Half Title
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Illustrations
 Early Florida stone implement...
 Stone tool typology
 Stoneworking technology
 Technical analysis to determine...
PRIVATE ITEM Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00010112/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida's prehistoric stone technology
Physical Description: xvi, 165 p. : ill. ; 27 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Purdy, Barbara A
Publisher: University Presses of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: c1981
Subjects / Keywords: Indians of North America -- Implements -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Stone implements -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 149-160.
General Note: "A University of Florida book."
General Note: Includes index.
Statement of Responsibility: Barbara A. Purdy.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: Copyright by the Board of Regents of the State of Florida. This work is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. You are free to electronically copy, distribute, and transmit this work if you attribute authorship. However, all printing rights are reserved by the University Press of Florida (http://www.upf.com). Please contact UPF for information about how to obtain copies of the work for print distribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the University Press of Florida. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 06862949
lccn - 80024726
isbn - 081300697X
Classification: lcc - E78.F6 P87 1981
ddc - 975.9/01
System ID: AA00010112:00001

Table of Contents
    Half Title
        Page i
        Page ii
    Title Page
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Illustrations
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
    Early Florida stone implement makers
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Stone tool typology
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Stoneworking technology
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
    Technical analysis to determine age and origin of Florida chert implements
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
Full Text

Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology

From The Youth at Their Exercises, engraving by le Moyne


s '

Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology

Barbara A. Purdy

A University of Florida Book
University Presses of Florida


University Presses of Florida is the central agency for scholarly publishing of the State
of Florida's university system. Its offices are located at 15 NW 15th Street, Gainesville,
FL 32603. Works published by University Presses of Florida are evaluated and
selected for publication by a faculty editorial committee of any one of Florida's nine
public universities: Florida A&M University (Tallahassee), Florida Atlantic University
(Boca Raton), Florida International University (Miami), Florida State University
(Tallahassee), University of Central Florida (Orlando), University of Florida
(Gainesville), University of North Florida (Jacksonville), University of South Florida
(Tampa), University of West Florida (Pensacola).

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Purdy, Barbara A
Florida's prehistoric stone technology.

"A University of Florida Book."
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Indians of North America-Florida-Imple-
ments. 2. Stone implements-Florida. 3. Indians
of North America-Florida-Antiquities. 4. Florida
-Antiquities. I. Title.
E78.F6P87 975.9'01 80-24726
ISBN 0-8130-0697-X

Copyright @ 1981 by the Board of Regents of the State of Florida

Typography and design by University Presses of Florida
Printed in the United States

To Richard D. Daugherty

It's hell in the field.


List of illustrations ix
List of tables x
List of maps x
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xv

One. Early Florida Stone Implement Makers 1
Two. Stone Tool Typology 5
The concept of type 5
Stone tool types 6
Stone tool utilization 54
Distribution of projectile points in Florida 59
Three. Stoneworking Technology 67
Chert resources 68
Chert reduction techniques 87
Implement manufacturing 103
Four. Technical Analysis to Determine Age and Origin
of Florida Chert Implements 113
Chemical analysis 115
Particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE) analysis 116
Neutron activation analysis (NAA) 120
Thermal alteration 122
Thermoluminescent (TL) analysis 126
Weathering studies 127
Petrography 137

Epilogue 141
Glossary 147
Bibliography 149
Index 161

List of illustrations

Frontispiece from The Youth at Their Exercises (le Moyne engraving)

1. Projectile points of the Paleo Indian period 9
2. Suwannee and Simpson points of the Paleo Indian period 10
3. Stone tool kit of the Paleo Indian period 11
4. End scraper 12
5. Thumbnail scraper 14
6. Graver 17
7. Hendrix scraper 19
8. Illustration of size range of Hendrix scrapers 19
9. Snub-nosed scraper 20
10. Stone tool kit of the Late Paleo period 23
11. Projectile points of the Late Paleo period 25
12. Opposite beveling on Bolen point 26
13. Edgefield scraper 27
14. Waller hafted scraper-knives 33
15. Projectile points of the Preceramic Archaic period 34
16. Stone tool kit of the Preceramic Archaic period 36
17. Unifacial humpedback plane 37
18. Information recorded on data coding sheets 41
19. Flakes and cores 43
20. Projectile points of the Early Ceramic period 44
21. Early Ceramic microtools and other implements 46
22. Shell and non-Florida stone implements 46
23. Projectile points of the Late Ceramic period 48
24. Patinated and restruck artifact 49
25. Hammerstone 50
26. Anvils 50
27. Florida projectile points from different time periods 53
28. Flake used with heat 57


List of illustrations

29. Outcrop of Florida chert 70
30. Quarrying (from Holmes 1919) 74
31. Tattooing (le Moyne engraving) 79
32. Flakes showing positive and negative cones 90
33. Hinge fracture 92
34. Step fracture 92
35. Lateral snap 94
36. Symmetry in projectile point manufacture 95
37. Potlid fracture 96
38. Crenated fracture 96
39. Heat fracture and crazing 97
40. Block-on-block technique 98
41. Percussion flaking 99
42. Pressure flaking 102
43. Chert nodule suitable for projectile point manufacture 105
44. Initial flaking techniques for projectile points 108
45. Uniformity of flake removal 108
46. Typical chert proton bombardment spectra 118
47. Photomicrograph of heated and unheated fractures 123
48. Chert weathering schematic 129
49. Cross section of naturally weathered specimen 130
50. Depth compositional profile of specimen in figure 49 131
51. Depth composition of artificially weathered specimen 132
52. Cross sections showing differences in weathering 136
53. Infrared reflection spectra for figure 52 136
54. Photomicrographs of Florida cherts and English flint 139

Tables 1. Designated time periods used in this book 8
2. Proposed uses of stone implements 58
3. Trace element concentrations using 2.0 MeV protons 119
4. Trace element concentrations using 3.0 MeV protons 120
5. Evaluating processes in the stone tool industry 143

Maps 1. Paleo Indian projectile point distribution 60
2. Late Paleo projectile point distribution 62
3. Preceramic Archaic projectile point distribution 63
4. Early Ceramic basally notched point distribution 64
5. Late Ceramic projectile point distribution 65
6. Location of Florida chert outcrops 142



In prehistoric Florida, as elsewhere, many items of the material
culture could not have been manufactured without the development
and refinement of stoneworking techniques. To appreciate this point
it is necessary only to consider that, whereas in modern societies
nearly all material items are made by or of metal, in most North
American prehistoric societies nearly all items were made by or of
stone, the hardest, sharpest, most durable, and most plentiful
substance available. The technology involved in producing chipped
stone tools is as old as mankind, and although it represented such an
important and essential industry for so long in human history, it was
readily abandoned when metals were invented. Stoneworking
techniques fell into disuse and were forgotten after metal began to
perform tasks originally accomplished with stone. During the Age of
Exploration, Europeans discovered New World peoples using tool-
making methods long ago discarded in Europe. Since there was no
way for the explorers to relate the significance of these "esoteric"
practices to their own worlds, their written records include only
condescending and uninquiring reports of the aborigines'
manufacture and use of stone implements. Since Florida chert has
continued to have little if any economic importance into the
twentieth century, it is likewise often difficult for us to recognize and
evaluate its economic value to and its influence upon prehistoric
For over a hundred years archaeologists have recognized that
stylistic differences in stone implements are important indicators of
time period and geographic location, but only since the middle of



the twentieth century has the field of lithic technology emerged to
suggest how stone remains can be used to interpret past human
I do not believe we appreciate the important contributions made by
prehistoric stoneworkers to modern technologies. In their search for
suitable raw material, they became the world's first geologists,
developing methods that would later be used in mining metal ores
and gem stones, and they learned to recognize and use to advantage
such natural properties as fracture characteristics. As this information
was passed on, each generation modified and refined existing
techniques and developed new techniques as they adapted to
increasingly complex cultural and environmental challenges.
Gradually, the physical, structural, and compositional components of
many rock types came to be recognized-at least intuitively.
Stoneworkers probably were the first chemists when they observed,
perhaps accidentally, that changes occur in rocks when they are
exposed to heat. Thermal alteration of silica minerals can be
beneficial or detrimental, depending upon how heat is applied. The
precise and controlled application of heat to induce beneficial changes
in stones may have been a vital step before ceramic, plaster, glass,
and metallurgical techniques could be developed and added to the
cultural inventory. The importance of attaining and controlling high
temperatures can be appreciated best by considering that even today
mankind has still not yet achieved the thermal technology necessary
to produce nuclear fusion.
In three major areas our understanding of the past can be
enhanced by studying how prehistoric peoples used stone to cope
with their environment. The first of these is the technology of
primitive manufacturing processes. Chipping flint is a process of
subtracting or removing material-a "reduction" process. For that
reason it is possible to find artifacts in all stages of manufacture at
stone outcrop work sites, and thus it is possible to determine step by
step how the tools were produced. To discover how the artifacts were
made and how that manufacturing process evolved over time, it is
not enough to look just at finished products; observations of



unfinished artifacts, revealing the stages of the production process at
that time, are needed. For example, the sophisticated spearheads seen
in museums represent the end product of manufacturing techniques
that had been developing for more than two million years. To state
that flint was used in a given era because all sorts of chert implements
have been recovered is of less archaeological significance than being
able to describe the techniques employed at that time to shape the
flint. The tool-making techniques reveal more about the technical
level of an ancient society while stylistic evaluation of the finished
products probably tells us more about the age or period of the tools of
Second, we study stone remains to learn what specific purposes the
implements served. Stone tools perform four functions: pounding,
scraping, cutting, and piercing. It takes but little training to recognize
the implement used for each of these tasks; but in the absence of
other preserved items of the material culture the archaeologist is
challenged to discover what was actually pounded, scraped, cut, or
pierced. The stone remains of a culture often provide the only
evidence of the activities calling for the stone implements'
Third, the classification of the stone implements by type, date, use,
and place of origin adds to our understanding of early people. The
past becomes clearer if specific specimens can be recognized as
belonging to a specific time period or geographic area. Even more
meaningful is the discovery that certain types of implements belong
to a specific time period and thereby provide a means of determining
comparative social development with other time periods. Stylistic
differences in stone implements provide the prehistorian with a
means to determine what processes stimulated a change both in the
technology and culture of a prehistoric society. Geographic
boundaries for tool types can be ascertained by stylistic differences
and the information used to draw significant conclusions about
regional variations in cultural patterns.
Although many types of artifacts usually perish in Florida because
of the wet, moist climate and acidic soils, stone implements have



been recovered in abundance from all cultural periods. Florida
provides an excellent opportunity to study stone remains because
there are many chert (flint) sources that were utilized for thousands
of years by early Florida inhabitants. The total technology involved in
efficient conversion of a piece of stone into a finished tool depended
greatly on locating and securing the suitable raw material. Through
experience and intuition early Floridians obviously knew how to do
this, but acceptable modern-day interpretations of prehistoric
practices cannot be based on assumptions alone.
Scientific investigations employing instrumental analyses and
microscopic examinations and attempting to duplicate stoneworking
techniques have been conducted. These studies have revealed the
chemical, physical, and structural properties of Florida cherts, leading
to three significant gains in knowledge of primitive Florida
stoneworking technology. (1) Weathering studies have led to a better
understanding of prehistoric environmental conditions. (2) Use-wear
studies by magnification and by comparison of Florida stone artifacts
with stone implements still in use by, for example, the Australian
aborigines have led to better understanding of the ways in which
early Florida stone tools were used. (3) Replication studies have
identified specific problems faced and overcome by early Florida
Another investigative technique of modern science is thermolu-
minescent dating. This technique takes advantage of the thermal
alteration aspect of primitive technologies and provides an accurate,
absolute date when the altering of such specimens occurred.
Accumulating such data, scientists can establish absolute chronologies
and better evaluate cultural development across cultural or
geographic boundaries.
This book is intended for three groups of readers: students of
prehistory, that they may expand their understanding of the
relationships between a people's early and later technological history;
the people of Florida, that they may enhance their knowledge of a
fundamental state resource and its use by the state's early residents;



and especially lithic technologists, in the hope that they will find
here information applicable to other regions.

More than fifteen years of study of stoneworking technology has
led me to write this book. My initial interest was stimulated about
1963 at Washington State University by Dr. Richard D. Daugherty
after he had attended the first lithic symposium in Les Eyzies, France,
which stressed ways stone remains could be used to reveal human
behavior patterns in extinct cultures.
In 1967 I learned that little was known in Florida about the state's
chert sources or their prehistoric use and it appeared that I could
make a contribution to Florida archaeology by analyzing the stone
remains and the technology that produced them. In 1969 I attended
the first Stoneworking Session at Shoshone Falls, Idaho. (It was
conducted by Don E. Crabtree and funded by the National Science
Foundation.) This experience shaped the direction of my professional
career. Learning to manufacture chipped stone implements, I gained
valuable insights into problems encountered by primitive craftsmen.
In addition, Don Crabtree's heat experiments with silica minerals led
to my interest in thermal alteration.
In completing this book I have benefited from the assistance of
many persons. I am indebted to colleagues in the University of
Florida's College of Engineering, Department of Geology, and
Department of Physics, particularly Drs. Genevieve S. Roessler, David
E. Clark, Henri Van Rinsvelt, Byron Spangler, Frank N. Blanchard,
H.K. Brooks, and E. Pirkle. Laurie M. Beach spent hundreds of
hours compiling numerical data. Helen Bates appeared one day as if
by magic and volunteered to illustrate the book "just to get the
experience." A majority of the photographs were taken by Rob
Blount, of the Florida State Museum, whose expertise and skill are
apparent. Kay Purington, also of the Florida State Museum, provided
photographic darkroom services and photographed many of the
illustrations. Annette Fanus and Sharon Parr contributed many hours
of typing and proofing. Without their help this book would still be in




a rough draft. Having had access since 1967 to the Florida State
Museum-the collections, workspace, equipment, and cooperative
museum personnel-I am grateful for the support of the museum
curators, especially Dr. William R. Maples.
Since archaeologists often depend on "local lore" resulting from
longtime amateur observation, George Neal, Alvin Hendrix, and
Benjamin Waller have my special thanks for their willingness to
share their important observations with me.
The Container Corporation of America, whose home office is in
Chicago, Illinois, underwrote the costs of my excavations on their
timberlands in north-central Florida. Because of the company's
generosity I was able to conduct investigations that provided valuable
information about quarry sites, and the analyses of some of these
findings from these sites are included in this volume.
Although most of the book's conclusions resulted from my own
observations and experiments, I nevertheless owe a debt to all those
colleagues and associates who challenged and influenced my
thinking throughout the years, in direct communication and while
reading their works. I acknowledge with gratitude their contribution
to the strengths of this presentation while I claim the weaknesses for

Don E. Crabtree died November 16, 1980. Lithic technologists have lost a
good friend, a stimulating colleague, and a brilliant mind. He could have
answered so many questions I neglected to ask.



Early Florida Stone Implement Makers

They make their arrowheads from the teeth offish and
from stones which they cleverly fashion.
(Laudonniere 1975:11)

Laudonniere's comment is one of the few available historical accounts
that even mentions stone (and it is possible he was referring to the
Indians of Charlesfort, South Carolina, not to those of Florida). Nor is
it certain that the following statement from the de Soto narratives
was made about the Florida Indians: "The arrows are made of certain
reeds like canes, very heavy and so tough that a sharpened cane
passes through a shield. Some are pointed with a fish bone as sharp
as an awl, and others with a certain stone like a diamond point"
(Robertson 1932:37). This account also says that Indians from
northwestern Timucua towns, having been captured by de Soto and
kept in chains, at night "would file the chain off with a bit of stone
which they have in place of iron tools" (p. 65).
Although the foremost authority on the Indians of the southeastern
United States, John Swanton, lamented the fact that no early writer
left a description of flint chipping (Swanton 1946:544), we are able to
draw one conclusion about Florida stonemaking from the writings of
Laudonniere and from the de Soto narratives-namely,

Stone Implement Makers

that some sixteenth-century Florida Indians manufactured and used
stone implements.
Since the manufacture of spearheads and other stone implements,
except for gun flints (Clarke 1935; Oakley 1972:7), was not part of
sixteenth-century European technology, it is not surprising that
historic documents from that era contain so few descriptions of the
use of stone in early Florida cultures. Instead, we learn that arrows
were tipped with wood, cane, hard sections of palmetto, tips of deer
horns, turkey cockspurs, viper's teeth, spines of stingrays, tails of
horseshoe crabs, animal bones, bird bills, fin bones, fish teeth, and
fish scales, particularly those of the great brown spotted gar. Although
it is impossible to make out the material with which they are tipped,
spears and arrows are shown in le Moyne's drawings (see
As early as 1565, the Indians of Florida were using pikedd points
of kniues, which hauing gotten of the Frenchmen, broke the same,
and put the points of them in their arrowes heads" (Markham
1878:53). From the documents we also learn that piercing, scraping,
cutting, and pounding tasks were accomplished with shells, animal
bones, and cane.
On the coasts of Florida, where most Europeans made contacts
with the indigeneous people, there are no natural outcrops of flint or
other hard rock except in the Tampa Bay area. When the French built
Fort Caroline in 1564, the structures were made "with much
terreplein of earth and fascines which is the fortification of this land,
there being not a stone for a landmark in all of it" (Bennett
1964:154). If, by then, the interior had been explored and settled, the
historic accounts might read quite differently. Evidence that the
Europeans-at least their principal commanders-did not make
explorations inland lies in the Menendez statement, "We have not
gone inland and therefore we have not seen any large towns,
although there are many Indians and boys" (Bennett 1968:159).
Outcrops of high quality flint materials that were used extensively
to fashion chipped stone tools occur in the central highlands of
Florida. One historical account verifies this. Laudonniere states that


Florida chert

Saturiba, the cacique, or chief, who ruled the Fort Caroline area, was
allied with Potano, the cacique of the area near present-day
Gainesville. Potano was "a man cruel in war who had one thing
particularly over the great Holata Utina, namely the barrages of the
hard stones with which he armed his arrows" (Bennett 1964:174).
Archaeologists often rely heavily on historical records to provide
information not preserved in tangible form: they are, however, in a
position to supplement the written word by documenting the
prehistoric use of stone with products from systematic excavations.
Thousands of recovered projectile points and other chipped stone
tools manufactured from Florida chert contradict the implication of
the historical accounts that stone tools were rare or nonexistent. In
some parts of Florida so many stone tools and so much chipping
debris are found that one might conclude that the state was densely
populated in prehistoric times. I suspect, however, that people of
yesterday, like those of today, wasted their plentiful resources. Oakley
(1972) tells us, for example, that in Australia a native knapper
"requiring a new knife will visit a traditional quarry and will perhaps
strike as many as 300 flakes before he obtains what he considers to
be a suitable blade. The rejects and waste-flakes are left on the
working floor while the single satisfactory blade is taken away."
Furthermore, the artifacts represent the accumulation of thousands of
years of cultural debitage.
Chert was an essential raw material to Florida's early inhabitants,
but it has not yet been studied thoroughly by modern students of
archaeology. This situation may exist partially because, in the
twentieth century, Florida chert has been of little economic
importance and has generally been considered a nuisance. For
example, chert overlays blocked access to more valuable limestone,
and chert proved to be very hard on equipment in the crushed stone
industry. In addition, the higher cost of extracting, hauling, and
processing chert made it noncompetitive with other kinds of rock.
In the early twentieth century flint rock mining companies were
located in Ocala, Leesburg, Williston, Morriston, and High Springs.
Florida limestone formations contain various amounts of chert.


Stone Implement Makers

During limestone mining these silica-bearing particles must be
separated from the limestone. The particles are then crushed to sizes
suitable for use in concrete aggregate. Large amounts of chert also
occur as residual boulders in areas where the original limestone has
been weathered away. Crushed chert is sometime used as railroad
ballast and in construction of jetties. Small amounts of uncrushed
chert are used as building stones in the construction of structures
(Third Biennial Report, Florida State Board of Conservation 1939). The
concrete industry considers chert to be a deleterious substance: fine
silica particles react with alkalies and, if present in quantities over 10
percent, produce harmful effects because silica is subject to
considerable changes in volume. Chert can be used, however, in the
asphalt industry without problems. Once a common building
material, it is used less and less as the cost of stone masonry becomes
prohibitively high (Southern Standard Building Code 1973; William
Wisner and Byron Spangler 1977:personal communication).



Stone Tool Typology

S. .an object found in an archeological site is in reality
an historical document of past human action.
(Hole and Heizer 1973:202)

The word type refers to a particular kind of artifact (e.g., a Clovis
point) "in which several attributes combine or cluster with sufficient
frequency or in such distinctive ways that the archaeologist can
define and label the artifact and can recognize it when he sees
another example" (Hole and Heizer 1973:201).
Classification into types is a way to systematize descriptive data so
that specific statements can be made about time and space
relationships, techniques of manufacture, and functions of artifacts.
Problems do sometimes arise in distinguishing one type from another.
Since type cate e -based onidealargerfect forms, the ideal is
seldom seen. In categorizing deviant specimens it may be found that
one type grades into another, making a confident assignment to a
specific type difficult. If the classifier is "a lumper," he will designate a
single type with notations about the variations, much as the
biologist designates species and subspecies. If the classifier is "a splitter,"
he will name a new type for each variant attribute he
considers important. The latter method of classification

The concept of


Stone Tool Typology

(empirically derived, convenient, or designed) is arbitrary, imposed
"by the classifier on the objects without consideration of the purpose
the object may have served its maker. [On the other hand] discovered
types are 'real' and reflect forms that are assumed to have been
culturally significant to their makers" (Hole and Heizer 1973:204).
Projectile points and other formal tools that required a mental
template and a progression of manufacturing steps for their
completion, which resulted in patterned, recognizable shapes,
obviously are easier to identify than objects such as hammerstones.
In the attempt to classify objects by age or place of origin or function,
the distinction between "found" and manufactured implements is
especially relevant: one flint hammer looks pretty much like another
no matter where it was found or what it was used to batter, making it
difficult to determine its age and origin.

Stone tool In Florida, because the moist climate and acidic soils have not
types preserved carbon-containing artifacts, it is difficult to establish
absolute chronologies (with the exception of the limited number of
specimens that can now be dated by thermoluminescence), and
because of the lack of sequential geological information, it is difficult
to establish reliable relative chronologies. Amateur collectors have
recovered from rivers most of the known Paleo Indian artifacts; in
fact, the best examples of all Florida's stone implements are held in
private collections. Because stone artifacts have mostly been surface
finds and because of the difficulty in establishing local chronologies,
the chronology assigned to the prehistoric stone industries of Florida,
particularly those of early periods, is based on typological similarities
to stone remains from areas outside of Florida. Time periods of stone
tool assemblages are uncertain unless found with implements
receptive to positive classification. Although a stone tool kit can be
postulated for each major period in Florida, implements such as
hammerstones are difficult to subdivide typologically. They were
probably used during all periods but cannot be positively assigned to
the earliest periods.


Time periods

The descriptions of the implements given on the following pages
are not the final word about the chipped stone tool industry of
Florida since point types and tool kits for each geographic area and
each time period are still to be studied. When this information
becomes available, it will be possible not only to recognize
assemblages accompanying each point style but also to determine
what tools were used in specific ecological settings. So far, I have
drawn no final conclusions. This story of the primitive tools of Florida
is primarily descriptive and comparative. Large quantities of data
must yet be amassed for a definitive interpretation of how stone
implements were used to meet the challenges of the culture and the
environment. For example, before we may conclude that some
implements were repeatedly resharpened and thus altered, we must
have an adequate number of samples of the original version and an
adequate number from every stage of modification.
The report considers other implements in addition to points, whose
importance in lithic technology has heretofore received too much
emphasis considering how little is known about them. Certainly they
are the most diagnostic delineators we have; but they did, after all,
perform only fairly restricted tasks. Researchers have tended to ignore
or minimize the importance of such tools as scrapers, hammers,
knives, and burins.
The classification of time periods used in this study follows fairly
closely accepted chronology for the Paleo Indian, Late Paleo (or
Transitional), and Preceramic Archaic periods. The terms Early
Ceramic and Late Ceramic are my own time designations, used here
only for convenience in discussing the stone implements of those
It is not within the scope of this work to discuss, except in a
general way, the broader cultural developments associated with stone
tool kits. Certainly the sti LooLindustry should be integrated
eventually with other cultural components in ordeto better
represents ti t atsociet great-deaFore atlon, which
can be learned from replication studies and studies of use and wear, is
necessary for a better understanding of a whole tctture...


Stone Tool Typology

Paleo Indian

Projectile points

Table 1
Designated time periods used in this book
Time period Approximate number
Time period
of years ago

Late Ceramic period 500-2,000
Early Ceramic period 2,000-4,500
Preceramic Archaic period 4,500-9,000
Late Paleo period 9,000- 10,000
Paleo Indian period 10,000- 12,000

The objects chosen to illustrate tools from the five time periods
were selected because research indicates that these specimens are
"typical" representatives of a given class of artifacts.

Projectile points are characterized by edge-grinding near the base,
which is ground, concave, and unstemmed. The points are usually
thin with excellent workmanship and generally fairly large sized,
ranging from 7 to 10 centimeters in length with an average length of
3 to 15 centimeters. Florida has several Paleo Indian period point
types, all fitting the above description but varying considerably in
appearance (Bullen 1975:54- 57) (fig. 1). They have been recovered
primarily from rivers and springs, particularly in northern Florida
(Waller and Dunbar 1977) (map 1, p. 60). Problem-oriented research
of the Paleo Indian period is needed to determine if the points occur
as extensively in other locations as they do in the Florida waterways.
The most numerous Paleo Indian projectiles found in Florida are
Suwannee and Simpson points. Slight shape differences occur among
examples of both Suwannee and Simpson points, but they are not
great enough to justify new type names. Suwannee points appear to
be quite uniform in size, but the Simpson points' dimensions vary
tremendously (fig. 2a, b). Many hundreds of Paleo Indian projectile
points have been found in Florida. Several hundred of these were
recovered from approximately a two-mile stretch of the Santa Fe
River and over fifty were found in the Oklawaha River. Paleo Indian


S 1 2 3 4 5

a b

c d

e f

Figure 1. Projectile points of the Paleo Indian period: (a) Clovis, (b) Folsomlik
(d) Simpson, (e) Tallahassee, (f) Beaver Lake, and (g) Santa Fe.

points are also fairly numerous in the Wacissa, Aucilla, and
Waccasassa rivers (see map 1, p. 60, for additional locations). It is
believed these points were hafted to thrusting spears and used to
hunt the now extinct large Pleistocene mammals (Bullen 1975:2).

Although drills have been recovered from other Paleo Indian sites
in North America, the drill shown in figure 3a is the only known
Florida drill made from a modified Paleo Indian projectile point. The
base of the specimen reflects a late Paleo characteristic. It was
probably hafted, but the barbs are as smooth as the tip, suggesting
that the implement might have been used unhafted and that the
barbs functioned like the tip to accomplish the task being performed.
It is sometimes difficult or impossible to distinguish between
manufacturing attributes (e.g., ground base and barbs to facilitate
hafting) and utilization features (e.g., tip smoothed and polished from
drilling or perforating). The drill in figure 3a weighs 5 grams and is

e, (c) Suwannee,




0 V 2 3 4 5



Figure 2. (a) Suwannee and (b) Simpson points of the Paleo Indian period. (Note the
uniformity in size of the Suwannee points and the variation in size of the Simpson


0 1 2 3 4 5

0 I 2 3 4 5

Figure 3. Stone tool kit of the Paleo Indian period: (a) drill, (b) hafted end scraper made from broken point, (c) Hendrix
scraper, (d) snub-nosed scraper (oblong), (e,f) snub-nosed scrapers (triangular), (g,h,k) miscellaneous end scrapers,
(i, j) thumbnail scrapers, (l,m) gravers, (n,o) scrapers with graver spurs, (p) spokeshave with graver spurs, (r,s,t,u) blades,
(q,v) miscellaneous scrapers.

Stone Tool Typology

4.8 cm long, 3.0 cm wide at the base, and .7 cm thick. The steepest
angle-about 90 degrees-is present on both sides just below the tip.

End scrapers are probably modified Paleo Indian points that
broke either in the process of manufacture or during use. The broken
edge of the Suwannee point illustrated in figure 3b was pressure
flaked to form an angle of 50 degrees. The specimen weighs 18 g, is
4.7 cm long, 3.1 cm wide, and .8 cm thick. Goodyear et al. (1968:91)
discuss similar artifacts. Paleo Indian hafted end scrapers are not
found in abundance in Florida (also see fig. 4).

Blades and numerous specialized implements made from blades are
found in Paleo Indian complexes throughout North America. The
following description of true blades is from Goodyear (1974:58).

One of the best definitions of true blades published, and the
one followed in this study has been offered by Bordes and

Figure 4. End scraper.

End scrapers
made from


Paleo Indian blades

Crabtree from their flint-knapping experiments: "On the dorsal
side of the blade there should be two or more scars of previously
removed blades with force lines and compression rings indicating
that force was applied in the same direction as blade
detachment." In addition to this criterion, it is implicit that the
blade flakes will usually be twice as long as they are wide and
the blade margins fairly parallel. The cross section will be "...
plano convex, triangular, subtriangular, rectangular, often
trapezoidal, and on the dorsal face, [there will be] one or more
longitudinal crests or ridges" (Bordes and Crabtree 1969:1).
These cross sections are necessary in the detachment of blades or
other long flakes since the force of detachment must have ridges
to follow on the obverse face of the flake or what was the
exterior surface of the core."

Blades are the hallmark of the European Upper Paleolithic period
and have antecedents in the Mousterian and perhaps even the late
Acheulean periods. Many of the tools made on blades described for
the European Upper Paleolithic are found also at sites in North
America. Examples of complete blades are illustrated in figure 3r, s, t,
u. Their weights and measurements are: r = 21 g, 7.1 cm long, 2.4
cm wide, 1.1 cm thick; s = 9 g, 7.2 cm long, 2.3 cm wide, .5 cm thick;
t = 33 g, 10.3 cm long, 3.3 cm wide, 1.0 cm thick; u = 35 g, 10.9 cm
long, 3.1 cm wide, 1.0 cm thick. Figure 3r differs from the others in
the (length x width) + (thickness x 100) index, which is .15 for r
whereas s, t, and u have an index of .33, .34, and .34, respectively.
The greater relative thickness of specimen r probably reflects a
different function from that of the others. Close examination reveals
that it was used as a scraper on both edges and perhaps as a chisel
at the tip. The proximal end is unmodified and the striking
platform and bulb are large. The other blades pictured were used
as knives and possibly also as scrapers. The presumption of use as a
knife rests on the observation that both faces of the long edges
exhibit small step and hinge fractures that have been reported to
occur when cutting certain materials (see for example, Tringham


Stone Tool Typology

1974:171-96). The distal ends, especially ofs and u, may have been
used as chisels and perforators or gravers. I see no indication that
these blades were hafted.

Thumbnail The specimens shown in figure 3i andj and in figure 5 are similar
scrapers to those described for a number of Paleo Indian sites in North
America. These included the Shoop, Bull Brook, Reagan, Stanfield-
Worley, Eva, St. Albans, Hardaway, Thunderbird, and Russell Cave
sites. Typologically, 3i resembles the chisel end scraper B-3 illustrated
and discussed in Cambron and Hulse (1973:5), while 3j is similar in
shape to their rectangular end scraper B-2 (p. 4) and is similar in
angle of the distal end to their triangular end scraper B-l (p. 3). The
scraper illustrated in figure 3i and figure 5 was recovered at the
Johnson Lake site (Bullen and Dolan 1959). The artifacts from this
site are primarily Preceramic Archaic but include also some
specimens typical of the Paleo Indian period.
Figure 3j was found in the Santa Fe River. William B. Roosa

Figure 5. Thumbnail scraper: (a) side view, (b) top view.


Paleo Indian spokeshaves

(Mason 1962:263- 64) mentions that snub-nosed end scrapers are
not found at Western Clovis sites but are present at other sites
yielding fluted point (i.e., Folsom) and piano complexes. A tentative
conclusion, therefore, is that the thumbnail scraper is part of the
late Paleo Indian and of the Late Paleo tool kits. It is not known
why the thumbnail scraper is not present in the early part of the
Paleo Indian period since numerous publications dealing with the
European Upper Paleolithic (Bordes 1968:156, 176, 194; Oakley
1972:30; and Tixier 1974:28) show it predating Clovis findings in
North America.
The specimen illustrated in figure 3i weighs 3 g and is 3.7 cm
long, 1.7 cm wide, and .6 cm thick. It has a very small, ground,
striking platform. I believe it was made on a truncated blade by very
careful uniform pressure flaking at the distal end and at both edges
near the base. The angle of the pressure-flaked portions is about 50
degrees. I believe that it was not hafted because it shows use on
both edges as well as on the distal end. All of the use was from the
ventral toward the dorsal surface, as is apparent from numerous
very small step fractures that partially obscure the pressure flakes.
The specimen is entirely unifacial.
Figure 3j weighs 9 g and is 3.9 cm long, 2.6 cm wide, and .6 cm
thick. The angle of the distal end is 90 degrees; the angle formed by
both edges is about 50 degrees. The tool shown in 3j has a larger
striking platform than i, indicating that it was intentionally struck
farther back on the core to obtain a more massive piece. This fact,
plus the difference in angle of the distal end, suggests that 3i andj
did not serve similar functions. However, j's angle might have
become steeper through repeated use and resharpening.

Spokeshaves are described by Goodyear (1973:39, 1974:50) and Spokeshaves
Bullen and Beilman (1973:6). The specimen illustrated in figure 3p with graver spurs
weighs 5 g and is 3.5 cm long, 2.0 cm wide, and .6 cm thick. It
appears to have been made from a blade, but the bulb and platform
have been removed. The implement is primarily unifacial with a
slight amount of flaking on the ventral surface. It has been pressure
flaked to form an angle of 75 degrees at the distal end and a

Scrapers with
graver spurs

Stone Tool Typology

somewhat lesser angle at both edges. It bears a close resemblance to
the thumbnail scraper, but it has not been reported as part of the
stone tool assemblage for Paleo Indian sites in North America. Its
placement in the Paleo Indian period, therefore, is tentative, yet
Goodyear reaffirms that it may belong there. Goodyear (1974:50)
suggests that the tool was hafted because of its small size. Hafting
provided mechanical force permitting the use of greater pressure. A
similar statement could be made about the thumbnail scraper. Close
examination of the specimen illustrated reveals dulling of the lower
edges suggestive of hafting.
Goodyear (1974:50-51) defines a spokeshave as any unifacially
retouched concave edge suitable for scraping or shaving of narrow
convex surfaces such as bone. The graver spurs are effective for
slotting and grooving, and they should exhibit some battering or
polish. This could not be detected on the specimen illustrated. These
implements are fairly common and widely distributed in Florida.
They are mistakenly labeled as very small Clear Fork gouges in
Bullen and Beilman (1973:20).

Specimens similar to those shown in figure 3n and o have been
found at Lindenmeier (Roberts 1936), Stanfield-Worley (DeJarnette
et al. 1962:73), Hardaway (Coe 1964:75), Reagan (Ritchie
1953:252), Bull Brook (Byers 1954:348), Williamson (McCary
1951:14), Debert (MacDonald 1968:93), Rose Island (Chapman
1975:137, 140), Brand (Goodyear 1974:46), and various sites in
Arkansas (Morse 1973:36). In Florida, these implements have been
recovered at Bolen Bluff (Bullen and Wing 1968:94), the Nalcrest site
(Bullen and Beilman 1973:1-22), and other locations, including the
Santa Fe River. Figure 3n weighs 4 g and is 1.2 cm long, 1.9 cm wide,
and .9 cm thick. Figure 3o weighs 6 g and is 3.6 cm long, 2.5 cm
wide, and .5 cm thick. The angle of the scraping edges is about 65
degrees. There is considerable variation in the shape and size of these
tools. The "typical" specimen resembles a short thumbnail
scraper with a spur, but less typical specimens seem to have


Paleo Indian gravers

functioned similarly. Both n and o are unifacial and do not appear to
have been hafted.

Implements similar to those pictured in figure 31, m, and figure 6 Gravers
occurred at least 40,000 years ago at Mousterian sites in the Old
World (Bordes 1968:105, 107) and are described as part of the Paleo
Indian stone tool assemblages at the Lindenmeier, Debert, Bull
Brook, Rose Island, Brand, Stanfield-Worley, Thunderbird, and
Reagan sites in North America approximately 10,000 years ago.
Cambron and Hulse (1973:14, 17) have categorized these tools as
Graver D-l, Chisel Graver D-2, and Uniface Borer 1-2, based on
differences in manufacture and function. Goodyear (1974:53- 57)
follows a similar course. Tools comparable to those found at the
Poverty Point site in Louisiana have also been found in Florida.
The graver shown in figure 3/ weighs 3 g and is 2.9 cm long, 2.1
cm wide, and .9 cm thick with a spur about .4 cm long. The left side
of the projection was formed by using a method similar to the

Figure 6. Graver.

0 1 2


Stone Tool Typology

Hendrix scrapers

microburin technique of the European Upper Paleolithic period
(Tixier 1974:17). The specimen was made from a thinning flake. The
technique of making burins is explained in chapter three. In addition
to its function as a graver, all its edges, except the proximal end and
striking area, have been used for cutting or scraping or both. The
implement shown in figures 3m and 6 weighs 3 g and is 3.2 cm long,
1.6 cm wide, and .9 cm thick. The projection is about .4 cm long and
was formed by pressure flaking on both sides. The specimen was
made from a short, thick blade or blade-like flake. There is no
evidence of use other than as a graver tip. A nearly identical object
was recovered at the Bull Brook site (Byers 1954:348). Neither 31 nor
m appear to have been hafted nor do they exhibit any intentional
modification except for the formation of the graver tip.

Hendrix scrapers occur in fairly large numbers in Florida and has
been reported as part of the Paleo Indian stone tool assemblage at the
Shoop and Bull Brook sites (Witthoft 1952; Byers 1954). Bullen
(1958) and Bullen and Dolan (1959) picture these as part of the
artifact recovery at the Bolen Bluff and Johnson Lake sites in Florida,
and Warren (1973) discusses an identical specimen found in St.
Petersburg, Florida.
The specimen shown in figures 3c and 7a, b, c is considered typical.
It weighs 87.5 g and is 10.4 cm long, 3.7 cm wide, and 2.2 cm thick.
Measurements were made on a sample of 33 of these tools (fig. 8)
with the following results: weight 37.0-257.9 g, length 7.8- 16.2
cm, width 3.1-6.1 cm, thickness 1.7-4.0 cm. Twenty-three of the
33 weighed 60- 120 g, 26 were 8- 12 cm long, 28 were 3-5 cm
wide, and 30 were 1.5-3 cm thick. All specimens were used as
scrapers, but 5 had been used for piercing or cutting also. Both
Witthoft and Byers describe the implements as side scrapers but 24
of the Florida specimens showed use around the entire
circumference. The most intense use on 20 specimens, however,
had been on the left edge of the distal end (tip). The shape varied: 4
ovate, 20 ellipsoid, and 9 triangular. All flaking had been done by



Figure 7. Hendrix scraper: (a) side view, (b) top view.

Figure 8. Hendrix scrapers showing range in size.

Stone Tool Typology

percussion and the angle of the used edges was steep (60-90
degrees). Eleven of the 33 specimens had striking platforms, two of
which were at the tip as described by Witthoft. All members of the
sample were considered unifacial but 14 exhibited a slight amount of
flake removal to thin the bulb or the curvature of the ventral surface.
Currently the author is conducting a more sophisticated study of
these implements.

scraper (oblong)

Specimens similar to that illustrated in figures 3d and 9 have been
recovered at the Bull Brook (Wormington 1957:77), Eva (Lewis and
Lewis 1961:55), and Reagan (Ritchie 1953:252) sites. In Florida,
these implements, though not common, have been found at a
number of locations. The illustrated example is from the CCA Site,
Marion County. It weighs 40 g and is 7.0 cm long, 3.0 cm wide, and
1.5 cm thick. It resembles a miniature turtleback scraper of the
Preceramic period, but the (length x width) + (thickness x 100)
index indicates that it is proportionately more slender than a

Figure 9. Snub-nosed scraper: (a) side view, (b) top view.



Paleo Indian scrapers

turtleback. It is difficult to determine whether the specimen was
made from a thick blade or from a flake because the striking platform
and bulb of force have been removed. The dorsal surface has multiple
visible flake scars but the tool is so weathered that no original
fracture features can be seen on the ventral surface. It has been
percussion flaked to form an angle of 60 degrees, with an 80-degree
angle resulting from use. The most intensive use occurred on both
edges, as is evidenced by multiple scalariform step fractures. The bit
may have served a different function than the edges or it may have
been rejuvenated, thus obliterating previous evidence of use. The butt
does not appear to have been used extensively, all evidence of use
being on the dorsal surface. There is no indication that the specimen
was hafted.

Implements similar to that illustrated in figure 3f are reported from
the European Upper Paleolithic (Bordes 1968:156) and have been
found in North America at Williamson (McCary 1951:14), Eva (Lewis
and Lewis 1961:54), Shoop (Witthoft 1952), Stanfield-Worley
(DeJarnette et al. 1962:86), Brand (Goodyear 1974:46), Hardaway
(Coe 1964:75) and other sites in Arkansas (Morse 1973:36). I do not
know of any report that describes Florida specimens of this type, but
the type is represented in a number of collections. The specimen
illustrated was recovered from the Santa Fe River, weighs 34 g, and is
4.5 cm long, 4.0 cm wide, and 1.7 cm thick. It has been percussion
flaked to form an angle of 87 degrees at the distal end; the edge
angles are 75-80 degrees. The tool appears to have been made from
a thick truncated blade or flake. The dorsal surface has been
extensively flaked. One flake has been removed from the ventral face
to thin part of the bulb. The striking platform and a portion of the
bulb remain. The specimen shows use on the distal end and on both
sides. All evidence of use is on the dorsal surface and is indicated by
multiple scalariform step fractures, with the edges showing evidence
of the most intense use. It is possible that the bit was continually
rejuvenated, thus removing former use scars. This procedure



Stone Tool Typology

might also account for the steeper edge angle of the bit. There is no
indication that the specimen was hafted.

Carinate scrapers

Other artifacts

Implements similar to that pictured in figure 3e are described by
Bordes (1968:155-56) for the Upper Paleolithic and at Stanfield-
Worley (DeJarnette et al. 1962:86), at Rose Island (Chapman
1975:137), at Russell Cave (Griffin 1974:49), and from Arkansas
(Morse 1973:38). Cambron and Hulse (1973:7) call this an oval core
scraper B-8. In Florida, carinate scrapers were recovered at the
Nalcrest site (Bullen and Beilman 1973:18- 19) and have been
found elsewhere, e.g., in the Santa Fe River. The specimen in figure
3e weighs 23 g and is 3.3 cm in diameter and 1.3 cm thick, entirely
unifacial, percussion flaked to form an angle of about 90 degrees,
and appears to have been extensively used around its entire
circumference. The striking platform and bulb are not present and
there is no indication that the implement was hafted. These tools do
not seem to have been common in the Paleo Indian period. Perhaps
they should be assigned to the Late Paleo period although Cambron
and Hulse (1973:7) report their recovery from sites that produced
Paleo Indian artifacts.

The specimens pictured in figure 3g, h, k, q, and v have been
assigned to the Paleo Indian period because they share a number of
attributes typical of early assemblages (i.e., they are unifacial blades
or flakes and are pressure or percussion flaked to form a steep edge).
At present, however, these objects cannot be "typed" based on the
criteria defined on page 5. Similar artifacts are described for nearly
all early sites in North America. Goggin (1950) illustrates
comparable objects for Florida. Figure 3g and v were recovered from
the Santa Fe River, h and q from the Johnson Lake site (Bullen and
Dolan 1959), and figure 10k from the CCA Site about one mile from
Johnson Lake in Marion County.
Further research will probably increase the number of artifacts
assigned to the Paleo Indian period in Florida.


0 2 3 4 5




Figure 10. Stone tool kit of the Late Paleo period: (a) drill, (b) snub-nosed scraper (oblong), (c,d) snub-nosed scrapers
(triangular), (e) unifacial scraper (ovoid), (f) miscellaneous end scraper, (g) thumbnail scraper, (h) hafted end scraper made
from broken point, (i) graver, (i) scraper with graver spur, (k) spokeshave with graver spurs, (1) bola stone, (m,n) Clear Fork
gouge, (o,p,q) Edgefield scrapers, (r,s) blades, (t,u,v) Waller scraper-knives.


Stone Tool Typology

Late Paleo

Projectile points

The Bolen point (fig. 11) is present in quantity (see map 2, p. 62)
and considerable variation exists within the type (Bullen 1975:51-
52). Other projectile point types of the period have been recovered
in Florida but are not common. The Greenbriar, Hardaway Side-
Notched, and Nuckolls Dalton points are pictured in figure 11.
Bullen (1975:44-53) describes these in detail.
Bolen points are side-notched and usually have basal grinding
like the points of the Paleo Indian period. More than one-half of all
Bolen points are opposite-beveled (see figs. 11 and 12), suggesting
that they were resharpened while attached to the shaft. Brooks
(1978:personal communication) believes that beveled Bolen points
are primarily generalized cutting tools.
Sollberger (1971, 1978) has conducted an experimental study of
edge-beveled knives. He hypothesized that the presence of beveling
did not indicate a type of point originally manufactured with that
characteristic. He dulled the knives by cutting leather, very soft
woods, and other materials and tried various ways to resharpen the
knives to make them last the longest possible time. An examination
of artifacts shows very small microflaked bevel resharpening to be the
initial resharpening stage. As Sollberger resharpened the knives
beyond the microbevel stage, the beveling flakes had to be longer
and longer as the edge backed into the thicker width of the knife. Six
knives were bevel resharpened experimentally ten to twelve times on
each of the four edges, a total of forty or more times per knife. In
other experiments with bifacial resharpening, six or eight
resharpenings finally made the knives so thin that the bodies were
completely used up. The bevel resharpening made the knives last
much longer than bifacial or unifacial resharpening (Sollberger
Workmanship in the production of the Bolen point often appears
crude; it is sometimes thick in proportion to length and width.
These points are generally not very large, usually measuring 3-5
cm but occasionally exceeding this length.
Whereas in Florida points from the Paleo period are usually
recovered from rivers, Bolen points are found at land sites as well.
When found in systematic excavations, they are often recovered



* I

Figure 11. Projectile points from the Late Paleo period: (a) Nuckolls Dalton, (b) Hardaway Side-Notched, (c) Greenbriar,
(d-j) Bolen point variants.


Figure 12. Opposite beveling seen on Bolen point.

with points of the Preceramic Archaic period. Since there is little
stratigraphic documentation, the antiquity of the Bolen point is based
on typological similarities to Late Paleo period points from sites
outside of Florida that have been assigned fairly secure dates. Bolen
points are found in far greater numbers in Florida than are Paleo
Indian period points, suggesting a larger population during the Late
Paleo period than during the previous period.

Edgefield Specimens similar to that illustrated in figures 10p, q, and 13 are
scrapers reported from Russell Cave (Griffin 1974:50), South Carolina, and
elsewhere in the southeastern Gulf and southern Middle Atlantic
states (Michie 1968, 1973). Warren (1973:119) describes this Florida
tool type as a Piper-Fuller knife, "side-notched, unifacial, well made,
beveled 'chisel' with a straight working edge or bit set at an angle of
about 20 degrees to the long axis of the shank. Its skew blade calls to
mind the Cody Knife of Wyoming, but there the resemblance
ceases, for the latter is without side notches. In modern


Figure 13. Edgefield scraper: (a) top view, (b) side view.

woodworking parlance it would be called a 'left skew chisel.'" The
term Edgefield scraper will be used here to commemorate the original
finds in Edgefield County, South Carolina, of a large number of
implements of this type that Michie named after the area.
Michie (1973) conducted a detailed study of this tool, including
techniques of manufacture and suggested its use based on an analysis
of 21 specimens. Following Wilmsen's conclusions (1970), Michie
believes the scraper was used to work bone because of the steep edge
angle and the step fractures that extend over the dorsal face and
sometimes into the ventral surface as well. "This suggests that the tool
was drawn with heavy pressure over a tough unyielding surface
somewhat in the fashion of an adze or plane" (Michie 1973:5).
The Edgefield scraper illustrated in figure 10p weighs 12 g and is
5.9 cm long, 3.0 cm wide, and .8 cm thick. It is unifacial except for
the base and a slight amount of flaking on the ventral surface
opposite the beveled edge. The base is ground. The dorsal surface has


Stone Tool Typology

been extensively flaked and the left edge has been pressure flaked to
form a bevel with an angle of 70 degrees, probably from repeated
resharpening. Tiny step fractures resulting from use have made the
angle even steeper. The right edge may have been used as a knife.
The specimen pictured in figure 10o weighs 8 g and is 5.2 cm long,
2.8 cm wide, and .7 cm thick. It is unifacial except for the base and
appears to have been made from a thinning flake or blade. The
bulbar end is at the tip. The ventral face of the base has been finely
pressure flaked and then ground. Both edges have been used as a
scraper. The left edge has been pressure flaked to form a bevel with
an angle of 60 degrees. Tiny step fractures resulting from use have
made the angle even steeper. The tip and the right edge near the tip
have received the most intensive use, perhaps as a chisel or gouge.
The specimen shown in figures 10q and 13a, b weighs 19 g and is
5.3 cm long, 3.3 cm wide, and 1.3 cm thick. It is unifacial except for
the formation of the notches. The base is ground. The dorsal face has
some secondary flaking but the cortex remains on the thickest
portion. Steep flaking on the left edge forms a bevel with an angle of
85 degrees. Small step fractures on the beveled surface indicate the
object was used as a scraper. More intense use or a different kind of
use may have occurred near the tip. The right side of the specimen
appears to have been used to rub something that eventually
smoothed the edge.
Brooks (1978:personal communication) believes that since only the
haft area is bifacial, the necessity for a haft with a minimum of
irregularities is indicated. "From this, as well as the wide hafting area,
I infer that a secure haft was emphasized for most efficiently carrying
out heavy duty scraping and cutting functions on dense material such
as bone. The wide haft would also be conducive to applying
considerable pressure (force without breakage of the tool) at the haft,
which would likely be an inherently weak spot."
Since Edgefield scrapers are side-notched like Bolen points, it is
probably correct to assign them to the tool kit of the Late Paleo
period. Statistical and ecological distribution studies of these


Late Paleo gouges

implements are being conducted (Goodyear, Michie, and Purdy in

Implements similar to those illustrated in figure 10m, n have been
described in a summary article by Hester et al. (1973), who state that
these artifacts are triangular, bifacial or unifacial, with plano-convex
cross sections and steeply beveled straight or convex working edges
(although a small percentage have concave bits). The Hester group
reports a considerable range in the dimensions of their sample of 54
specimens. The artifacts they studied must have a certain "look"
about them because these are not very rigid criteria for establishing a
type. The most common recurrent feature is the nibbling (small step
fractures) on the dorsal face of the bit, which has an average angle of
about 65 degrees. Hester et al. (1973:95) concluded that the Clear
Fork gouge was not used in a gouging fashion but more in the
manner of endscrapers to dress and smooth wood surfaces. These
implements were probably hafted because many exhibit dulling and
crushing of the lateral edges near the proximal end. The Dalton adze
(Morse 1973:26) seems to be a comparable tool.
The specimen shown in figure 10m weighs 66 g and is 6.3 cm long,
4.4 cm wide, and 2.4 cm thick. It is bifacially flaked. The angle of the
bit is about 62 degrees. Use fractures can be detected on both faces of
the bit, indicating that it may have been used as a gouge.
Figure 10n weighs 40 g and is 5.5 cm long, 3.6 cm wide and 2.1 cm
thick. It is bifacially flaked. The angle of the bit is about 67 degrees.
Use wear is apparent in the step fracturing on the dorsal surface of
the bit.
Clear Fork gouges are not known to be common in Florida,
although they have a wide distribution in Texas and northeastern

Specimens similar to that illustrated in figure 10e have been
described for the Eva site (Lewis and Lewis 1961:55) and the

Clear Fork gouge

Unifacial scraper


Stone Tool Typology

Hardaway site (Coe 1964:78). The scraper shown in figure 10 weighs
43 g and is 4.9 cm long, 4.7 cm wide, and 1.5 cm thick, with the
angle of the distal end 80 degrees. It is unifacial and the bulb of
percussion is still present. The flake was detached from the core in a
manner reminiscent of the Levallois technique and the edges of the
artifact have been finely flaked to form a steep angle. Tiny step
fractures are apparent on the dorsal surface of nearly the entire
circumference. It is not known how common these specimens are in

Specimens similar to that illustrated in figure 101 are described by
Simpson (1948), Neill (1971), and Waller (1969). Wormington
(1957:138, 160) and Agogino (Mason 1962) mention grooved bolas
as part of the Paleo Indian tool complex at some sites, but the Florida
specimens are not grooved. Simpson says these objects are made of
"sandstone, limestone, or quartz, are about the size and shape of a
hen's egg, and have a shallow indentation in the smaller end"
(1948:14). Although Simpson believes they were clubheads, they
closely resemble specimens that are tied with thongs, knotted at the
indentation, and thrown to ensnare the legs of running animals
being hunted by South American Indians.
Figure 101 weighs 112 g and is 5.2 cm long, 4.2 cm wide, and 3.5
cm thick. It has been shaped, including the shallow indentation at
one end, by a pecking and grinding technique. Since the original
stone was probably a river-rounded cobble, it did not need to be
altered greatly. The specimen shown is made from bog iron that could
be native to Florida; however, many bolas are made of non-Florida
Although it is not certain how common these implements are, I
have seen more than one hundred examples, many recovered from
the Santa Fe River. They are not found along with more recent
material; therefore, they probably belong with either the Paleo
Indian or Late Paleo tool kit, or both. While bola stones have not
been identified widely through the southeast, Bullen (Neill 1971:70)
says there have been surface finds as far north as Massachusetts.


Bola stones

Late Paleo knives

I do not know if specimens similar to those illustrated in figure 10t,
u, v have been found extensively outside of Florida. Waller (1971)
describes these as unifacial, side-notched artifacts, the majority of
which were recovered from the Santa Fe River in the vicinity of early
"kill" sites. Bullen and Beilman (1973) discuss these as part of the
stone tool assemblage at the Nalcrest site.
Figure 10t weighs 10 g and is 5.3 cm long, 3.2 cm wide, and .7 cm
thick. A thinning flake that has been modified by slight but uniform
pressure flaking on one face of each side and by shaping the notches,
this knife shows the result of flaking on the right dorsal and the left
ventral face. Otherwise, the specimen is unifacial with the dorsal
surface exhibiting multiple secondary flake scars typical of thinning
flakes. The distal end and both edges were used as a scraper and
possibly as a knife also because there are tiny hinge and step fractures
on the faces opposite the pressure flakes. What appears to be scraper
use may actually reflect resharpening of a dulled knife edge. The edge
angle is about 50 degrees, the bulb of percussion -and part of the
ground striking platform are still present, and the notches were
formed by removing flakes alternately from one face and then the
Figure 10u weighs 6 g and is 5.2 cm long, 1.4 cm wide, and .7 cm
thick. This is a truncated blade formed by the microburin technique
(Tixier 1974:17) with the notches formed by unidirectional flaking
from the ventral to the dorsal surface. The specimen is unifacial and
seems to have functioned as a knife because there are tiny use
fractures on both faces of the edges. The truncated distal end may
have been used as a burin. The bulb of percussion and the striking
platform are missing. The edge angle is about 45 degrees.
Figure 10v weighs 12 g and is 6.1 cm long, 3.3 cm wide, and .6 cm
thick. It was made from a thinning flake modified by very careful,
uniform pressure flaking on one face of each edge and by forming the
notches. The pressure flaking occurs on the dorsal surface of the right
side and the ventral surface of the left side. The specimen is unifacial
except for the pressure flaking. The dorsal surface has
multiple secondary flake scars typical of thinning flakes,

Waller hafted


Stone Tool Typology

Other artifacts

Archaic period

Projectile points

with the notches formed by flaking from the ventral to the dorsal
surface only. The specimen appears to have functioned primarily as a
scraper. The angle of the edge is about 52 degrees.
With regard to overall appearance, the most distinct morphological
features of these implements are the side notches-the attribute that
distinguishes them as a type (fig. 14). A more detailed analysis of
Waller scraper-knives is being conducted (Purdy, in preparation).
Waller (1971) suspects that these artifacts may have been used to
remove hides from animals and to slice portions of meat from
carcasses. They are, as a whole, fragile tools, and the amount of wear
they show does not suggest that they received very rough usage.

Drills, various scrapers, and blades, already described for the
Paleo Indian period, are also found through the Late Paleo period
(fig. 10a-k, r, s). In fact, the stone tool assemblages of the two
periods are difficult to distinguish. If there are any distinctions, the
tools of the Late Paleo period are more diversified and may reflect
a more settled population or more varied activities. The presence of
the Clear Fork gouge in the Late Paleo tool kit is indicative of
heavy woodworking activities such as canoe making and house

Much of the information about the stone tools and their uses
described in this section was amassed by studying specimens from
the Senator Edwards site (Purdy 1975a; Purdy and Beach 1980).
Other sites in Florida yielding specimens used for comparison of
Preceramic Archaic stone implements are the Newnan's Lake site
(Clausen 1964), Johnson Lake site (Bullen and Dolan 1959), the
Lake Kanapaha site (Hemmings and Kohler 1974), and Container
Corporation of America site (Purdy 1981a).

Projectile points are typically large and stemmed, averaging 5- 15
cm in length. It is generally agreed that those of this period were
used with an atlatl, or spear-thrower. Figure 15e, f and g illustrate
early Preceramic Archaic points and 15a, b, c, and d are middle to



2 3 4 5


Figure 14. Waller scraper-knives.

0 1 2 3 4 5


Figure 15. Projectile points of the Preceramic Archaic period: (a) Marion, (b) Putnam, (c) Levy, (d) Newnan, (e) Wacissa,
(f) Arredondo, (g) Kirk serrated, (h) Preform.



Preceramic Archaic scrapers

late Preceramic Archaic points. See Bullen (1975: 30-43) for a
description of these points and their chronological placement. Figure
15h shows a preform which might have been finished into any one of
a number of Preceramic Archaic projectile point types. (See
distribution map 3, p. 63.)

The specimens shown in figure 16k, I were recovered at the
Senator Edwards site (Purdy 1975a), and similar examples have been
found at a number of other locations in Florida.
Figure 16k weighs 261 g and is 11.1 cm long, 5.9 cm wide, and 4.0
cm thick. The original flake may have been obtained by a quartering
or split cone technique (Crabtree 1972:92) because no evidence of a
bulb of force, striking platform, or other fracture features remains on
the ventral surface. The tool was shaped by removing flakes on the
dorsal face to form an angle of about 55-60 degrees. Through use,
the angle was steepened to 85 degrees at the bit, 78 degrees at the
butt, and 80 degrees on the edges. The specimen is entirely unifacial
but has four hinge fractures on the edges of the ventral surface that
may have resulted accidentally from inappropriate use (Crabtree and
Davis 1968). The dorsal surface shows multiple scalariform step and
hinge fractures, most intense at the bit and on both edges near the bit
(fig. 17). It does not appear to have been hafted.
Figure 161 weighs 702 g and is 14.9 cm long, 9.2 cm wide, and 5.5
cm thick. The ventral surface retains slight evidence that this
implement was made from a flake detached from a large chert nodule
because, even though the bulb and platform have been removed, the
conchoidal nature of the fracture remains. A large amount of cortex is
still present on the dorsal surface. The tool was shaped by removing
flakes from the dorsal face to form an angle of about 55 degrees.
Through use, the angle was steepened to 80 degrees at the bit, 65
degrees at the butt, and 75 degrees on the edges. The specimen is
entirely unifacial but has three small hinge fractures on the
edges of the ventral surface. The entire ventral surface
shows polish, suggesting that the implement was held flat



Figure 16. Stone tool kit of the Preceramic Archaic period: (a) drill, (b) end scraper made from broken projectile point,
(c,d) blades, (e,fg) truncated blades, (h,i) utilized flakes, (I) "knife," (k,l,m) unifacial humpedback planes, m is waited,
(n,o,p) miscellaneous scraping and chopping tools.

U I z 3 4

Centtmtrr rs

Figure 17. Unifacial humpedback plane.

and rubbed over a broad surface. Multiple scalariform step and
hinge fractures showing on the edges of the dorsal surface are most
intense at the bit and on both edges near the bit. It does not appear
to have been hafted.
Humpedback scrapers in an extreme range of sizes have been
found. These implements are suitable to work large or small pieces
of bone, wood, or hide. Humpedback scrapers have been placed in
the Preceramic Archaic period although there is not irrefutable
evidence that they are not associated with other periods. In
addition, the artifact assemblage from the Senator Edwards site was
primarily archaic although some Late Paleo points were present. My
impression is that they belong to the very early Preceramic Archaic
or the Late Paleo, being similar, in manufacture and in evident
use, to the much smaller unifacial oblong end scraper described
for the Paleo Indian and Late Paleo periods (figs. 3 and 10).
Although these tools could not have performed exactly the same


Stone Tool Typology

Other artifacts

tasks because of the differences in their size, they may have been
used on similar material (i.e., wood or bone).
Similar humpedback planes that are waisted, probably for hafting,
are fairly common in Florida. Lewis and Lewis (1961:63) call this
kind of implement an adze and consider it more recent than the
unnotched adzes.
The scraper shown in figure 16m weighs 292 g and is 11.6 cm long,
7.6 cm wide, and 3.5 cm thick. The angle of the bit is 70 degrees. The
bit and both edges near the bit have multiple scalariform step and
hinge fractures on the dorsal face and the ventral surface is unifacial
except in the hafting area.
Hemmings (1975:149) pictures a "notched adze" recovered at Silver
Springs (Mr-92) and believes it dates to the Late Preceramic Archaic
period 5000-4000 years ago. Bullen (1972:32) illustrates a similar
specimen recovered from a zone containing early pottery at Site J-5
on the bank of the Chattahoochee River.

Observations made at quarry workshop sites indicate that heavy
utilization of Florida chert occurred during the early and middle
Preceramic Archaic period. Paradoxically, except for a wide variety of
projectile points (Bullen 1975; shown in fig. 15) and some stemmed
end scrapers and drills (figs. 16a, b) made from projectile points, the
greatest majority of the stone implements found at archaeological
sites cannot be typed by the criteria defined at the beginning of this
chapter. Blades (fig. 16c) were still in use during the Preceramic
Archaic period but the classic form declined and truncated blades or
bladelike flakes seem to have replaced spurred scrapers and graver
spurs during the period. The truncated blades functioned as burins,
scrapers, knives, or perforators. Utilized flakes have been recovered in
all sizes, shapes, and types of use. They differ from utilized flakes of
the earlier periods because they are unmodified; especially they do
not have steep, uniform pressure retouch flaking. Other tools are
bifacial and were used for cutting, scraping, chopping, pounding,
gouging, etc. The tool kit of the Preceramic Archaic period displays a


Other Preceramic Archaic artifacts

tremendous diversity with regard to function, but the tools defy
morphological classification.
The blade or bladelike flake in figure 16d weighs 14 g and is 6.0 cm
long, 2.6 cm wide, and 1.0 cm thick. The implement has many
characteristics of a blade including a central ridge, but the (length x
width) (thickness x 100) index of .15 indicates a thicker specimen
than a true blade that would be expected to have an average index of
about .34. This tool has a prepared, ground striking platform and a
diffuse bulb of force. It was used as a scraper along its left edge with
most of the motion in use directed from the dorsal to the ventral
surface, but a 1.5 cm area of the dorsal edge also was used as a
scraper. The right side may have been used as a knife because very
tiny fractures on both faces have removed the feathered edge. The
angle of the used edge is about 50 degrees.
In figure 16e the truncated blade or bladelike flake appears to have
been formed by the dihedral burin technique (Movius et al. 1968;
Tixier 1974). The specimen has a small, prepared, ground platform.
The tip could have been used effectively as a graver since close
examination reveals tiny step fractures on the right side of the tip. It
weighs 3 g and is 2.9 cm long, 2.6 cm wide, and .5 cm thick. Figure
16f shows the ventral surface of a truncated blade or bladelike flake.
Evidence of scraping use shows along both edges and also near the
tip on the dorsal surface; scraping use may have caused the specimen
to break. A very pink area near the broken tip suggests that it was
used for a heat-producing task. The striking platform is small and
ground, and there is a small but noticeable bulb of force. The
specimen weighs 3 g and is 3.9 cm long, 2.1 cm wide, and .4 cm
thick. The angle of the used edge is about 50 degrees.
Figure 16g is a utilized thinning flake showing scraping use on the
right side. The left side has been truncated, possibly through use
because the specimen has become very fragile. The partially
truncated tip has also been used as a scraper. It has a small, ground,
prepared platform and a small but noticeable bulb of force. It weighs 5
g and is 4.2 cm long, 2.2 cm wide, and .4 cm thick. The angle of the
used edge is about 45 degrees.


Stone Tool Typology

Figure 16h is a thick thinning flake that has been used as a
scraper from the ventral to the dorsal surface at the distal end, as
well as for scraping and possible cutting on the left side. It has a
prepared, ground platform and a noticeable bulb of force. It weighs
17 g and is 5.3 cm long, 3.6 cm wide, and 1.3 cm thick. The angle of
the distal end is 65-70 degrees.
Figure 16i is a thinning flake that has been utilized as a scraper, a
cutting tool, and possibly as a perforator. The striking platform is
ground, and the bulb of force is quite prominent (salient). It weighs
11 g and is 4.0 cm long, 4.0 cm wide, and .8 cm thick. The angle of
the used distal end is about 60 degrees.
Truncated blades and utilized flakes generally are quite fragile and
could not have been used to perform tasks demanding strength.
They could have been used to cut, scrape, or pierce many materials,
however, because the feathered edge of a freshly struck piece of
chert is extremely sharp. Although they would have dulled rapidly,
they were easily replaceable at the outcrop site with a similar tool.
There is no evidence that figures 16d-i were hafted. At the Senator
Edwards site (Purdy 1975a), 6,071 truncated blades and 4,602
utilized flakes were recovered from a trench 48 meters long and 1.5
meters wide. Measurements of a 10 percent random sample were
made using the criteria in figure 18. Similar specimens were
probably used during all time periods but cannot be placed
chronologically if taken out of context.
Figure 16j is a small, thick, bifacial tool. It appears to have been
used as a cutting or sawing tool especially on the right edge which
has an angle of about 85 degrees. Alternatively it could be a novice's
attempt to flintknap because the flaking is crude. It weighs 44 g and
is 7.6 cm long, 3.1 cm wide, and 2.2 cm thick.
Figure 16n is bifacial and exhibits battering around the entire
circumference. It is undoubtedly a hammerstone but may also have
been used as a wedge. I see no indication that the specimen was
hafted. It weighs 289 g and is 9.6 cm long, 6.3 cm wide, and 4.3 cm
Although figure 16o is bifacial, it is possible to determine that the


Figure 18

Figure 18. Information recorded on data coding sheets

1-4 Artifact number (e.g., 0027)
5-6 Artifact category (e.g., 13=utilized flake)
7 Site (e.g., 2=CCA Site)
8 Area of find at site (0=surface; 1l=backhoe trench; 2=trench two; 3=three-meter
9-10 Square (01=1; 02=2; 03=3; 04=4; 05=5; etc.)
11 Level (0=not dug by levels; 1=level one; 2=level two; etc.)
12 Type of site (1 =workshop site; 2 =quarry or outcrop; 3=habitation; 4=kill site;
5=mound; 6=quarry/workshop; etc.)
13 Area of site
14-16 Length in centimeters (e.g., 08.6)
18-20 Width in centimeters (e.g., 01.7)
22-23 Thickness in centimeters (e.g., 0.5)
25-27 Index [(length x width) + (thickness x 100)]
29-33 Weight in grams (e.g., 0024.6)
35 Heated, leave blank if in question or not known (0=no; 1 =yes; 2=used with heat;
3=exposed to heat or heat damaged)
37 Pressure flaked (e.g., 0=no; 1=slight; 2=yes)
39 Symmetry (e.g., 0=none; 1=poor; 2=fair; 3=good)
41 Signs of use, leave blank if undetermined (0=no; 1l=yes, slight; 2=yes, heavy)
42-43 Type of use (00=abrader; 01=hammer; 02= scraper, etc.)
44 Patina (0=no; 1 =slight; 2=moderate; 3=heavy; 4=chalky; 5=moderately
patinated/reflaked; 6=heavily patinated/reflaked or shattered)
45 Solution weathering, rate is based on visual or subjective determination (0=no; 1 =slight;
2= moderate)
46 Angle of use or angle of edge (0<500; 1>500, <750; 2>750)
49 Area of use (0=one area; 1 =more than one area of use, single face; 2 =more than one
area of use, both faces)
52-54 Length of use, applicable mostly to scraping or cutting artifacts (e.g., 01.1)
56 Cortex (0=no; 1=yes)
57 Flake type (0=primary flake with cortex; 1 =secondary flake with little or no cortex
but also no multiple flake scars; 2=secondary flake with scarson dorsal surface;
3=flake with bifacial flaking)
58 Novice craftsman, subjective determination used only for projectiles (0=no; 1 =yes)
61 Striking platform, leave blank if missing (0=big; 1 =small; 2=prepared/big;
3=prepared/small; 4=ground or roughed up/big; 5 =ground or roughed up/small)
63 Bulb of force (1 =salient; 2 =diffuse)
65 Type of projectile point (1l=Paleo; 2=Bolen; 3=Archaic; 4=Early Ceramic; 5=Late
Ceramic; 6=other or undetermined)
66 Type of Archaic
68 For blades only (1 = triangular; 2= trapesoid; 3= triangular/nibbled;
4=trapesoid/nibbled; 5 =nibbled)


Stone Tool Typology

specimen is a large flake that must have been struck from the core
with tremendous force because it almost terminated in a hinge
fracture visible on the ventral surface. The implement was used as a
scraper on the ventral face of the left edge and the dorsal face of the
right edge toward the distal end. The angle of use is 85 degrees.
Other areas on the specimen could have been used for scraping or
cutting but this could not be determined by examination. Flake
removal is not uniform either in size or direction. I see no indication
that the specimen was hafted. It weighs 463 g and is 10.3 cm long,
7.4 cm wide, and 4.0 cm thick.
Although figure 16p has had flakes removed from the ventral
surface, the implement is primarily unifacial. Extreme battering or
crushing on both edges and on the dorsal ridge suggests that it was
used as a chopper. There are also multiple scalariform step fractures at
the bit that might have resulted from adzing or gouging. Again I see
no indication that the specimen was hafted. It weighs 599 g and is
15.7 cm long, 7.0 cm wide, and 5.0 cm thick.
At the Senator Edwards site about 2,500 large unifacial and bifacial
implements have been recovered. Of these, only the turtleback
scrapers can be "typed" by the criteria mentioned on page 5. After
numerous attributes were recorded for all specimens, it was concluded
that there is no uniformity in size, shape, function, or location of use
on the implements. It was further concluded that the final shape of
most of these implements resulted from (1) the use to which they
were subjected, (2) the length of time they were used, (3) the later
removal of flakes to rejuvenate an edge, or (4) the removal of flakes
to be utilized for other purposes, i.e., the parent rock may not have
been used at all (fig. 19a, b). Most of the implements exhibit
multipurpose use. Evidence of scraping, chopping, cutting, pounding,
and even piercing often can be detected on a single artifact (Purdy
1975a:183). Hemmings and Kohler (1974:62) reach a similar
conclusion after studying Preceramic Archaic period stone remains
from the Lake Kanapaha, Johnson Lake, Dixie Lime Cave, Silver
Springs, and Bolen Bluff sites of Florida.




5 10
b i '

Figure 19. Cores and flakes: (a) cores with flake scars, scale in cm, (b) flakes similar to
those removed from the cores that could be used effectively without further modification.


Y i

Early Ceramic

Projectile points

Stone Tool Typology

Many of the large stone tools of the Preceramic Archaic period in
Florida resemble those described in various publications for the
Southeast that have been classified into types and subtypes (e.g.,
Broyles 1971:40). Such a breakdown in classification for the Florida
material may be possible if subclasses are defined (Purdy and Beach

Bullen has demonstrated that a number of stemmed projectile
points typical of the latter part of the Preceramic Archaic period were
still used after the introduction of pottery although they tended to be
smaller and not as well made (Bullen 1955, 1969, 1972). Just prior to
the introduction of pottery and continuing through Orange and
Florida Transitional times, nicely made basal and corner-notched
points appeared (Bullen 1975:3, 24-28) (distribution map 4, p. 64).
These include Culbreath, Clay, Lafayette, Citrus, and Hernando types
(fig. 20).

Figure 20. Projectile points of the Early Ceramic period: (a) Culbreath, (b) Clay, (c)
Lafayette, (d) Citrus, and (e) Hernando.

Early Ceramic microliths

Assemblages of microcores, blades, and tools similar to the 3,000- Microliths
year-old Jaketown microlith industry of Louisiana appeared during
the Early Ceramic period. Tool characteristics observed at these
excavations suggest Early Ceramic period influences along the Gulf
Coast from Louisiana to Florida (Lazarus 1958; Fairbanks 1959;
Bullen and Bullen 1974; Haisten 1974; Reichelt 1974; Watson 1974).
Morse and Tesar (1974) compare microliths from the Palm Court site
in Bay County, Florida, and date them with those of the Cahokia
microlith industry of the Early Mississippi period (A.D. 700). Knight
(1976) describes the technology involved in manufacturing microliths
found at Maximo Point in St. Petersburg and concludes that it differs
significantly from that of the Jaketown specimens. Although the
distribution of the microlith industry in Florida is restricted primarily
to the Gulf Coast, Hemmings (1975) reports the recovery of
microtools from a Preceramic Archaic zone at Silver Springs, Florida.
With more careful inspection of collected stone remains, it is likely
that a broader distribution will be recognized. It is known that
prehistoric Florida peoples used microliths as scrapers, drills, knives,
perforators, and gravers.
Figure 21c, d, e illustrate microliths from Bay County, Florida. The
microcore weighs 22 g and is 5.6 cm long; the blade weighs 3 g and is
3.6 cm long, 1.6 cm wide, and .8 cm thick. It was utilized as a knife as
well as a scraper on both edges and the bit. The angle of the edges is
about 65 degrees, the bit angle is 55 degrees. The microtool weighs less
than 1 g and is 2.5 cm long, .9 cm wide, and .6 cm thick. It is
completely unifacial and has been used as a scraper and possibly as a
perforator. The edge angles are about 70 degrees.

Hafted end scrapers and drills continued to be made from projectile Other artifacts
points (figs. 2 a, b).
During this period pendants, gorgets, plummets, celts, axes, hoes,
and other objects made of steatite, igneous rock, mica, copper, other
non-Florida material, and shell appeared and apparently increased
until European contact in the 1500s (fig. 22).
Although little attention has been directed toward the chipped


0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 21. Microtools and other stone implements of the Early Ceramic Period: (a) drill,
(b) hafted end scraper, (c) microcore, (d) microblade, (e) microtool.

Figure 22. Shell implements and tools made of non-Florida stone.

Late Ceramic projectile points

stone implements where ceramic artifacts have been discovered, it
has been observed that, other than microliths, the implements seem
to differ little from those of preceding periods. There is evidence that
a number of chert outcrop workshop sites in the central highlands of
Florida, heavily exploited during the Preceramic Archaic period, were
rarely utilized during the Early Ceramic period. These include the
Kanapaha site in Alachua County and the CCA and Senator Edwards
sites in Marion County. A great deal of research is still needed
concerning the question of probable declining use of these stone
resources. In the meantime my general impression is that
stoneworking technology declined drastically during this period.
A notable exception to my supposition is the Johns Island site in
Hernando County (Bullen and Bullen 1950) where large, nicely
made unifacial and bifacial chert implements, evidently made
during the Early Ceramic period, have been recovered. Examination
of these specimens suggests they were used as adzes, choppers,
wedges, etc. They are similar in form and function to artifacts
already described from the Preceramic Archaic period except that
more care was taken in their production.

Many points from this period are small, perhaps signaling the
appearance of the bow and arrow, but the continued uncovering of
larger points indicates that the spear was not entirely replaced.
Workmanship is usually crude and reinforces the conclusion that
stoneworking had declined and was not considered a prestigious
occupation. Chipping often does not cross the face of the point.
Sometimes the points are merely shaped flakes with some pressure
retouch on the edges. Some of the projectiles appear to be reworked
archaic forms. Points of this period are illustrated and described by
Bullen (1975:8-23). Pinellas, Duval, Columbia, and Jackson points
are shown in figure 23. Pinellas points, considered by Bullen to be
the most recent, have been recovered by the thousands.

Chipped stone tools recovered at sites of this period tend to be
rather nondescript. They sometimes resemble crude Preceramic

Late Ceramic


Other artifacts


0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 23. Projectile points of the Late Ceramic period: (a) Columbia, (b) Jackson,
(c) Duval, (d) Pinellas, (e) drill probably made from a Pinellas point.

Archaic specimens and are probably reworked archaic forms. The
evidence for this is manifest in three ways: (1) reflaking, after a long
lapse of time, is apparent in differential patina on many specimens
(fig. 24); (2) in spite of the fact that Florida has very few sites with
stratigraphic sequences, the most nicely flaked stone implements
recovered in situ are found in preceramic or earlier contexts; and (3)
very few points or ceramics of the Late Ceramic period are found at
the workshop sites in the central highlands. However, additional
problems of identification remain because much of the physical
evidence of recent Florida prehistory has come from mounds where
artifacts from many time periods have been found, often mixed with
mound fill.
An increasing number of implements made of shell and non-Florida
stone materials were manufactured during the Late Ceramic period
and there are rare finds of Hopewellian-like ceremonial blades.


Figure 24. Patinated and restruck artifact (note the light area where a flake was
removed after considerable weathering had occurred).

The earliest human tool may have been a stone hammer, an
implement undoubtedly used during all of Florida's prehistory. In
most areas of the world, river-rounded cobbles are abundantly
available and have long been used as pounding instruments. In
Florida, since only a few rivers provided cobbles, the Indians used
chert to make their hammers. Anyone who has ever tried to "round
off" a piece of chert knows it is not easy to create an angle greater
than 90 degrees; therefore it is safe to say that hammers gained in
value as they became more rounded through use. Most recovered
hammerstones have extremely crushed surfaces resulting from
longtime use. Occasionally, hammerstones are found that have failed
after long, hard service. The hammerstone in figure 25 weighs 195 g
and is 5.3 cm in diameter and 4.6 cm thick.

The dorsal surfaces of the objects pictured in figure 26 are crushed
as a result of some material being laid on the anvil and hit with





Figure 25. Hammerstone (note the crushing on the surface).

Figure 26. Anvils (note the crushing on the surface).

Tool types from undetermined periods

another stone. Any number of different kinds of tasks could have
been accomplished with such an arrangement. Most of the anvils I
have seen exhibit multipurpose use. The specimen shown in figure
26b has failed from long, hard wear. The cleaved surface is not the
expected smooth, conchoidal fracture of chert but instead exhibits an
uneven appearance. It weighs 1,855 g and is 15.5 cm long, 12.9 cm
wide, and 9.2 cm thick. Figure 26a weighs 1,665 g and is 18.7 cm
long, 14.0 cm wide, and 6.5 cm thick. It is completely unifacial, the
ventral surface is polished, and the entire periphery was used for
heavy scraping. This implement is very similar to the scraper-plane
pictured in figure 161. The striking platform still present in 25a is
small and prepared, an unusual feature on such a large specimen.
Similar implements are probably more common than presently
apparent since anvils are not the kind of tool that attracts the amateur
collector. In addition, their large size and unnotable shape make
them easier to overlook than projectile points.

Occasionally, abrading wear is observed on materials such as Abraders
sandstone, pottery sherds, etc. I have rarely seen evidence of
abrading use on chert except for striations on the cortex of some

Implements used as metates are present in Florida though not Grindstones
abundantly. In the 1500s one observer mentioned that the Indians
"pound on a stone the aromatics that are to be used for seasoning"
(Bennett 1968).

Several questions arise from studying the lithic assemblages of the Discussion
prehistoric time periods of Florida. It is fairly certain that the tool kits
changed from unifacial tools made on blades in the Paleo Indian and
Late Paleo periods to bifacial tools made on flakes in the Preceramic
Archaic period. By the middle Preceramic Archaic, chipped stone
technology had begun to decline as shown by less precise
stoneworking techniques. Why these changes occurred may never be
understood fully. The fact that many of the implements of the Paleo


Stone Tool Typology

Indian and Late Paleo periods resemble Old World Upper Paleolithic
types suggests that a steady state had been reached in stone tool
technology. It could also mean that thousands of years passed before
the people were stimulated by a diffusion of ideas to change their tool-
making techniques.
The stone tool kit of the Paleo period consists of task-specific
implements such as thumbnail, oblong, and Hendrix scrapers,
specialized tools which were carried over into the Late Paleo period.
Other cultural changes undoubtedly were taking place during the
Late Paleo period, but Florida Indians did not change their types of
stone implements except for an increase in the number of projectiles
and except for the addition of the Clear Fork gouge that suggests the
presence of a larger and more stable population having woodworking
skills. It is inconceivable that the Paleo Indians did not use wood, but
I think it is likely that these nomadic peoples were not felling trees
for building houses or making canoes. This probability is indicated by
their kit of small lightweight tools and by the absence of any large
woodworking tools.
At any rate, as Byers (1962:249) has pointed out, "anyone who has
ever handled [Paleo Indian] material will recognize it at once." With
the arrival of the Preceramic Archaic period we observe what appears
to be an abrupt and drastic change in stone tool tradition. There is a
noticeable change in tools that suggest a sedentary rather than
migratory population.
One could speculate that the Paleo Indian and Late Paleo peoples
performed a narrower range of tasks, while the more diversified and
complex life of Preceramic Archaic peoples demanded an efficient but
less elaborate stoneworking technology. Since the large quarries were
near the settlements in north-central Florida, it was not necessary for
people first to work stone into tools and then to carry them
elsewhere to use them. Instead they could bring other materials that
would be worked into finished tools (bone, hide, etc.) to their quarry
sites, as Bryan (1950) suggests. Since the stone was serving the
Preceramic Archaic implement maker only as a tool to make
a tool, it is not surprising that little care was taken in shaping


Projectile point styles

it. Carefully finished projectile points are, of course, an exception to
this practice, and it is interesting to observe that the only continuity
seen in the Preceramic Archaic stone tool industry is in the
manufacture of points.
Characteristically, projectile point styles change through time,
reflecting the changes in hafting, the switch from a thrusting spear
to an atlatl, the introduction of the bow and arrow, and the
dynamism in all parts of the culture (fig. 27). It might be revealing
to make a thorough investigation of the basal and corner-notched
projectile points, which represent a quite radical difference in
manufacture from that of stemmed points. Their introduction
suggests an intrusion of people or ideas since they occur along with
rather than replace the stemmed points. In addition, the specimens I
have examined seem to be made of a finer-grained stone material
than most of the stemmed varieties-an observation that may
indicate a limited procurement area.

Figure 27. Comparison of Florida projectile points of different time periods: (a) Paleo
Indian, (b) Late Paleo Indian, (c) early Preceramic Archaic, (d) middle Preceramic
Archaic, (e) Early Ceramic, (J) Late Ceramic.

Stone Tool Typology

I have difficulty in determining whether many implements other
than points had been hafted. Ethnographic accounts, historic records,
and experimentation indicate that hafting is advantageous because it
provides greater mechanical force. Some Florida implements may
have had a socketed haft, which should not require as much
smoothing of the tools' stone edges, usually necessary to prevent
severing the binding material.
A series of little-noted changes throughout the Preceramic Archaic
period resulted in a decline in stoneworking technology that appears
in the archaeological record of the Early Ceramic period as a rapid,
drastic decline (Renfrew 1978:203).
At first glance, one might conclude that implements from the
Preceramic Archaic period represent the zenith of stoneworking
technology. Florida Indians' most intense exploitation of chert sources
occurred during this time and they produced large numbers of stone
implements. But quantity is not quality. Most of the task-specific
stone tools of the earlier periods were replaced by multipurpose
implements that defy classification because no consistent progression
of steps in manufacture was followed. Flakes struck from cores were
used unmodified in numerous ways-a fact true also of nearly all of
the large stone implements of the Preceramic Archaic period. This
discontinuity probably could have been predicted because it appears
that (1) there was a shift in economic base away from primary
emphasis on hunting to greater dependence on marine and
freshwater resources; (2) regionalism developed and settlements were
in areas where there were no chert outcrops; and (3) industries
developed other than stone-working ones, utilizing raw materials that
were capable of accomplishing the necessary tasks, easier to obtain,
and easier to work.

Stone tool It is not possible to identify the specific tasks performed with the
utilization stone tools of Florida, but a study of wear patterns and edge angles
on stone objects recovered from prehistoric sites may result in a
determination of tool function. I have examined thousands of objects
with the aid of a 5 x hand lens. If magnification is much greater than


Stone tool utilization

5 x, features that naturally accompany chert fracture can be confused
with evidence of use. There are times, of course, when it is
advantageous to use a microscope.
In Florida, no experiments have been conducted to reproduce wear
patterns on chert tools using materials available to the early
inhabitants. Futhermore, historic records do not describe the Indians'
use of stone. Ethnographic accounts from other geographic areas,
particularly by Gould et al. (1971) and White (1967), and the results of
experimentation conducted by other investigators provide
worthwhile information but should be used with caution (see, for
example, Ackerly 1978).
It is important to remember that chert implements cannot be used
in all the same ways as metal. One kind of chert implement we
should not expect to find would be, for example, twisting tools,
except drills, because chert cannot withstand the stress of a twisting
motion. If twisting tools were needed, bone or certain hard woods
would have been more satisfactory.
Much like metal tools, chert implements can be used for a long
time to scrape, adze, plane, and gouge, and their usefulness can be
extended by resharpening the edge. Lithic remains provide abundant
and easily recognizable indications of such functions. On the other
hand, chert implements may not always carry evidence of the cutting
use they have received. Cutting implements used as choppers should
be fairly large and exhibit extreme crushing on the edges. A cutting
tool used for sawing would leave small hinge or step fractures on both
faces near the edge. A blade or flake used for slicing, however, might
not have continued to be usable if it became clogged with flesh and
would thus have been discarded before it dulled. It probably would
have been too fragile to resharpen. When such stone implements are
examined by the archaeologist thousands of years later, no evidence
of cutting use will be found.
Piercing and graving implements are often difficult to recognize.
Edges suitable for piercing and graving can occur accidentally- a
blade that collapses when it is being detached because it is too thin, a
flake that "steps off," debitage that is stepped on and snapped.


Stone Tool Typology

When no repetitive form specimens are found, confirmation of the
piercing and incising function is tenuous.
Drills may be misnamed; close examination of the edges
and tips of a number of drills in the Florida State Museum collections
reveals very little evidence of rotary use. Nor is there much evidence
to indicate that drills used as hafted knives were repeatedly
resharpened as Witthoft suggests (1968:13). They may, however, be
novices' attempts at pressure flaking. These drills resemble my first
efforts to remove flakes by pressure when, since I could not cross the
midline to thin, the outer dimensions became smaller and smaller
while the thickness of the cross section remained the same-exactly
like a drill.
Many of the stone remains I have examined were used with heat
or generated enough heat during use to change color, indicative of
thermal alteration. Since only a section of the implements had been
affected by heat, it is possible to conclude that they were not
intentionally thermally altered (Purdy and Brooks 1971). The
implements were used as scrapers and perforators. Although there are
ethnographic accounts describing stone tools used with fire to
accomplish tasks like shaping fire-hardened sticks, hollowing out logs
for canoes, and piercing holes in hides, there are no accounts
describing the effect of heat on the stone tools themselves.
The color of the specimen illustrated in figure 28 is between very
pale orange and pale yellowish brown (10 YR 6.5/2) except for the
tip, which is between pale reddish brown and dark reddish brown (10
R 4/4) (Munsell 1946). The stone must have been subjected to
temperatures of at least 2500C for this color change to occur. Some of
the specimens exhibit the vitreous luster indicative of thermal
alteration requiring a temperature of 3500C.
General problems arise when dealing with interpretation of lithic
remains. Few systematic excavations or analyses of stone implements
have been conducted (Purdy 1975a). Most of the types available for
study come from private collections, and there has been only
selective recovery of objects recognizable as stone tools, principally
projectile points. This of course means incomplete sampling from


Figure 28. Flake used with heat (note the darker color in the area of use).

recovery sites since debitage and large or less exciting implements
have been left behind or discarded. Stone tools recovered from sites
other than workshop areas, such as villages, will look different
because they tend to have been used more intensively for a longer
time and have been resharpened. Therefore, they are difficult to
compare with remains at quarries even if they served the same
purpose. This produces a quandry for the researcher in that the
greatest number of artifacts are available at quarries, while the
greatest evidence of an artifact's use and wear is found at other sites.
One method of approaching the problem of interpretation is to
correlate the pounding, scraping, cutting, and piercing functions of
stone tools with the raw materials available to the early inhabitants
of Florida and to suggest the stone tool type that might have been
employed to accomplish a task. Table 2 is a simplistic attempt at such
a reconstruction.


Table 2
Proposed uses of stone implements

Material Stone function Ede angleStone tool typedence
worked Pound Scrape Cut Pierce L<550o (>55 Paleo period Dalton period Archaic period of use

Treefelling A A Chopper Pronounced
Houses A A A Clear fork gouge Plane, Adze, Saw Pronounced
Posts A A A A Hendrix scraper Clear fork gouge Chopper, Adze, Pronounced
Canoes A A A A Clear fork gouge Wedge, Adze Pronounced
Art objects A A A A A Thumbnail scraper, Drill, End scraper, Utilized flake, Blade, Pronounced
Blade, Spurred scraper, Snub-nosed Truncated blade, Slight
scraper, Carinate scraper, Graver Drill, End scraper
Spear shafts A A A A Thumbnail scraper, Blade, Hafted End scraper, Utilized Pronounced
spokeshave, Carinate scraper, Snub-nosed flake, Blade
scraper, End scraper, Spurred scraper
Furniture A A A A A Hendrix scraper Clear fork gouge Adze, Saw, Knife, Pronounced
End scraper, Drill, Snub-nosed scraper, Blade, Scraper,
Graver, Carinate scraper, Blade Utilized flake, Drill,
End scraper
Handles A A A Hendrix scraper Beveled bolen Adze, Saw, Knife, Pronounced
Thumbnail scraper Edgefield scraper Blade, Scraper,
Blade, Snub-nosed scraper, Carinate Utilized flake, Drill,
scraper, End scraper, Spurred scraper, End scraper
Hafted spokeshave
Points A A A Hendrix scraper Beveled bolen, Adze, Saw, Knife,
Thumbnail scraper Edgefield scraper Blade, Scraper,
End scraper, Blade, Snub-nosed scraper, Utilized flake, End
Knife, Carinate scraper scraper
Art objects A A A A A Thumbnail scraper, Drill, End scraper, Utilized flake, Blade, Pronounced
Graver, Spurred scraper, Carinate scraper, Truncated blade, Slight
Snub-nosed scraper, Blade, Beveled Drill, End scraper
bolen, Edgefield scraper
Hide A A A A Snub-nosed scraper, Carinate scraper, Utilized flake, Drill, Slight
End scraper, Ovoid scraper, Drill, Scraper, Truncated (Polish)
Unifacial flake, Spurred scraper blade, Unifacial
Bone A A A Hammer, Blade, Graver Hammer, Chopper, Pronounced
Blade, Truncated
Flesh A A Blade, Waller knife, Waller scraper Blade, Utilized flake Slight
Food A A A Blade, Hammer, Anvil Hammer, Anvil, Pronounced
Blade, Utilized flake Slight
Fiber A A A A Hammer, Blade, Anvil, Thumbnail Hammer, Blade, Pronounced
(e.g., Cane, basketry) scraper, End scraper Anvil, End scraper, Slight
Utilized flake, Knife Polish
Feathers A A A Blade Blade, Utilized flake Slight
Scarification A A A Blade, Graver Blade, Utilized flake, Slight
Truncated blade
Stone A Hammer, Anvil Hammer, Anvil Pronounced
(e.g., Shaping projectile points)


Distribution of projectile points

Map 1, showing the distribution of Paleo Indian projectile points, is
modified from a map compiled by Mr. Ben I. Waller of Silver Springs,
Florida (see also Waller 1969, 1970; Waller and Dunbar 1977).
Information about single finds is not available. Maps 2-5 were
compiled from the Florida State Museum collections and from the
collection of Mr. Alvin Hendrix of McIntosh, Florida. It should be
pointed out that these five maps are not intended to represent
absolute numbers of projectile points found in Florida. The artifacts
are so scattered among thousands of individuals that it would be futile
to attempt a comprehensive catalog. The Hendrix collection is
primarily from the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Waccasassa, and Oklawaha
rivers. Other rivers, such as the Chipola and Aucilla, therefore, are
not adequately represented but points from all time periods have
been found in them. The Florida State Museum has artifacts from all
counties in the state but primarily from the more extensively
investigated areas (e.g., Alachua County). Even lacking complete
series of specimens, however, a number of tentative observations can
be made after comparing the geographic distribution and relative
densities of points from the major time periods.
Very few Paleo Indian spearheads are found in the Suwannee River
or the St. Marys River compared to the number found in other rivers
and compared to points of more recent time periods found in the
Both the Suwannee and the St. Marys originate from the
Okefenokee Swamp. The paucity of Paleo Indian artifacts from the
Suwannee and the St. Marys may indicate that these rivers were
without water at the end of the Pleistocene (12,000-10,000 years
ago), a very important possibility that needs to be investigated. Paleo
Indian points have been found east of the St. Johns River but they
are not plentiful. The distribution of Paleo points indicates a
population following the rivers and resources of the Florida Highlands
and along the Gulf Coast. There may be many submerged sites along
the coast that were drowned by the rising sea level. Waller
(1978:personal communication) estimates that about 1.5
percent of artifacts recovered from Florida rivers are Paleo Indian

Distribution of
points in


0 1

@ 2-4

O 5-24

* 25-49

A 50-99

A 100-499

j o'* i 90
:oP% dips

Map 1. Distribution of projectile points from the Paleo Indian period.

Distribution of projectile points

with about 5 percent recovered from the Santa Fe River being Paleo
If the single find locations east of the St. Johns were removed from
map 2, the distribution of projectile points during the Late Paleo period
would be similar to that of the Paleo Indian period with three
important differences: (1) hundreds of Bolen points from the Late
Paleo period are found in the Suwannee whereas Paleo Indian points
are scarce; (2) there is a tremendous increase in numbers of Late Paleo
period projectiles over Paleo Indian, especially significant in view of the
shorter duration of the Late Paleo period; and (3) many of the Late
Paleo period points are found at land as well as river sites whereas
nearly all of the Paleo points are from rivers.
The long Preceramic Archaic period accounts for many thousands
of stemmed projectile points. Map 3 indicates that this period reflects
a wider distribution than the previous two periods. Florida's climate
may have been wet and warm throughout most of this long time
span. It is possible to distinguish three separate eras: an early
Preceramic Archaic with points such as Kirk serrated, Wacissa, and
Arredondo; a middle Preceramic Archaic with points such as
Newnan, Putnam, Levy, and Marion (Bullen 1975:30-43); and the
less easily identifiable late Preceramic Archaic, difficult to separate
from the Early Ceramic period. There is, in fact, evidence that similar
point types were made after the introduction of pottery but the points
tend to become smaller and less well made (Bullen 1975:3).
Map 4 is a special map showing only the distribution of basally
notched or corner-notched points such as Citrus, Clay, and
Hernando. These points are stylistically quite different from the
stemmed points of the Preceramic Archaic period, probably continued
into the Early Ceramic period. The distribution suggests a population
living primarily along the Gulf Coast and in the central highlands. A
small number of these points have been recovered. It should be noted
that the area where the greatest concentration of these points occurs
is not the area where the earliest pottery has been reported in
Map 5 shows the distribution of points produced during more








Map 2. Distribution of projectile points from the Late Paleo period.














Map 3. Distribution of projectile points from the Preceramic Archaic period.

0 1

I 2-4

D 5-24


00 -40
S s

Map 4. Distribution of basally notched points from the Early Ceramic period.









' b% "to

Map 5. Distribution of projectile points from the Late Ceramic period.

Stone Tool Typology

recent times. The number diminishes and for the most part the
workmanship degenerates. Map 5 indicates that more of these
points are found in Alachua County than any other county, but the
significance of this fact is reduced by recognition that Alachua
County has been extensively investigated. With time the number of
points recovered from the rivers decreases. The distribution of stone
artifacts in the Late Ceramic is not as broad as in the Preceramic
Archaic period except for an unexplained occurrence of points in
Monroe County.
For all time periods, most of the points have been recovered in
close proximity to chert outcrops. Since few stone implements have
been found in the southern part of the state, this suggests that stone
was not traded nor did people living in places like South Florida
travel far to utilize stone sources.



Stoneworking Technology

The fabrics of a people unlock their social history. They
speak a language which is silent but yet more eloquent
than the written page.
(Snyder 1881:563)

A comprehensive investigation of any technology includes an account
of its origins. But stoneworking technology has existed since the time
of the Australopithecines, who lived in Africa about two million years
ago. That was so long before recorded history that speculation must
accompany any attempt to determine how these people initially
decided that flint was the most desirable material for stone
implements, how they knew where to find the flint, how they
determined that the flint available was satisfactory for their needs,
how they developed techniques to use it efficiently, and how they
adjusted their seasonal migrations for stops at quarries and
stoneworking activities. We know from evidence at Olduvai Gorge
(Leakey 1971) in eastern Africa that Australopithecines were altering
stones to create crude implements. It seems evident that early
humanlike creatures noticed that some broken rocks in a streambed
had sharp cutting edges or that certain rocks used as pounding
instruments broke at an angle that left a sharp edge suitable for
cutting (Bordaz 1970:8-9; Bordes 1968:44; Oakley 1972:13).


Stoneworking Technology

Presumably, the advantages of cutting with a hard, durable material
with predictable fracture properties eventually became apparent, and
a long, slow process of technological development began. At first
there were no traditions to fall back on and no neighbors from whom
to borrow new ideas. Sons learned from fathers, generation after
generation, and the technical changes adopted in their tools are now
perceptible to archaeologists in studies of the progressive
development of stone tool technology.
Possibly Oakley is correct in stating that "in the Paleolithic and
Mesolithic periods man obtained flint mainly from the banks and
beds of rivers or from cliffs and sea-beaches. In the Neolithic stage he
learned to follow good quality flint underground" (Oakley 1972:19).
Few systematic studies have been conducted of Old World quarries
and their utilization may be older than is presently apparent. Early
stoneworkers must have developed excellent rockhound sense,
enabling them to recognize the most desirable quality of stone for
their needs. Knowles (1953:93) relates that in Australia to this day a
hunter always keeps his eyes open for useful bits of stone to make
spearheads: "He will take up a piece of broken rock, the size of his
fist, lying on the surface of the ground, and test it by striking it with
any convenient lump of stone lying about that will serve as a
hammer. He will knock pieces off the edges of the stone he has
noticed. If it flakes nicely he will break it down to somewhere near
the size of a spear-head, and put it in his paper-bark wallet, to be
dressed into shape at his leisure in his camp."
By the time people arrived in the Western Hemisphere from the Old
World, before 20,000 years ago, they had probably already solved most
of the basic problems pertaining to stoneworking technology.

Chert Little notice was taken by the early pioneers in any part of America
resources of the aboriginal industries connected with the quarrying and shaping
of stone (Holmes 1919:155).

Quarry areas in Holmes's monumental volume is the only inclusive account of
Florida the quarrying and mining procedures of aboriginal Americans.


Quarry areas in Florida

Although considered incomplete by the modern archaeologist, it
remains an important reference source. Holmes does not discuss the
ages when the quarries were utilized, he does not include a study of
the chipping debris, nor does he mention the sources of Florida
cherts. It was not possible for Holmes to consider these details since
the only information available in 1919 was the following paragraphs
about Florida that appeared in the Annual Report of the Smithsonian
Institution for 1879 under the heading "Ancient Arrow-Head Factory":

About five miles south of the Kootie River, and some two
miles north of the mouth of Anclote River, is a small stream
called Trouble Creek. A considerable body of blue flint-rock
occurs here, cropping out along the shores of the creek, with
scattering nodules lying in all directions. This point was
evidently used for a long time by the aborigines as a factory for
arrow and spear heads. Bushels of chips and fragments strew the
ground, and large quantities have been washed from the banks
of the creek and cover its bottom. A long search revealed
nothing except a few arrow points and spear heads spoiled in
making, and a lot of broken pottery.
No doubt excavations along the banks would bring other relics
to light, as the Indians must have resorted to this place in large
numbers, and have worked here for a long series of years,
judging from the depth of soil over the chips (Walker 1879:394).

In the Third Biennial Report of the Florida State Board of
Conservation (1939:63-64), there is an article entitled "Aboriginal
Stone Quarries of Hillsborough County and Sources of Abrasives and
Pigment." The anonymous author of this article (possibly J. Clarence
Simpson) discusses the abundance of silicified coral and chert
remains and the evidence of intensive quarrying operations. The
writer states that the method employed in quarrying was shallow
trenching and pitting, and he or she goes on to say that large
boulders were broken and fractured on the spot by the use of fire and
that the fragments were further reduced by striking with any
convenient stone at hand. The material was roughed out into


Stoneworking Technology

suitable flakes and blanks to be finished elsewhere.
Simpson (1941:32- 34) provides the most comprehensive account
of stone resource areas for Florida aboriginal artifacts, mentioning
quarries in Pinellas, Jefferson, Alachua, and Hillsborough counties.
Quarrying, according to Simpson, was accomplished by digging
shallow trenches and pits. Fire was used to break the stones into
rough shapes, after which they were further worked by hammering
into blanks that were carried away to be finished. He further notes
that the word Thonotosassa used to name a Hillsborough County lake
is a Muscogean word meaning "flint place."
In Florida, chert suitable for stone tool production is available along
the courses of many rivers and crops out at the surface in areas where
limestone has been dissolved away, allowing the siliceous bodies to
project from the surrounding terrain in ridges and mounds (fig. 29).
Situations exist in Florida similar to those described by Holmes at
Flint Ridge, Ohio, but quarrying in Florida is vastly easier since the
chert is not deeply buried and erosion has exceeded deposit in most

Figure 29. Outcrop of Florida chert.

Stone sources in Florida

... the digger attacked the clays that result from the
disintegration of the limestone. All the lime has been dissolved
by the humic and carbonic acids carried downward by
percolating waters which, however, have no effect on the flint,
and the nodules are left scattered throughout the clay much in
the order as that in which they occurred in the limestone
(Holmes 1919:185).

As recently as 1949 when Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast was
published, Willey had the following to say about stone remains:
"Projectiles and large lance points were met with in many of the
burial mounds. Some of these were large beautifully chipped
ceremonial blades. They could have been made of native flint. There
is little information on point forms. Moore offers few illustrations
or descriptions of chipped-stone material" (Willey 1949:393). In
Plates 54a, 55, 56, and 57 of Willey's book, projectile points now
known to belong to the Paleo Indian, Late Paleo, Preceramic Archaic,
and Ceramic periods are listed as Safety Harbor period artifacts (A.D.
1200). Obviously, points of a number of time periods were mixed
when they were scooped up and deposited with mound fill. Willey
does not include a table of stone tool types nor does he mention the
abundance of available stone sources in some of the Gulf Coast
counties. It is apparent that the preoccupation at that time was with
ceramics rather than with stone remains of Florida, and it is clear that
Willey has not written the final word about Florida Gulf Coast
archaeology, inasmuch as conclusions are still lacking about the tool
types and the chert sources utilized.
A number of areas have been identified where material suitable for
producing chipped stone implements was utilized. These include
many locations in the Tampa Bay area and east and northeast of
there to Zephyrhills; along the Aucilla, Econfina, Fenholloway,
Suwannee, and Santa Fe rivers; the Withlacoochee River flowing
south from Georgia to Florida; the Kanapaha (Hemmings and Kohler
1974) and York (Purdy 1977) sites in Alachua County; the Johnson
Lake (Bullen and Dolan 1959), Container Corporation of


Stoneworking Technology

America (Purdy 1981a), and Edwards (Purdy 1975a) sites in Marion
Few systematic and no complete studies have yet been conducted
of any lithic procurement sites in Florida. Many of these sites have
been destroyed by the construction of housing or shopping centers or
they have been extensively vandalized by amateur collectors. (Since
they are already on the endangered list, the precise locations of the
chert sources of Florida are not given in this volume. A list of quarry
sites is on file at the University of Florida.)

Quarry The actual process of quarrying is rather varied (Gould et al.
procedures 1971:160).

Apparently early explorers took no notice of stone procurement
practices in Florida. In order to develop theories about quarrying in
prehistoric Florida, it is necessary to resort to descriptions from other
parts of the world and to compare findings from their quarry sites
with those reported from Florida sites.
Lithic technologists and researchers employ three methods to study
ways early stoneworkers extracted and worked lithic raw materials:
(1) systematic investigations of stone debitage at sites where
procurement and reduction took place; (2) observations of techniques
still being used by the few stone tool-making peoples remaining in
the world today; (3) replication experiments, which provide valuable
insights into the problems faced by early stoneworkers and can, by
extrapolation, be used to analyze manufacturing and utilization
techniques employed by prehistoric peoples.
The most complete investigation of flintknapping was made of the
gunflint industry at Brandon, England (Clarke 1935; and his cited
references). Clarke speaks of geographic and geologic availability of
the flint, mining techniques, implements employed, selection for
quality, historic continuity, and supply and demand. He observed that
flintknapping is restricted to a few families among whom
intermarriage was "more than common" (Clarke 1935:44). Of


British flintknapping

further interest is his statement that "knappers die before the age of
40 from consumption caused by the inhalation of flint particles" (p.
52). An idiosyncratic technical vocabulary and bookkeeping system
preserved by miners and knappers are described, providing clues
about the antiquity of the industry. Important also is the
information about the number of gunflints that can be produced.

A knapper of average skill can produce from 5,000 to 7,000
flakes in a day, while an expert has struck as many as 10,000 in
the same time. Flints can be knapped at the rate of 300 per
hour, though slightly more have been completed by knappers of
outstanding proficiency. This daily total of 2,500 gunflints is
exclusive of the flakes used as raw material. ... In 1868 the
total weekly output was 200,000-250,000 gunflints (Clarke

It is no wonder that two million years of flint-working activities
have resulted in hundreds of thousands of stone tools and
inestimable amounts of debitage.
The account of the Brandon flintknappers furnishes a valuable
description of quarrying procedures that may be partially applicable
to the Florida situation. Picks, hammers, spades, and crowbars, for
instance; probably were similar, differing primarily only in the
material of which they were made. Florida's early stoneworkers,
however, did not have to dig shafts 10 or more meters deep to reach
quality stone, nor did they use exclusively the sophisticated blade
technique necessary in the gunflint industry.
Holmes (1919) discusses stone quarries throughout North
America. The procedures involved in quarrying were as varied as
the geographic and geologic locations. Pits, vertical shafts, and
horizontal tunneling are all mentioned, with fire, stone, antler
picks, mauls, sledges, and hammerstones used to break up the stone.
The discussion about the use of fire in breaking up massive strata
and more intractable bodies of rock is intriguing, "but the extent of
its application in the mining work can only be conjectured" (p. 156).


Stoneworking Technology

Holmes cites the investigations of Gerald Fowke at Flint Ridge,
Ohio, where Fowke speculates that:

He then sunk a pit, as large as he wished, to the surface of
the flint. On this he made a fire; and when the stone was hot
he threw water on it, causing it to shatter. Throwing aside the
fragments, he repeated the process until he penetrated the
underlying limestone to a depth which allowed him sufficient
room to work conveniently. The top and freshly made face of
the flint was thickly plastered with potter's clay, after which fire
and water were again utilized for clearing away the limestone
until a cavity was formed beneath the flint layer. Thus a
projecting ledge would be left from which the burnt parts were
knocked off with heavy stone hammers until the unaltered flint
was exposed (Holmes 1919:177) (fig. 30).

An experiment conducted a number of years ago at Flint Ridge
may cast some doubt on the use of fire in quarrying operations. In
the experiment, after a fire of intense heat was kindled on the
underlying surface of the flint, two buckets of cold water were
thrown on the stone, which did not break into large pieces as

Figure 30. Quarrying at Flint Ridge, Ohio (from Holmes 1919:177).

Quarrying with fire

expected but checked and cracked to a depth of half an inch (Ellis
It is clear from the statement of Fowke and from the result of Ellis's
experiment that "fire is destructive to stone and if not very discreetly
employed will so flaw the stone as to make it unfit for most uses"
(Holmes 1919:364).
I recently completed (Purdy 1981b) an extensive literature review
to determine whether there are firsthand accounts describing the use
of fire at flint quarries. Only two reports were found: one, about the
Wintu tribe of Indians in the northern Sacramento Valley who "split
off blocks of obsidian at Glass Mountain by building a fire against the
rock" (Dubois 1939:127; Heizer and Treganza 1944:302). A second
account relates that the Alyawara Aborigines of central Australia use
fire to break up blocks of quartzite. The fire is allowed to burn for
only a few minutes until the block begins to crack (O'Connell
1979:personal communication).
The literature review reveals that the firesetting technique, as an
aid to breaking rocks in mining metal ores, is very ancient and
persisted even after the invention of explosives in 1627. Water was
sometimes poured on the heated surface to hasten the action.
Firesetting was used to remove overburden or destroy the matrix in
which ore was encased.
I conducted a firesetting experiment at the Container Corporation
of America site in Marion County, Florida. A large tabular piece of
chert was selected. Dry grass and yellow lighter pine were placed on
the surface of the stone and ignited. Two pyrometers were used and
probes were inserted into the center of the wood fire where they
reached a maximum temperature of 8500C. The probes were then
placed directly on the rock surface where the temperature remained
fairly constant at 7200C. Within 20 minutes after the fire was kindled,
the rock began to crack-this was apparent both visibly and audibly.
Fragments exfoliated forcefully for a distance greater than 8 meters.
Fifteen minutes later the wood was removed and a large chert nodule
was thrown at the heated slab, which fractured easily. Water was
then poured over the heated stone,which caused it to sizzle and


Stoneworking Technology

steam. The chert nodule was thrown again at the slab, and the slab
literally disintegrated. Later, an attempt was made to flake a piece of
the stone with a soft hammer (moose antler) but the stone fell apart
(Purdy 1981b).
My conclusion from the literature review and from the field
experiment is that it would not have been advantageous to use the
firesetting technique to obtain siliceous materials for the production of
chipped stone implements. Since direct fire is destructive to rock,
firesetting would have to have been very carefully controlled (as done
by the Australian Aborigines) or employed primarily to remove
unwanted material in order to expose quality flint. Firesetting to
destroy silica materials was extensively and beneficially used in mining
and quarrying operations. The field experiment conducted at the CCA
site illustrated that approximately seven to eight feet of unwanted
material can be demolished in an 8-hour period using the firesetting
technique followed by a cold water bash.
Of more application to the Florida situation is Holmes's comment
that in boulder and nodule quarries-where the matrix was sand, clay,
or gravel-stone picks and antler points were used in penetrating the
deposits. Additional observations by Holmes and other investigators
about quarries pertain to the quantity of rejected material, quarry
ownership, and activities other than extraction. Because of its
limestone topography, the Florida landscape is pitted with sinkholes in
which a sequence of geologic deposits can be seen, including strata
containing chert. It is possible that these naturally occurring pits were
widened by primitive people seeking quality chert not yet weathered
by exposure. Many large stone picks have been found at the CCA and
Edwards sites in Marion County that would have served as ideal
instruments for removing the stone from its matrix of sandy clay.
Primitive people may also have used antler picks for this purpose, but
none have survived.
All accounts describing the appearance of quarry areas mention the
amount of waste material found there. Fowke says,"probably nine-
tenths of the flint carried from the pits ... was rejected" (Holmes
1919:178). Bryan states that "in the study of the great flint


Debitage study

quarries one should expect to find large quantities of waste rock"
(1950:33). Singer and Ericson (1977:183- 85) used 5,000 years of
accumulated debitage to calculate biface manufacture at an obsidian
quarry in California. Gould observes that:

If the cherty material occurs as nodules on the surface of the
ground, the Aborigine takes a small boulder and uses it to smash
a few nodules. He selects the flakes he wants from the resulting
piles of chippings and debris. Working in this way, a man can
leave behind as many as two hundred waste flakes for each flake
he actually chooses. Behavior like this accounts for the
tremendous quantities of unused stone flakes which one
characteristically finds on the surface of aboriginal quarries
(Gould et al. 1971:160-61).

Although chert procurement areas of Florida are similar to those
elsewhere in the amount of chipping material they contain, closer
examination of total debitage recovered during excavations in Florida
has provided interesting data. For example, from one 3-meter square
at the CCA site in Marion County that yielded over 10,000 stone
remains, it appears that after the stone was uncovered by early men
and women, they sometimes used the block-on-block technique to
break up the huge nodules or tabular chert (both occur in Florida).
From a different level of the same square, however, every piece of
stone included a striking platform, a bulb of percussion, and a fairly
uniform shape. The most interesting result of the examination of this
site is that 12 percent of the systematically struck and 15 percent of
the shattered material exhibited use wear even though only two
bifacially flaked implements were recovered. This observation
demonstrates that not all debitage is rejected material and that a time
factor probably explains differences in techniques employed to reduce
the large nodules and tabular chert. Bryan argues that quarry sites
did not exist solely for the production of exportable material. He
asserts that many quarries were industrial sites where a variety of
articles were made. The evidence in Florida substantiates Bryan's
contention that "for the manufacture by primitives of articles of wood


Stoneworking Technology

or bone on a large scale, large quantities of flint tools are required.
For economy of effort, it is necessary to balance the carrying of the
raw material to the flint or the flint to the raw material" (Bryan
1950:20-21). Based on ethnographic accounts describing material
items used by Florida Indians, it is possible to speculate that activities
at quarry sites, other than projectile point manufacture, included the
production of canoes, clubs (macanas), spear and arrow shafts, bows,
basketry, religious and other works of art (i.e., carvings such as the
famous owl and eagle totems and the Key Marco specimens), and
bone tools. A full range of stone implements is found at outcrop work
sites, including choppers to cut down trees, a variety of adzes and
scrapers to shape wood and bone, and burins that could be used to
make incisions on all materials, including human skin in preparation
for the tattooing of nobles, the results of which are pictured by le
Moyne (fig. 31). An observation made at the Senator Edwards
chipped stone work site that has not been treated extensively in the
literature is the evidence of novices' attempts at toolmaking.
Symmetry and uniformity of flake removal are essential for the
production of projectile points. Specimens were examined whose
flaking was crude with symmetry not maintained, yet they could be
classified only as poorly made points. Apprenticeship must have
occurred somewhere, and it is logical that it should be evident at a
workshop site.
Data from Florida sites tend to confirm several facts.
(1) Formal tools were made in Florida at places other than quarries
(Gould et al. 1971:161; Holmes 1919:178; Simpson 1941:32- 34). How far
away? At the CCA and Edwards sites, the distance could have been a
few meters. Areas where final reduction took place are characterized
by the recovery of (a) increased numbers of projectile points, (b) fine
chipping debris not found at the procurement site, and (c) thermally
altered flakes. (Thermal alteration, discussed in chapter four, is a
technique used primarily to facilitate the production of projectile
points.) In addition to the three characteristics listed, a dramatic
decrease occurred in the weight of the chipping debris, confirming
that initial stages of reduction had occurred at a place other than the




' I ^.
*I ^"^,



Figure 31. Tattooing (from the engravings of le Moyne; Bennett 1968: 38).

p~ a
9 i~

~ rt' ) I

... *

Q .A.,

Stoneworking Technology

finishing site. For example, in the square yielding over 10,000 stone
artifacts at the CCA site, the total weight was 206,053 grams, not
including the large nodules left at the sites (an average of about 20
grams for each specimen). In another square, 4,069 artifacts were
recovered weighing 16,629 grams (an average of 4 grams each). The
second square yielded 29 percent of the total artifact recovery of the
two squares but only 7 percent of the weight. Twelve projectile points,
other bifaces, scrapers, utilized flakes, and fine chipping debris,
including heat-altered flakes, were found in the second square.
Interpretation of the information from the CCA site supports the
conclusion, reached also by Bryan (1950), that if a quarry were in a
location where other needed resources were available, living areas
would be identified close by.
(2) For many tasks, shape is not as important as a functional edge.
The New Guineans "use a piece of stone for a particular task if
particular features of it make it suitable for the work in hand. The
idea that formal patterning of tools is relatively unimportant is clearly
supported by the ethnographic study which shows that the stone tool
makers place primary stress on the functional edge" (White 1967).
Gould et al. (1971:156) concur that a hand axe sometimes consists of
nothing more than a hand-held rock with a sharp edge, picked up off
the ground when needed and thrown away after use. To make his
point Gould cites a now classic photograph illustrated in Oakley
(1972:6) of a hand axe shown in use by an Australian Aborigine.
After an examination of 70,000 chert remains from a trench dug at
the Edwards site, Marion County, Florida, I concluded that a distinction
should be made between "convenience" tools and "future use" tools
(Purdy 1975a:183). At the CCA site (Purdy 1977) it was observed that
stone remains with no patterned shape did exhibit similar use wear. In
other words, although overall morphology was not classifiable, the
objects could be classified according to function.
(3) Use wear on stone remains may not always be apparent. A
number of recent studies have demonstrated that no edge damage
can be detected after rather rigorous application of stone to materials


Use wear on artifacts

such as wood and bone. Variables considered were the types of wood
(hard or soft), the condition of bone (green or seasoned), the
properties of the stone used to perform the task, the length of time
involved, and many other aspects such as method of holding the
stone and the material being worked (Crabtree and Davis 1968;
Tringham et al. 1974; Gould et al. 1971; Stafford 1977). A statement by
Gould will suffice to make the point.

Following traditional Aborigine motor patterns, the hafted
adze was drawn firmly along a shaft of mulga (Acacia aneura)
wood for 1,000 strokes without any resharpening. The working
edge of the tool was then re-examined under the microscope,
and a total of eight small terminated flakes was discovered.
Further use of the tool in this manner would doubtless have
given rise to more of these use-wear flakes (Gould et al. 1971:160).

But most untrimmed flakes are "not used long enough to cause any
appreciable wear" (Gould et al. 1971:163). Crabtree and Davis conclude
that dulling of a stone tool often was caused by clogging of its edge
with crushed wood fiber and that use-flakes were generally
accidentally produced when stone tools were used improperly
At the CCA Site in Marion County, Florida, where use wear can be
discerned on 15 percent of the untrimmed flakes, it can probably be
assumed that many more were used that show no wear at all and no
patterned use scars, making positive interpretation impossible.
(4) Reuse can occur to complicate an analysis of waste material. In
Australia, "there is a tendency for people sometimes to pick up
ancient stone tools from the surface of sites where they are camped
and re-use these implements. Small finely-made backed blades and
flakes of chert occur on the surface of many old campsites, and recent
stratigraphic work near Warburton has shown that these tools
definitely pre-date the present culture of the region" (Gould et al.
1971:163). Singer and Ericson noticed that "artifacts from later sites
are often reworked pieces or utilized fragments of larger bifacially
flaked implements" (1977:186).


Stoneworking Technology

At the Florida sites, many deeply weathered artifacts have been
restruck, resulting in differential patina where fresh flake scars occur.
Weathering takes time, and the most likely explanation for the
unequal weathering is that discarded implements were reused.
Goodwin (1961) has also reached this conclusion.
(5) Early peoples recognized flint of good quality for tool making.
Gerald Fowke observed at a quarry site in Missouri that:

As a rule the digging was done along the lowest part of the
deposit. This is because the upper layers, being more influenced
by weathering are less suitable for making implements. The most
exposed portions are porous from the weathering out of fossils
and are also much checked and seamed so that they easily
shatter. .. Judging from the amount of waste in the form of
spalls and blocks covering the hillsides below, a vast quantity of
chert was removed and thrown aside in order to reach that
which had desirable flaking qualities. After long exposure most
of it resembles chalk ... (Holmes 1919:195).

Chert recovered at the York site (8-A1-480), Alachua County,
Florida, displayed no evidence of utilization. It was concluded that:

Florida chert, outcropping or immediately under the surface in
a well-drained terrain would eventually lose some adsorbed
water .. The elevation of the York site is about 37 m above the
mean sea level. Most of the diagnostic stone remains recovered
in the surrounding area were found at 23-30 m. If the elevation
falls much below 23 m in this part of Florida, the land will be
under water. At the lower elevations, therefore, chert material
would be found in deposits with greater moisture and probably
would be more highly selected.
The chert from the York site was very "dry" and fossiliferous.
Attempts to flake it resulted in step fractures and, eventually,
failure by end shock ....
In addition to dryness, the chert lacked other desirable
qualities, i.e., homogeneity and small grain size. If better quality


Quarry ownership and use

materials in more convenient locations had not been available,
the chert from the York site probably would have sufficed
(Purdy 1977:7).

These conclusions are not the final word, however, because
certain types of weathering can obliterate flake scars and use wear.
If a time factor is included in quarry site analysis, new dimensions
are introduced that might lead to a reconsideration of previous
interpretations. For instance, rock exposed at the surface today may
have been buried previously under a different set of environmental
conditions and thus protected from weathering.

Ancient ownership of quarries and trading of the raw materials are
mentioned by several authors. As previously noted, the practice of
mining among the Brandon flintworkers is restricted to a few families
(Clarke 1935:44). In California, the control of quarries was "tribal but
related and nearby groups had the right to quarry either freely or on
the payment of small gifts. Wars resulted from attempts by distant
tribes to use a quarry without payment. On the other hand, the Clear
Lake obsidian quarries ... were neutral ground" (Bryan 1950:34). The
famous red pipestone quarry in Minnesota, according to George Catlin,
"was held and owned in common, and as a neutral ground amongst
the different tribes who met here to renew their sacred calumets under
some superstition which stayed the tomahawk of natural foes always
raised in deadly hate and vengeance in other places" (Holmes
1919:262). The United States, in a treaty ratified in 1858, specified that
the Yancton Sioux had unrestricted use of the red pipestone quarry for
the purpose of procuring stone for pipes. In 1859, one square mile,
including the quarry, was surveyed as a reservation (Holmes
1919:262-63). As recently as 1900, the Sioux visited the pipestone
quarry yearly. Flint Ridge, Ohio, is thought to have been neutral
ground from which the raw material was carried away or traded
because it is found at sites throughout a wide area. An analysis of
the material from Bodie Hills, California, verified that export of
obsidian into central and southern California began well before
2000 B.C.: "Partially finished bifaces and complete unmodified

Quarry owners
and users


Stoneworking Technology

prismatic blades were products carried away from the quarry
workshops and distributed within consumer areas. ... (Singer and
Ericson 1977:171). Gould says there are many localities with chert-
like stone suitable for making chipped implements near the
Warburton Ranges in Australia that are well known to the
Aborigines, but they also use detrital and insolation flakes found
almost everywhere in their country. Gould gives no indication of
any concept of quarry site ownership on the part of the Aborigines.
In fact, he mentions that the chipping of stone tools is regarded as
an art of little importance. It is of interest, however, that different
colors are preferred by certain groups, not because of chipping
quality but because of the close totemic ties each man has to the
particular region in which he was born and from which he claims
totemic descent.

Thus, a man may have a sense of kinship with some of the
localities, and he will value the stone material from them as part
of his own being. Stone materials thus acquired are not sacred in
any strict sense but are nevertheless valued highly enough to be
transported over long distances by the owners Situations like
this made it easier to understand how materials can be found
occurring on sites many miles from the localities where they were
quarried or collected (Gould et al. 1971:160-63).

Such observations provide new levels of analysis.
A clue to quarry rights in Florida comes from the Senator Edwards
site (Purdy 1975a), where at least eight different varieties of Preceramic
Archaic stemmed projectile points were recovered. Some varieties exist
in a single time period; thus it is possible to deduce that autonomous
but related groups had access to the same raw material, i.e., from
neutral ground. Ethnographic data support this concept of nonprivate
ownership of property among hunting-gathering groups. With the
knowledge presently available, any other statement about quarry
ownership in Florida is merely speculation. It is not likely,
however, that stone procurement areas in Florida were ever
jealously guarded even when a higher socioeconomic level was
reached about 2,000 years ago. There was no production of large