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

[Frank Harrist]

Hey Frank! Good to see you around again! How ya doing?

Hey RS. Doing good. How are you?

[Minimalist]

S'up, Frankie?

[Digit]

Hi Frank, understood how the point was mounted, if the point was mounted as I've seen demonstrated.
The reason I say that is that, once again I look at things as an engineer,
That part which is supposedly secured within the body of the shaft narrows towards the the base. If binding was supposed to secure the point it would have made more sense if the point was wider towards the base.
Question, was the point bound? Taking your point about two part spears, which was a sensible idea, I wonder if the point was bound or simply glued.
As you said, unless the hit was very lucky the animal would run, if body heat were to soften any glue the point would 'burrow' in due to its shape, I think. If this was the case it would explain why the point was leaf shaped, as I suspect that muscle movement would tend to push the point deeper, if this is so it would help if the small shaft dropped away.
Any ideas on this?

[Frank Harrist]

The binding isn't wrapped around the point at all. The point is glued and the two parts of the shaft where it is split squeeze together to grip it as well. Perhaps the shape did induce some kind of burrowing effect. Or possibly it was just their sense of symetry which made them make the points so "pretty".

Yo Bobby! 'sup?

[Digit]

http://www.sdsmt.edu/wwwsarc/collectn/stone/clovis.html

Hi Frank. I didn't mean the point was covered, see pic above. What I meant was that due to the shape of the rear of the point the binding would seem to be of little advantage as it seems mainly to increase the size of the shaft, thereby reducing penetration.
If the foreshaft is considered as a throw away item, sufficient glue to stop the point coming loose when being carried and launched would be a better option.
Is there any direct proof that the points were bound?
English archers had various points, one of which was the Bodkin, the widest part of the point was always greater in width than the shaft, so once the point had penetrated, the shaft continued in with it.
Hence my question about binding.
Also some Clovis points seem to be more suitable in size as arrow heads than spears. The original universal tool?

[Frank Harrist]

Clovis points were much too large and heavy to use as arrow points. After several resharpenings they may have been suitable for dart points, but they were originally designed as thrusting spear points. I'm not sure about how they or folsums were attached to the shafts. I do suspect that glue was the primary means of fastening.

[Digit]

http://members.aol.com/artgumbus/clovis.html

In the above Frank they list the length of Clovis as 'from 24 mm,' which seems very small for a spear but ideal for an arrow.[/quote]

[Rokcet Scientist]

http://members.aol.com/artgumbus/clovis.html

In the above Frank they list the length of Clovis as 'from 24 mm,' which seems very small for a spear but ideal for an arrow.

Equally ideal for an atlatl's dart!
Do we know Clovis used the hunting bow and arrows?

[Frank Harrist]

"FROM" being the operative word here. I can imagine one well worn and reworked many times being that small, but the typical clovis point was rather large. 6 inches or even longer. The ones I have seen were about 6 inches. There were even larger ones, though I suspect these were largely ceremonial/burial pieces. Folsums were generally smaller, but still spear points. Folsums and Clovis have always been considered to be spear points. There are similar, smaller points such as Dalton's (they may be called something else in other regions) which had a similar base for mounting but were much smaller. I don't have time right now to find an illustration of a Dalton but they were generally about 5 to 7 centimeters long, (my own best guess) and almost that wide. They were still too large for arrows, but could have been used as atlatl dart points. I'm not debating with you, Dig, just trying to clear up a few minor misconceptions some may have. The link you gave seems a bit misleading. Perhaps the person who wrote the definition had never actually seen one. I have.

[Frank Harrist]

http://members.aol.com/artgumbus/clovis.html

In the above Frank they list the length of Clovis as 'from 24 mm,' which seems very small for a spear but ideal for an arrow.

Equally ideal for an atlatl's dart!
Do we know Clovis used the hunting bow and arrows?

Clovis preceded the bow and arrow by about 1750 years.

[Digit]

Clovis preceded the bow and arrow by about 1750 years.

Could I rephrase that to you are probably correct Frank, or we haven't found evidence to the contrary yet, as finding bows or arrows of that age is very very rare.
Here in Europe the only evidence for early arrows for many years was the points!

[War Arrow]

I fixed your title WA. I think everyone knew what you meant. This is a great discussion!

Thanks, Frank. It's been a week of trivial irritations, the most recent being that my first draft of the word 'thanks' in this sentence came out as "Thanbkas" due to either increasingly annoying cast on right hand or possession by ancient Egyptian deity of poor spelling on internet forums.
Aaaagh.
Anyway, time travelling back to a previous point once again, at least some Mexican arrowheads were attached with rubber (sap from Castillia elastica) and then bound with thread (probably made from Maguey fibres). That rubber sap was pretty useful and tough stuff, also used for fixing stone knives to wooden handles etc. That said I'm not sure how far north the plant grew and I don't think it's the sort of substance that would make its way up one of those far-reaching trade routes (like the ones that apparently made it right up into New Mexico) as it sets too quickly once tapped. Could be off mark about some of this but I thought I'd throw it into the pot anyway.

[Digit]

To be honest WA I'm surprised that anybody would bind points into place.
Take the arrow point with barbs, unless the tang is very long they cannot be bound, so there was no intention of binding them.
Binding would have been counter productive, the barbs are to prevent withdrawal of the point. If penetration was shallow, and the shaft securely fixed, then the point could be pulled out, if the shaft was to come away then removal of the point is much more difficult.
Take the 'Ice Man', he bled to death. There was no sign of any binding within the wound cavity and no shaft.
Trying to differentiate between an arrow point and a dart point, following up on a previous post, would I think be impossible without a shaft for confirmation.

[Rokcet Scientist]

http://members.aol.com/artgumbus/clovis.html

In the above Frank they list the length of Clovis as 'from 24 mm,' which seems very small for a spear but ideal for an arrow.

Equally ideal for an atlatl's dart!
Do we know Clovis used the hunting bow and arrows?

Clovis preceded the bow and arrow by about 1750 years.

1750? That's pretty specific, Frank. I wasn't aware that 1) the 'emergence' of Clovis (points) had been dated so precisely, or 2) that the occurrence of the bow in NA had so precisely been dated.
How?

[Cognito]

Revised Clovis Dates: Waters recently revised Clovis dates to 11,050 to 10,800 C14 yrs BP. That equates to 13,050BP to 12,800BP, or:

Clovis Beg: 11,050bce
Clovis End: 10,800bce

This is only a span of 250 years for Clovis technology to penetrate most or all of North America.

Sources:
(1) http://halrager.org/WordPress/2007/02/2 ... or-clovis/
(2) http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scale ... carbon.htm