University of Virginia Library


Page [90]

Section E


By Charles Bohannon

Material.—All of the 24 chipped implements recovered were of the
cryptocrystalline variety of quartz known as chalcedony. It was possible
to determine the following varieties: agate, carnelian, jasper,
moss agate, obsidian, prase (?), sardonyx.

Description.—One piece is definitely
identifiable as a knife of the Basket Maker
type (Fig. 10) as defined by Guernsey and
Kidder[178] and subsequently confirmed by
Guernsey[179] and Roberts.[180] Fairly well made
of moss agate, it is 3.0″ long by 1.35″ wide
and notched at an acute angle to the long
axis of the blade. A second, a crudely
worked flake 2.3″ by 1.35″, may have served
as a knife or scraper.

Of three specimens, tentatively identifiable
as spearpoints, only one is complete.
This, 2.4″ by 1.2″, is rather poorly chipped
of jasper, with short, shallow sidenotches at
right angles to the long axis of the blade. It
has a square base of the same width as the
blade above the notches. This specimen
might be considered as a knife rather than
a spearpoint. One similar to it was reported
by Pepper[181] from Pueblo Bonito and referred
to by him as a knife, and one apparently
similar was so classed by Hibben.[182]
Other writers[183] have regarded this specimen
as a spearpoint. Of the other two incomplete
spearpoints, one, with the entire base missing,
is a lanceolate blade, 1.55″ by 0.9″, of
medium to finely chipped white chalcedony.

Figure 10—Basket Maker
(Actual Size)

The other, well made, bluish and translucent, is 1.6″ by 0.8″ wide with
probably 0.5″ of the point missing. The shoulders are rounded with


Page [91
notches slanting out to a base only slightly narrower than the blade.
It is similar to "javelin" points illustrated by Jeancon,[184] from the
Chama Valley, and by Roberts,[185] from Shabik'eshchee.

The predominant type of projectile point is triangular in shape,
ranging in length from 0.8″ to 1.3″, and from 0.4″ to 0.55″ in width.
They are well made of thin flakes. These points have narrow, straightsided
notches which run at right angles to the long axis of the blade
and extend inwardly approximately one-half the distance from edge to

Figure 11—Pueblo
Type Projectile

(Actual Size)

center (Fig. 11). This group is represented here
by ten specimens. There is relatively little variation
in this type, although some points have slightly
concave edges or slightly rounded, rather than
square, bases. One example in this collection has a
supernumerary notch. Such notches have been
recorded by Pepper[186] and Kidder.[187]

Points of this classification were recorded from
Bc 50.[188] Numbers of them were found at Pueblo
Bonito by Pepper[189] and as surface material at
Shabik'eshchee.[190] Similar points have been found in
Pueblo sites throughout the Southwest. They occur
"almost exclusively during the later phases of
Pueblo occupation at Aztec,"[191] are classified as
type 3-A by Kidder in Artifacts of Pecos,[192] and are referred to as one
of the commonest types at the Swarts ruin.[193] Since these points seem
to occur, either alone or with other types, at nearly every Pueblo site
yet excavated, they will be considered here as the "typical" Pueblo
arrow point.

The second type, represented by three nearly complete specimens
and two fragmentary ones, is likewise triangular, 1.25″ long or more,
medium well made. Deep notches set at an angle of approximately
forty-five degrees to the long axis of the blade arise from the base,
leaving sharp pointed barbs and a fairly straight, narrow stem
(Fig. 12).

This type is generally considered as belonging to late Basket
Maker III or early Pueblo I. They are reported as a predominant early


Page 92]
type from Kiatuthlanna[194] and Shabik'eshchee.[195]
Similar points were reported from Bc 50.[196] They
also occur in the Chama Valley.[197]

A third form, probably a variant of the last,
is represented by a single incomplete specimen in
this collection. With approximately 0.15″ of the
tip missing, it is 0.9″ long by 0.65″ wide, the greatest
width being from barb tip to barb tip. The
notches are at right angles to the long axis of the
blade, leaving sharp barbs and a flaring, rounded
"turkey-tail" base, only slightly narrower than
the barb width. Similar points have been reported

Figure 12—Basket
Maker Projectile

(Actual Size)

from Aztec,[198] from the Chama Valley,[199] and by Kidder and Guernsey.[200]

The sole erratic piece is reworked from a small, wide-based carnelian
(pink-red) point with square shoulders. In this the anterior end
has been made into a drill, 0.4″ long, 0.04″ wide at the tip and 0.15″
wide at the base (Fig. 13).


Figure 13—Drill

(Actual Size)

Stratigraphically, little can be deduced from
this collection; both "Basket Maker" and "Pueblo"
types are found within and without the rooms.
"Basket Maker" type implements found within the
rooms ranged in depth from 2″ to 67″, while no depth
greater than 8″ is recorded for them in the outside
fill. "Pueblo" type implements found within the
rooms and kivas range in depth from the zero to the
-3′ level, to a maximum depth of 111″. One was
associated with a disturbed burial, 3′ to 4′ deep in
room 10. Three of the Pueblo type projectile points are from unknown

In conclusion it may be said that the chipped implements from
Bc 51 typologically fall readily into two groups. Stratigraphically, no
distinction can be made on the basis of the present collection. It may
be worthy of note that the "Basket Maker" type represented in the projectile
points is in general that of the late period (Basket Maker III
triangular points, sidenotched at an angle of 45°, with long, sharp
barbs and narrow stem), while the earlier, triangular, notchless atlatl
points reported by Kidder and Guernsey[201] are absent from this collection,


Page [93
although recorded from Bc 50.[202] The Pueblo type (triangular
points, deep rectangular side notches at right angles, with the base
completing the triangle) possibly may be merely a reduced and stylized
descendant of the tanged atlatl points figured and described by Guernsey
and Kidder.[203]


Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, pp. 93-95.


Guernsey, 1931, p. 73.


Roberts, 1930, pp. 152-153.


Pepper, 1920, pp. 236-237, Fig. 134.


In Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92.


Guernsey, 1931, p. 73; Roberts, 1930, p. 152.


Jeancon, 1923, p. 19, Pl. 15B.


Roberts, 1929, p. 139, Pl. 28g.


Pepper, 1920, p. 188, Fig. 40d, p. 110.


Kidder, 1932, p. 22, Fig. 6g, h, i.


Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92.


Pepper, 1920, pp. 188, 110.


Roberts, 1929, p. 139.


Morris, 1919b, p. 34, Fig. 20, type B.


Kidder, 1932, pp. 20-22.


Cosgrove, 1932, pp. 47-48, Pls. 49, 50.


Roberts, 1931, p. 159, Pl. 39d, e, f.


Roberts, 1929, p. 139, Pl. 28r.


Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92.


Jeancon, 1923, Pl. 16.


Morris, 1919b, p. 34, Fig. 20, type C.


Jeancon, 1923, Pl. 16.


Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 126, Fig. 48e.


Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 182, Fig. 90f, g, h.


Brand, et al., 1937, p. 92.


Guernsey and Kidder, 1921, p. 87, Pl. 35c.