University of Virginia Library

Section D

ARROW-SHAFT TOOLS (WITH NOTES ON THEIR
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION)[141]

By Joseph H. Toulouse, Jr.

Introduction

Definitions.—Of the three forms of arrow-shaft tools only the
lithic forms will be treated herewith, leaving the bone, antler, and
wood straighteners, or "wrenches," for a later survey. The first tool,
the arrow-shaft-smoother (see Fig. 8) is defined as a piece of coarse-grained
abrasive stone (usually sandstone) which has had a groove

worked into one flat surface, this last often artificially fashioned. This
tool is primarily abrasive in function and is used in shaping the shaft,
removing irregularities which might lessen degree of balance, etc. The
second principal tool, the arrow-shaft-straightener (see Fig. 8), is
similarly formed, but of a fine-grained rock, in which the groove often
assumes a high polish. There is no ethnographic evidence of its use
as an abrasive tool.

The following classification is but an outline, and until more data
are available regarding these tools (especially as to their treatment
and elaboration), the classification will have to remain inadequate.
It may, for example, perhaps be questioned whether one can always
distinguish between arrow-shaft-smoothers and other abrading stones
used in grinding bone implements and beads. On the whole, it would
seem that the former distinction could usually be made, for the
grooves of awl-sharpening tools are often v-shaped in cross-section.
There is also room for doubt as to the validity of the respective divisions
as listed in the order given, but present data do not justify a more
finely differentiated classification:

• I. Arrow-shaft-smoother (abrasive)

  • a. Worked into rectangular form with usually one groove—
    often used in pairs.

  • b. Rough or rounded natural pebble with one, two, or more
    grooves.

• II. Arrow-shaft-straightener (non-abrasive)

  • a. Artificially shaped; oval, rectangular, square, round, etc.;
    having a ridge either parallel or perpendicular to grooves,
    sometimes both; decorated or not.

  • b. Same as above, but no ridges; decorated or not.

  • c. Water worn or other naturally shaped stone with one,
    two, or more grooves.

Chaco Forms

From Bc 51 (floor of kiva 2) came a single rectangular arrow-shaft-straightener
of Type IIa. Three other stone objects had
grooves which might have been used in smoothing arrow shafts, or
in grinding bone points or beads. One had a single groove; one had
two grooves; and one had 15 parallel grooves on a flat surface 10″ long.

Extraordinarily few arrow-shaft tools have been reported from
sites of Chaco type or affinities. Forms Ia and Ib occur, a single
specimen of the former,[142] six specimens of the latter[143] which may
tentatively be taken as typical.

Notes on the General Distribution of Arrow-Shaft-Tools

Arrow-Shaft-Smoothers.—In the western portion of the United
States the smoothers have a rather wide known distribution (see
Map 6), extending from the Frazer River of British Columbia on the
north to the Conchos River of Chihuahua on the south.

Map 6. Distribution of Arrow-Shaft Tools

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY MAP 6

• 1. Kelly, I.: 1932, p. 139 (Ib).

• 2. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, pl. 15d (IIb) (2 parallel grooves).

• Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (Same as above).

• 3. Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ia).

• Beaglehole, E.: 1935, p. 19 (Ia).

• 4. Gifford, E. W.: 1933, p. 274 (IIb).

• Forde, C. D.: 1931 (IIa).

• 5. Beals, R. L.: 1933, p. 340 (Ia).

• Dixon, R. B.: 1905, p. 134 (Ia).

• 6. Barrett, S. A.: 1910, p. 253 (IIb).

• 7. Gifford, E. W.: 1931, p. 29 (IIb).

• 8. Gifford, E. W.: 1932b, p. 224 (IIb).

• 9. Mason, J. A.: 1912, p. 140 (IIb, decorated with striations).

• 10. Kroeber, A. L.: 1908, p. 53 (IIa, ridge at right angles to grooves).

• Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (Same as above).

• 11. Sparkman, P. S.: 1908, p. 206 (IIb).

• 12. Drucker, P.: 1937, p. 237 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 13. DuBois, C.: 1935, p. 125 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 14. Lowie, R. H.: 1922, p. 230 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 15. Mekeel, Scudder: 1935, p. 93 (IIb ?).

• 16. Teit, James A.: 1930, p. 217-18 (Ia).

• 17. Ray, V. F.: 1933, p. 89 (II ?).

• 18. Spier, L.: 1928, p. 150 (II).

• 19. Spinden, H. J.: 1908, p. 187, pl. VII (Ia and IIb, this latter one having incised
  lines on either side).

• 20. Teit, J. A.: 1930, p. 40 (Ia).

• 21. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (IIa).

• 22. Dorsey, J. O.: 1896 (Ia, used in pairs).

• 23. Russell, F.: 1908, p. 111, fig. 31 (Prehistoric, IIb ?).

• 24. Steward, J. H.: 1933b, pl. 4f & g (IIb).

• 25. Kroeber, A. L.: 1925, pl. 49 (IIa, incised line decoration).

• 26. Campbell, E. W. C.: 1931, Pl. 46 (IIa, 8; IIb, 6).

• 27. Fewkes, J. W.: 1898a, p. 731, pl. 169 (IIa).

• Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 103 (Ib).

• Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, IIb).

• 28. Fewkes, J. W.: 1912, p. 126, pl. 61 (IIb).

• 29. Fewkes, J. W.: 1914, p. 18, fig. 5 (IIa).

• Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (IIb).

• 30. Hill, W. W.: Unpublished notes on the Navaho. (Ia, used in pairs).

• 31. Fulton, W. S.: 1934, p. 20, pl. 14a (IIc).

• 32. Gifford and Schenck: 1926, p. 67, pl. 17. (IIb).

• 33. Mera, H. P.: 1938b, pl. 9 (Specialized IIa).

• Hibben, F. C.: 1938, pl. 9, p. 136 (Same as above).

• 34. Hodge, F. W.: 1923 (IIb).

• 35. Hough, W.: 1903, p. 322, pl. 55 (IIa).

• Bartlett, Katherine: Personal communication (IIc).

• 36. Hough, W.: 1907, p. 34, fig. 4 (IIa).

• Fewkes, J. W.: 1904, p. 182 (2, IIa).

• 37. Hough, W.: 1914, p. 17 (IIb, 3).

• 38. Haury, E.: 1934, p. 120, pl. 72 (IIb, 5).

• 39. Alexander and Reiter: 1935, p. 29, pl. IVb (Ia).

• University of New Mexico Excavations at Giusewa 1935 (Ia, 2; IIb, 1).

• Museum of New Mexico Excavations at Giusewa 1937 (IIb, 6).

• Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (IIb, 2).

---

84]





• 40. Bell and Gilmore: 1936, p. 324 (Ia).

• 41. Bell and Cape: 1936, p. 381 (Ia, 3).

• 42. Bartlett: 1930, p. 3 (Ib).

  Bartlett: 1934, p. 33 (Ib, 2; IIb, 1).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, IIb, 8; IIc, 4; Ib).

  McGregor, J. C.: 1936 (Ib, 2).

• 43. Cooper, P.: 1936, p. 49 (Ia, 2; Ib, 1).

• 44. Dunlevy, M. L.: 1936, p. 196 (Ia, 12).

• 45. Dutton, B.: 1938, pl. VIII-A (Ib, 1).

  Pepper, G. H.: 1920, p. 82, fig. 17b (Ib).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (Ia, Chetro Ketl).

• 46. Guernsey, S. J.: 1931, pl. 28 (Ia).

• 47. Harrington, M. R.: 1920, p. 100 (I ?).

• 48. Jeancon, J. A.: 1923, p. 23, pl. 21 (Ib, 3; IIb, 3).

  Hibben, F. C.: 1937, p. 42 (Ia, 2).

• 49. Judd, N. M.: 1926, p. 146, pl. 50 (Ib, 5).

  Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ia).

  Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia. 3).

• 50. Morris, E. H.: 1919b, p. 24 (Ia ?).

• 51. Morss, N.: 1931, p. 55, pl. 31 (Ia, 2).

• 52. Renaud, E. B.: 1934, p. 46 (Ia, 25).

  Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. 25 II (Ia, 1).

• 53. Roberts, F. H. H.: 1932, pp. 139-42, pl. 53 (Ib. 4).

  Gila Pueblo Collection, Globe, Arizona (Ib, 1).

• 54. Smith, H. I.: 1899, p. 146, fig. 57 (Ia, 2).

• 55. Smith, H. I.: 1900, p. 419 (Ia).

• 56. Smith, H. I.: 1910b, p. 69 (Ia).

• 57. Steward, J. H.: 1937, p. 17 (Ib, 4).

  Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ib).

• 58. Steward, J. H.: 1933a, p. 18, fig. 6 (Ia).

  Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia, 6).

• 59. Steward, J. H.: 1936, p. 37, fig. 15 (Ia, 2).

• 60. Wedel, W. R.: 1936, p. 80, pl. 7b (Ia, 10 occur in pairs).

  Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. I (Ia, 1).

• 61. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, pl. 17 (Ia, 1).

• 62. Strong, W. D.: 1935b, Pl. 17 (Ia, 4).

• 63. Strong, Schenck and Steward: 1930, p. 91, pl. 20b (Ia, 2; IIa, 3).

• 64. Sayles, E. B.: 1936, p. 44, pl. 12 (IIb, 1; Ia, 3).

• 65. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (Ia, 2).

• 66. Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83 (Ib, 4: IIc, 26).

• 67. Wilson, T.: 1899, pp. 884-87 (IIb, 1).

• 68. Hewett, E. L.: 1938, fig. 30 (IIa, 4; IIb, 5).

  Laboratory of Anthropology Collections (IIa, 1; IIb, 2).

• 69. Kidder, A. V.: 1932, pp. 76-82 (Ia, 55; IIa & IIb, 85).

• 70-76. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pl. XXI.

• 77. Big Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas (IIc, 4; Ib, 2; Ia, 2).

• 78-79. Sayles, E. B.: 1935, p. 76, Charts, pl. XXI.

• 80. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 2; specialized).

• 81. Big Bend Museum Collection (IIb, 1; specialized).

• 82. Centennial Museum Collection, El Paso, Texas (IIa, 1; IIb, 1; IIc, 3)

  Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIb, 1).

• 83. Collection of writer (Ia, 1; IIa, 2).

  Bartlett: Personal communication (IIc, 1).

• 84. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (Ia, 2).

• 85. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

• 86. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIa, 1; IIc, 1).

• 87. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

---

[85





• 88. Laboratory of Anthropology Collection (IIc, 1).

• 89. Gila Pueblo Collection (Ia, 2; IIb, 1; IIc, 11).

• 90. Gila Pueblo Collection (Ia, 3; Ib, 4; IIa, 3; IIb, 15; IIc, 3).

• 91. Colorado Museum of Natural History Museum Collection (Ia, 1).

• 92. State Historical Society of Iowa (Ia).

• 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939 (Ib, 1; Ia, 2, a pair).

• 94. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939 (Ib, 1; Ia, 2).

• 95. Heizer, Robert F.: Personal communication (Ia).

This type of tool has at least two forms: a naturally shaped
stone, and an elaborate, finely shaped form. In Nebraska the occurrence
is restricted to the latter form. Often these tools are encountered
in finely matched pairs.[144] In this area tools are associated with
the following cultural levels: Signal Butte I, Nebraska Culture, the
Upper Republican Culture,[145] and the Historic Pawnee Culture.[146] There
appears to be a progression and differentiation of this form from
Signal Butte I to the Historic Pawnee.

This form may have been carried into New Mexico during Pueblo
III times. At any rate it is not reported from there from sites assigned
to earlier periods. It appears also in Utah (age indeterminate) and
there was used until Pueblo IV times. In early Pueblo III the known
smoothers were made crudely from a naturally shaped stone[147] (Type
Ib), but as the period closed, pairs of the more elaborate form appear.[148]
In Arizona there appears in Pueblo II the cruder form of this tool
(Type Ib); the paired tool seems never to have found its way into the
area.[149]

In Texas the smoother appears in the Amarillo, El Paso, and
Jumano Phases.[150] Elsewhere in Texas the information is scanty and
the terminology equivocal.

The earliest known find of this tool in Chihuahua is attributable
to the Ramos Phase,[151] an early Pueblo IV division.[152] It may be suggested
that smoothers were introduced from farther north.

Arrow-Shaft Straighteners.—The forms found within this group
vary from the natural pebble to the artificially shaped forms, which
may be specialized and elaborate. They have a more limited distribution

than has the smoother. The straighteners seem to be limited to
New Mexico, West Texas, Chihuahua,[153] Arizona, Utah, and the Pacific
coast from California as far north as northern Washington. Concentration
of these objects, as so far reported, appears within New
Mexico and Arizona. East of the Mississippi I have been able to find
only one rather doubtful specimen reported.[154]

Specialized forms are noted in Pueblo IV in New Mexico and
Arizona, but seem to reach their highest elaboration in the Largo
Phase.[155] Here occurs a highly crested form, one of which has been
recently noted by the writer in a collection from the Estancia Basin.
Another form was noted in collections from excavations of the Big
Bend Museum, Alpine, Texas, located in the La Junta area near
Presidio, Texas. This form is circular with a tapering-rounded projection
from one side, perpendicular to the groove.[156] Mr. Paul Reiter
informs me that 22 arrow-shaft-straighteners were obtained in the
Museum of New Mexico 1929 Alamogordo excavations and 42 in the
1930 excavations. Some were found in the Bravo Valley Aspect.

Types IIa and IIb are also encountered in California and apparently
in rather late historical times.[157] The typical form is an elongated
oval with but a short groove across the shortest diameter; the ridge is
at right angles to the groove and extends the full length of the specimen
on either side of the groove. For the most part the Campbells
attribute their finds to the Serrano with perhaps some Cahuilla
influence.[158]

Decoration.—Decoration is found only on the straightener and
is of the simple incised line form. The parallel line motif[159] and crosshatching[160]
are common, and one recorded specimen is decorated with
an incised bow and arrow.[161]

Materials.—(See Table 5).

Recent Use of Arrow-Shaft Tools.—The arrow-shaft-smoother
has been reported in use among at least the following tribes or groups:

TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF THE MATERIALS OF ARROW-SHAFT-STRAIGHTENERS[162]

                                       

Material	Utah	Texas	Oregon	New Mexico	Idaho	Chihuahua	California	Arizona
basalt	2	1	3	3		2	2	38
basalt vesicular		5		2				3
calcite				2
chlorite schist		2		52[163]
conglomerate, fine		1
granite rock				1			5	3
limestone				17				4
micaceous gneiss	1
micaceous schist				16[164]
quartzite	1	1		2		1	1	20
rhyolite		1						1
sandstone, fine		1		2				8
shale				1
slate								1
soapstone							1	5
steatite					1		15
talc, gray				25[165]
talc schist								5
volcanic tuff								1

Omaha;[166] Navaho;[167] Coeur d'Alene, Thompson, and Okanagon;[168]
Crow;[169] Wintu;[170] Tolowa;[171] Northern Maidu;[172] and Nisenan.[173] These
various groups used the tools in pairs. The Hopi[174] and the Surprise
Valley Paiute[175] used but the single stone.

There are reported two methods of use of the arrow-shaft-straightener.
One varies from the other in just one minor detail. The principal
use is that in which the stone is heated and the shaft drawn back
and forth within the groove.[176] In the second method hot ashes are
placed within the groove.[177]

Figure 9—Possible Interrelationship of Arrow-Shaft Tool Types

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY FIGURE 9

• 1. Signal Butte I (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 25, 2j.

• 2. Upper Republican (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 17, 1d.

• 3. Nebraska Culture (Type Ia), Strong: 1935b, Pl. 17, 1c-g-h.

• 4. Historic Pawnee (Type Ia), Wedel: 1936, Pl. 7, 2 (Used in pairs).

• 5. Early Pueblo III (Type Ib), Roberts: 1932, Pl. 53c, d, e, and f. (Also Pepper:
  1920, and Dutton: 1938).

• 6. Late Pueblo III and Pueblo IV (Type Ia), Kidder: 1932 and Hibben: 1937.

• 7. Pueblo IV and Pueblo V (Type IIa), Kidder: 1932; also Hewett, 1938.

• 8. Pueblo II (Type Ib), Bartlett: 1930; also personal communication, and
  McGregor: 1936.

• 9. Pueblo II and Pueblo III (Type Ia) (Hohokam site), Bartlett: personal communication.

• 10. Pueblo III and IV (Type Ia), Bartlett; personal communication.

• 11. Pueblo V (Type Ia), Fewkes: 1904, p. 103.

• 12. Early Pueblo III (Type IIc); Caywood and Spicer: 1935, p. 83.

• 13. Pueblo II (Type IIb), Bartlett: personal communication.

• 14. Pueblo IV (Type IIb), Kidder: 1932.

• 15. Pueblo V (Type IIb), University of New Mexico and Museum of New Mexico
  excavations at Giusewa.

• 16. Pueblo III and IV (Type IIa), Bartlett; personal communication.

• 17. Pueblo V (Type IIa), Fewkes, 1898a, p. 169.

• 27. Bartlett: Personal communication, Aug. 6, 1938.

• 29. Same as above.

• 35. Same as above.

• 42. Same as above.

• 45. Same as above.

• 83. Same as above.

• 93. Harrington, M. R.: Personal communication, Feb. 14, 1939.

• 94. Same as above.

• 95. Heizer, R. F.: Personal communication, Jan. 20, 1939.

Note.—No allowance on the chart has been made for comparable time periods
between Nebraska and the Southwest, as at the present time, there is no correlation
suggested between the respective areas.

Chart.—Fig. 9 presents in schematic form an admittedly speculative
reconstruction of possible interrelationships of various forms
of arrow-shaft tools. The evidence at present available hardly permits
of more than guesses in most cases, but it is sometimes useful in the
formulation of problems (and the mapping out of future research) to
systematize one's guesses. The chart is presented from this point of
view only.