NO. 4 A FOLSOM COMPLEX ROBERTS I9 



this in the present collection. In one instance both the tip and the bntt 

 were found (pi. 7, /; 8, 1), and another specimen exhibiting- the feature 

 has already been described in print.'" 



This proof was not sufficient to convince a number of the investi- 

 gators ; now, however, there is clear-cut evidence. The Lindenmeier 

 site contributed i^ortions of flakes which came from the longitudinal 

 channels. The Coffins fovuid a number of such flakes in their work, 

 and several were obtained during the digging by the writer. Major 

 Coffin expressed the belief that they were from the channels, and the 

 additional specimens show this to be the case. In every instance the 

 flakes are smooth on one side — the side that formed the groove in the 

 blade — and flaked on the other ( pi. 4). The latter surface was part of 

 the face of a completely shaped point. Furthermore, fragments of 

 blades broken in the process of manufacture and consequently dis- 

 carded substantiate the conclusion. What may seem to be an excep- 

 tion to this procedure (although actually it is not) is occasionally 

 noted. Some specimens suggest that use w^as made of a random flake 

 which already had a groove on one side. With such material, all that 

 was recpiired was the shaping and fluting of the other face. But the 

 same method was followed for the single side as in the making of a 

 complete point. Examples of this nature are not common, however, 



The technique of removing the long flake is not definitely known, 

 but the scrap material from the midden gives some good clues. Both 

 the fragments of the points and the pieces of channel flakes indicate 

 that a hump was left in the center of the concavity when the base was 

 chipped (fig. 3, a). This formed the " seat " for the implement used 

 to eject the flake. That percussion, not mere pressure, was resorted to 

 is evidenced by the definite bulbs of percussion on the flakes and by 

 the reverse impressions in the bases of the points which had not been 

 secondarily chipped. It would be extremely difficult to strike a nubbin 

 as small as the " seat " with a hammerstone ; hence it seems logical to 

 suppose that the blow must have been an indirect one. A tool of bone 

 or antler probably served as a punch to^ transmit the impact required 

 to flip out the flake. Indirect percussion was employed by certain 

 recent Indian stone chippers in making some of their implements,^ 

 and it may well have been part of the ancient technique. When the 

 groove had been obtained on one side, the nubbin was retouched, if 

 necessary, and the process repeated on the other side. The rechipping 

 of the " seat " was no doubt partially responsible for the depth of the 



^° Renaud, 1934 b, p. 4. 



" Holmes, 1919, pp. 295-296. 



