Folsom Workshop 1999 -- Summary and Findings

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS OF WORKSHOP 99

At the first Folsom Point Replication Workshop in 1997, Drs. Clark and Collins brought together collectors, knappers and archaeologists to share their knowledge to better understand how the Folsom Point was made and the Folsom people lived. During this workshop, the knappers viewed the actual archaeological failures that occurred during the process of making the point; they became aware of the 11 stages that defined the process; and they left the first workshop replicating an archaeological process and not a point.

The 1999 Workshop grew naturally out of the first. It allowed knappers to share what they had learned since the first workshop. It was a time to see new collections brought by people who did not attend the first workshop. And finally, new and exciting Folsom discoveries made during the last two years were shared.

Most of the participants at the second workshop had also attended the first. Very soon into the first day it became apparent that the magic atmosphere of the first workshop was still present. Individuals and groups continued to share and debate ideas without regard to background.
During the morning paper presentations, which were the most structured periods of the workshop, the atmosphere was informal and jovial. Since the group was small, there was no microphone and most of the papers were spoken instead of read. More than once, the moderator motivated speakers whose time had expired by noting they were the only thing that stood between the group and lunch.

The afternoon knapping sessions were a delight and the weather was perfect. Most of the knappers who had attended the first workshop were present. In addition, Phil Wilke showed his skills this time, and Toby Morrow and Jeb Taylor were welcome additions. The non-knappers, envious of the knapper's skill, walked among the knappers like one would move from booth to booth at a flea market. A University of Texas reporter and photographer visited one afternoon and wrote an article about the group. Even a physicist from the University, who was involved in research in fracture mechanics, visited a knapping session.

Abundant collections were presented at the evening sessions. New collections were there, along with some material seen at the first conference. Knappers benefited most from these sessions because they could see the real successes and failures of the Folsom people. Without these evening sessions, few of them could be aware of the important, but subtle details of Folsom technology. A great delight to all was the opportunity to see and hold the Fenn Clovis cache, that was brought so graciously by Forest Fenn.

Friday morning was group discussion time. See Agenda for topics. As with the first workshop, the entire group arranged their chairs in a semicircle and talked freely without apprehension of being criticized. Ideas were often challenged, but individuals were not. Sometimes the moderators had trouble keeping the group on the subject, but the discussion was never trivial.
On Friday afternoon the knapping session was held in Mike Collins' driveway at his house. While the knappers knapped, Glenn Goode cooked BBQ ribs and chicken. Around 6:00 we had as fine a feast as I can remember. A thanks goes to the chef and to the Collins' for their hospitality.

Saturday, the last day of the workshop, we took a field trip to a local site that contained evidence of occupations from Paleoindian to present. Running water and fabulous Edwards Plateau flint probably attracted people to this site. The weather was perfect and the entire group enjoyed seeing the site. More images of this event are available in the image section.

Significant Observations

On Sunday morning a group of the workshop participants¹ were waiting at the Austin airport for our flights home. While waiting, the group developed this list of observations about the workshop.

about replicating the Folsom point

"The principal finding of the Workshop was that in 1999, some 70+ years after the discovery of the original Folsom Site, we still do not know how the Folsom people made their points." These are the exact words, less the date, that was written in the findings for the first workshop in 1997. However, it appears that more knappers are now much higher on the learning curve than at the end of the first workshop. For example, the knappers now only prepare face A when it is to be fluted and spend little effort on Face B until Face A has been successfully fluted.

For channel flake removal, all the knappers except two had switched to some form of indirect percussion, a simple holding device, and the distal end of the preform resting on an anvil. This convergence on indirect percussion occurred independently of each other and was a surprise to many of us non-knappers.

At the beginning of the workshop, the anvils varied in hardness from stone to loosely supported wood. During the first afternoon, it was noted that Jeb Taylor's soft anvil made from the fork of a small branch and poked into the ground was producing channel flake scars with very subtle ripples. Comparing these to the stronger ripples produce by the harder anvils caused at least one knapper to switch his anvil from stone to wood with amazing results.

At the 1997 workshop there was an underlying opinion by many of the participants that there was only one method used by the Folsom people to flute the Folsom point. During the 1999 workshop this view began to give way to an opinion that there were many ways used by the Folsom citizens. Probably, the real secret to making the Folsom point was practice, practice, and more practice.

A greater appreciation for the difficulty of the final edge retouch was developed during this conference. This retouch, which often exceeds 8 scars per centimeter and creates an edge that is perfectly straight, is very difficult for the modern knapper to replicate. Several knappers attempted to replicate this with varying results.

about replication experiments

The group considered using a standard Folsom preform. Some wanted a preform cast in porcelain or glass so they could focus their efforts on fluting and not making the preforms. Others felt that making the preform was as necessary as fluting and didn't want to use a standardized one. Phil Geib agreed to check on the feasibility of obtaining a set of casts.
The group could not reach an agreement on selecting one lithic material as a standard from which other materials might be referenced. Some argued that this would facilitate comparing one material to another, e.g. tougher than or less elastic than the standard. Others saw no value added in naming a standard. Again this subject was tabled.
The group discussed a rating or ranking system to apply to replicated points to measure how closely they represented the ones in the archaeological record. But again, only discussion occurred and the subject was changed.

about new concepts

Stan Ahler and Phil Geib presented a paper that suggested hafting was the reason for the Folsom flute. Independently, Lee Bement developed the same concept and presented a similar paper later in the day. Both papers suggested that the Folsom point, when first hafted, was almost entirely embedded in the haft with only the tip and edges exposed. All of this has been suggested in the past. The new concept is that when the tip was broken, the haft could be loosened, the point slid forward, the haft re-tightened and the point resharpened. The modern analogy is the Exacto knife. Bement further suggested that in lieu of loosening the haft, it could just be whittled away and the point resharpened, like sharpening a wooden pencil.

Phil LeTourneau and I suggested in our obsidian paper that the Folsom fluting technique was so well tuned that any changes in material type, without other adjustments by the knapper, resulted in more failures. My (Tony Baker) work with finite element analysis supports the suggestion by showing that slight changes in hammer (impactor) hardness, drastically changes the fluting process. An analogy for this concept is a professional golfer. Change his clubs, balls or shoes and he does not score as well. This could also explain why Folsom people imported exotic material. They preferred material that did not require re-tuning their production methods.

about old concepts

The old debates about whether the Folsom flute and the use of exotic materials were functional or nonfunctional were revisited.
The Midland point debate was also revisited. This discussion revolved around whether the Midland point was made by Folsom people and if so, why?

In Conclusion

Toward the end of this second workshop I began to hear people questioning the workshop's value and searching for justification for a third one. Questions that seem to beg for a cost/benefit answer. I suspect this is natural since the stated objective at the beginning was to discover the Rosetta Stone for Folsom fluting. This has not yet been accomplished. What we have learned is that the Folsom point was probably fluted several different ways and the key to improving one's success ratio is to practice. Just as one does not become a par golfer by playing only on Saturdays during the summer, one does not become proficient at Folsom fluting without daily practice.

On the other hand I believe there have been some unanticipated benefits realized that far outweigh the benefit of discovering how a Folsom point was fluted. For example; the participants have taught each other a core of knowledge about the Folsom point, the people, and Paleoindians that will be spread to their students and colleagues for many years to come. This core of knowledge could never have been captured in print, and if so, a reader would not have been able to understand it.

Another benefit is the structure of the workshop. Papers in the morning, knapping in the afternoon, studying real collections in the evening, and just living together produced this core of knowledge. It also produced a relationship between the participants that is unique. This group of 35+ people knows each other, enjoys each other, and respects each other as a result. I am truly proud to have been a part of this experiment and hope it continues into the future.

¹ The individuals in the Sunday morning group at the airport were Tony Baker, Richard Boisvert, Bruce Bradley, Phil LeTourneau, and Julie Morrow

Click on any of the following to learn more about the event.

Introduction
Agenda
Participants
Summary and Findings of Workshop 99--slow loading
Images of Knapping, Field Trip and Others--even slower loading
References--Same as 1997

Return to Paleoindian and Other... Homepage

Most of the participants at the second workshop had also attended the first. Very soon into the first day it became apparent that the magic atmosphere of the first workshop was still present. Individuals and groups continued to share and debate ideas without regard to background. During the morning paper presentations, which were the most structured periods of the workshop, the atmosphere was informal and jovial. Since the group was small, there was no microphone and most of the papers were spoken instead of read. More than once, the moderator motivated speakers whose time had expired by noting they were the only thing that stood between the group and lunch.
The afternoon knapping sessions were a delight and the weather was perfect. Most of the knappers who had attended the first workshop were present. In addition, Phil Wilke showed his skills this time, and Toby Morrow and Jeb Taylor were welcome additions. The non-knappers, envious of the knapper's skill, walked among the knappers like one would move from booth to booth at a flea market. A University of Texas reporter and photographer visited one afternoon and wrote an article about the group. Even a physicist from the University, who was involved in research in fracture mechanics, visited a knapping session.
Abundant collections were presented at the evening sessions. New collections were there, along with some material seen at the first conference. Knappers benefited most from these sessions because they could see the real successes and failures of the Folsom people. Without these evening sessions, few of them could be aware of the important, but subtle details of Folsom technology. A great delight to all was the opportunity to see and hold the Fenn Clovis cache, that was brought so graciously by Forest Fenn.
Friday morning was group discussion time. See Agenda for topics. As with the first workshop, the entire group arranged their chairs in a semicircle and talked freely without apprehension of being criticized. Ideas were often challenged, but individuals were not. Sometimes the moderators had trouble keeping the group on the subject, but the discussion was never trivial. On Friday afternoon the knapping session was held in Mike Collins' driveway at his house. While the knappers knapped, Glenn Goode cooked BBQ ribs and chicken. Around 6:00 we had as fine a feast as I can remember. A thanks goes to the chef and to the Collins' for their hospitality.
Saturday, the last day of the workshop, we took a field trip to a local site that contained evidence of occupations from Paleoindian to present. Running water and fabulous Edwards Plateau flint probably attracted people to this site. The weather was perfect and the entire group enjoyed seeing the site. More images of this event are available in the image section.