---------------------------------------------------------- Rochester, Minn.W. G. McMillan, 1020 Seventh St. ------------------------------------------------------------ Lubbock, TexasMetropolitan Museum of Art Library -------------------------------------------------- New York City, N. Y.George L. Minter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDr. Warren K. Moorehead, Phillips Academy ----------------------------------------------- Andover, Mass.Museum of American Indian, Heye Foundation ---------------------------------------------- New York CityThe Newberry Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chicago, Ill.New York Public Library ---------------------------------------------------------------- New York City, N. Y.Northwestern University Library ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evanston, Ill.Dr. Julius Olsen, Hardin-Simmons University ----------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasPeabodv Museum of Archeology and Ethnology ----------------------------------------- Cambridge, Mass.H. A. Pender --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDr. J. E. Pearce, University of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Austin, TexasJudge Hermon C. Pipkin------------------------------------------------------------------------Amarillo, TexasOmar Radford ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDr. Cyrus N. Ray---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasP. M. Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilton, TexasDr. R. N. Richardson, Hardin-Simmons University ----------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasThomas E. Roberts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasRosenberg Library ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Galveston, TexasN. A. Sansteby, 535 Hoefner Ave. --------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles, Calif.E. B. Sayles, Gila Pueblo --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Globe, Ariz.Henry Sayles -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasW. W. Shields --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Roscoe, Texas


Dr. Ellis W. Shuler, Southern Methodist University ------------------------------------------- Dallas, TexasJudge O. L. Sims------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paint Rock, TexasProf. Victor J. Smith, Sul Ross S. T. C. --------------------------------------------------------- Alpine, TexasSmithsonian Institution ----------------------------------------------------------------------Washington, D. C.Russell Stephens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasFloyd V. Studer, 635 Amarillo Bldg. ----------------------------------------------------------Amarillo, TexasMrs. Maud Durlin Sullivan, El Paso Library ------------------------------------------------- El Paso, TexasTexas Library and Historical Commission ----------------------------------------------------- Austin, TexasTexas Technological College Library --------------------------------------------------------- Lubbock, TexasThe Rice Institute Library ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Houston, TexasDr. Raymond H. Tull ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasTyrrell Public Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beaumont, TexasUniversity of Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fayetteville, Ark.University of California Library ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berkely, Calif.University of Chicago Library --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago, Ill.University of Illinois Library ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Urbana, I11.University of New Mexico Library-------------------------------------------------------Albuquerque, N. M.University of Oklahoma Library ---------------------------------------------------------------- Norman, Okla.University of Texas Library ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Austin, TexasW. J. Van London, 712 W. 17th St. ------------------------------------------------------------Amarillo, TexasWaco Public Library --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Waco, TexasP. H. Walser, 306 Robertson Ave. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan, TexasFrank H. Watt, Box 1176 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Waco, TexasDr. Otto O. Watts, Hardin-Simmons University ---------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDr. C. H. Webb, 911 Medical Arts Bldg. ----------------------------------------------------- Shreveport, La.C. L. West---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilton, TexasErnest W. Wilson --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abilene, TexasDr. M. L. Wilson, 21 E. Bradley Lane ---------------------------------------------------- Chevy Chase, Md.A. H. Witte -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Henrietta, TexasLester B. Wood, Box K. K. --------------------------------------------------------------- Breckenridge, TexasYale University Library --------------------------------------------------------------------- New Haven, Conn.

of the texas archeological and paleontological society/67531/metapth1013883/m2/1/high_r… ·...

Documents