What's the difference between a handaxe and a Folsom point?

[War Arrow]

Genuine question. I've been reading up a bit about the history of the atlatl and Michael Coe, unless I'm reading him wrong seems to be suggesting that it first originated in the American southwest, deduced not from the remnants of an ancient spearthrower, but from Folsom points which (he claims) would be too big and cumbersome for use on a regular spear so must have tipped ones propelled by atlatl. Also he seems to claim Folsom was preClovis - which I thought was still officially a no no amongst the powers that be, so to speak. Unless I've completely misunderstood all the arguments going on aroung here.
So (1) Was Folsom preClovis and (2) am I just reading Coe wrong in believing this is what he infers?
(3) Any thoughts on this Folsom-as-evidence-of-atlatl-usage thing?
(4) Is this a case (possibly) of one man's Folsom is another's hand-axe?
Anyone?

[Charlie Hatchett]

Was Folsom preClovis

I've only heard of one site at which Folsom points were found in possible preClovis context: Sandia Cave. The site is surrounded by much controversy because of the "wild" dating results for some of the artifact bearing strata: 250,000 B.P. Folsom points along with the controversial Sandia points were found in this old strata.

but from Folsom points which (he claims) would be too big and cumbersome for use on a regular spear so must have tipped ones propelled by atlatl.

Folsom points are usually quite small and delicate:







They're usually much smaller and thinner than Clovis points. Not sure about the whole atlatl issue.



Welcome back, Bro.

[Digit]

Folsom point/hand axe? Haven't a clue WA, but I might be able to throw some light on the subject from an engineering viewpoint.
A heavy spear would logically have a greater penetrating power then a light one, but whether cast by hand or by spear thrower its range would be less than a lighter one.
In a heavily wooded environment, for example, a spear thrower would be distinct disadvantage, on an open plain, all other things being equal, the spear thrower wins hands down, you can cast from greater range, which is safer and you don't have to get so close to your target.
So, was the Folsom point used on open plains or woodlands?

[Charlie Hatchett]

So, was the Folsom point used on open plains or woodlands?

Mainly plains, Digit.

[Digit]

It that case Charlie logic says a light spear to gain distance. But equally, what was the target? A large animal is likely to be more dangerous than a small one and also easier to hit at a distance, trying to hit a hare at a distance would be near impossible, but also difficult to approach close to.
If there were large prey available I suspect that people would go for those and pepper them with shafts, they'd go down eventually.

[Charlie Hatchett]

It that case Charlie logic says a light spear to gain distance. But equally, what was the target? A large animal is likely to be more dangerous than a small one and also easier to hit at a distance, trying to hit a hare at a distance would be near impossible, but also difficult to approach close to.
If there were large prey available I suspect that people would go for those and pepper them with shafts, they'd go down eventually.

Their primary source of food was bison, so I think you're right, Digit, a lot of light weight spears, possibly downing multiple bison in one hunt.

[Minimalist]

It seems logical to me that a thrusting spear would have a larger point than a javelin.

For one thing, as was said, if you are getting that close to a dangerous animal you want to be leading with something that is going to cause maximum damage with your first stab because you may not get another.

Note the design of the Roman Pilum



compared to the Macedonian Sarissa.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...] the Macedonian Sarissa.

They are still trying to throw that!
Only now they might be calling it the 'Scottish Sarissa':

[Digit]

One of the problems for me with the Folsom point in the reconstructions that I've seen is the attempts at fitting it onto a shaft.
As it appears to have two cutting edges the idea of it being held in the hand seems rather unlikely, so denying the idea of a hand axe.
But with a point that narrows towards its base, once buried in flesh it would seem that no amount of binding would keep it in place. Perhaps that was deliberate. Think of the Ice Man, point buried in his flesh but no shaft, this is much more of a killing scenario than a point that can be withdrawn.

[Rokcet Scientist]

One of the problems for me with the Folsom point in the reconstructions that I've seen is the attempts at fitting it onto a shaft.
As it appears to have two cutting edges the idea of it being held in the hand seems rather unlikely, so denying the idea of a hand axe.
But with a point that narrows towards its base, once buried in flesh it would seem that no amount of binding would keep it in place. Perhaps that was deliberate. Think of the Ice Man, point buried in his flesh but no shaft, this is much more of a killing scenario than a point that can be withdrawn.

It could have been a strategy to have a tip that separates from the shaft once it hit the target. You would use a weapon like that on big game. Megafauna. Hit the prey a couple times at important points of the body – preferably arteries – then follow the trail until it's bled to death.
I can see Folsom points as atlatl tips. But also tipping throwing javelins, as well as long thrusting spears. Or even arrows. But did Pleistocene Man know bows and arrows?
Obviously a weapon like an atlatl, javelin, or thrusting spear could also be used in war or combat.

[Digit]

It seems RS that we are on common ground here, as for the bow and arrow, for me a 64000$ question. The earliest known bows don't go back that far, or they haven't been found as yet.
The interesting point there is that those that have been found show a fully developed weapon.
As I suggested earlier, a lot of stone tools would appear to have been used to produce other tools, and what more important tools than those for obtaining food.
Man almost certainly knew how to carry fire before he learnt how to produce it, and the crudest method of producing fire seems to be the bow.
Once you have the bow, even if for fire starting, the weapon and, I might add, the drill, would seem to follow automatically.
Chimps are known to use tools, but, as yet, not to produce them. The earliest use of stone tools would logically be, pick up rock, bash nut shell, extract nut.
Next step would seem to be, select more suitable rock next time. From there using sharp stones, then producing a sharp stone, would seem to follow.
From fire starter to weapon also seems to be the logical arrangement.
Is it correct? I don't know, but I think the logic is reasonable.

[Charlie Hatchett]

The following summarizes the history of the Great Plains:

http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix ... mod10.html

[Charlie Hatchett]

It seems logical to me that a thrusting spear would have a larger point than a javelin.

For one thing, as was said, if you are getting that close to a dangerous animal you want to be leading with something that is going to cause maximum damage with your first stab because you may not get another.

Agreed.

[Rokcet Scientist]

It seems RS that we are on common ground here, as for the bow and arrow, for me a 64000$ question. The earliest known bows don't go back that far, or they haven't been found as yet.
The interesting point there is that those that have been found show a fully developed weapon.
As I suggested earlier, a lot of stone tools would appear to have been used to produce other tools, and what more important tools than those for obtaining food.
Man almost certainly knew how to carry fire before he learnt how to produce it, and the crudest method of producing fire seems to be the bow.
Once you have the bow, even if for fire starting, the weapon and, I might add, the drill, would seem to follow automatically.
Chimps are known to use tools, but, as yet, not to produce them. The earliest use of stone tools would logically be, pick up rock, bash nut shell, extract nut.
Next step would seem to be, select more suitable rock next time. From there using sharp stones, then producing a sharp stone, would seem to follow.
From fire starter to weapon also seems to be the logical arrangement.
Is it correct? I don't know, but I think the logic is reasonable.

If you extend that logic:
since controlled firemaking seems to have been a Homo (Erectus?) tool for at least a million years, how much later can the concept of bows have been born?
The transition and development of bows from a firemaking tool to a mainstream (hunting) weapons system is quite another thing of course. I'm not sure the one led to the other.

But it seems to me the invention of the bow and arrows must have been the 'killer app' of its day. Once invented, it's application would spread far and wide and fast*, imo.

* 'fast' is relative, think dozens of millenia of course. They didn't have internet and TV then.

[Digit]

Fair ccomment RS, which leads me to enquire as to how did HE produce fire?
Any ideas anyone?