1

Bluff-Dweller Atlatls

An Old Find Rediscovered and New Interpretations

Devin B. Pettigrew07/23/2010

During the recent analysis of collections taken from the Ozark bluffs in the early 20th century, the proximal half of an atlatl which mimics the Basketmaker type of the North American Southwest was rediscovered. This type of atlatl was known to press its boundaries before, spreading southward into Mexico and northward into the Great Basin. Until now, however, the farthest East an atlatl of this type had been discovered was along the Cimarron River on the extreme western end of Oklahoma’s panhandle (Baker and Kidder 1937). Similarly, studies show that a whole atlatl from Allred shelter, most commonly known as the Ozark Bluff-dweller atlatl, represents a type also prevalent in the Southwest and northern Mexico . Both types of atlatl were in use by Mesoamerican groups at the time of contact. These artifacts and their affiliations, along with the function of the atlatl and implications regarding Archaic atlatl hunting strategies will be discussed.

Ozark Bluff-dweller atlatls represent two forms. The first example was collected by Harrington during his field work along White River in northwest Arkansas in the 1920’s. It is composed simply of a peeled stick with a spur carved from its shaft, and a peg in the handle for the grip. This type belongs to a larger form showing wide distribution and very old age, possibly representing the first atlatls brought into the Americas. The second example was discovered by Dellinger’s excavation team in the 1930’s near Roaring River in southwestern Missouri. This was a proximal fragment with characteristics which link it to atlatls of the Southwest’s Basketmaker II period. This type again belongs to a larger form which entered the Americas at a later date, largely replacing the former in areas such as the Southwest. Both of these specific types were in use by the Aztecs and other Mesoamerican groups. Cultural affiliations may be linked especially between the Ozarks and the area surrounding southwestern Texas, due to similar finds in that area. Examining these types today continues to provide insights into cultural connections and Archaic hunting strategies.

The Montgomery Atlatl Fragment

The Montgomery shelters are located along Dry Hollow Creek in south central Barry County, Missouri. The location of the first shelter is marked in the notes of Samuel C. Dellinger’s excavation team as Township 22, Range 27, Section 28, and described as being situated along the creek, which cuts across the southwest corner of that section.

2

Four more shelters were also examined, which are located in sections 29 and 30, up from the first shelter. About one and a half miles downstream from the first shelter creek merges with Roaring River, which begins as a very large, cold spring half a mile upstream from the confluence. Roaring river remains cold enough even through the hot summer to support a modern trout hatchery. The excavation team first visited Dry Hollow in April, 1932. Many artifacts were initially purchased from the Wyrick collection. Subsequent excavations were more controlled, though nothing like contemporary standards. The atlatl fragment was discovered in the second shelter (M1, 32-31), in a typical Bluff-dweller cache that was approximately 14 inches deep with a grass lining and containing mostly fragments of basketry. The atlatl was 10 inches deep and identified in the notes as an unknown, ceremonial object. Many of these “caches” seem to have started out as storage cists for dry foods such as corn, and later became trash pits (Harrington 1960). Burials were discovered in many other cists under the Montgomery bluffs, though a burial doesn’t seem to have been associated with the atlatl. The Montgomery atlatl fragment (Fig. 1, Cat. # 32-31-22) is

Figure 1. An atlatl proximal fragment from Montgomery Shelter (Cat. # 32-31-22).

3

the proximal half of an atlatl made of a light colored hardwood such as hickory or oak. The surface is very well worked and polished. In cross-section it is somewhat elliptical, though the probable ventral surface is slightly flattened and rounded at the edges, while the dorsal surface is convex. The slight side-to-side curvature is likely due to warping. Broad finger notches are carved into the shaft for the placement of the index and middle fingers in a split-finger grip. Above and below the notches are opposing indentions and lugs, which served as points of attachment for finger loops. The finger notches are parallel and end at 45 degree angles at the lugs. An interesting feature lies in a sharp flare in width which begins and ends within the confines of the finger notches. This was obviously done to strengthen that area, which is quite narrow. This flare is located on the dorsal side. Just below the flare the lower handle is slightly thicker on the dorsal side than the main shaft, which remains a constant thickness beginning just above the flare. Two more interesting features of this atlatl fragment are a long, narrow slit carved completely through the shaft, and a hole drilled through the shaft just beyond the slit, which is where the break occurred. A very light groove on the upper face begins a short distance below the slit and travels the remaining length off the distal end. This groove is located in the center of the shaft, and both the slit and the drilled hole are located along it. This may have been the beginning of a larger groove leading to the spur, though it may also be a product of manufacture, representing the pith or heartwood center of the limb. The whole artifact shows little sign of decay, but was gnawed on by rodents as is typical of the Ozark bluff collections.

Figure 2. Distal fragments of three atlatl dart mainshafts (Cat. # C-76).

4

More artifacts under consideration are three distal fragments of atlatl dart mainshafts (Fig. 2, Cat. # C-76). These most likely came from Cob Cave, which is located at the head of Clark Creek along the Buffalo River in Arkansas. This site was also excavated, this time perhaps by Dellinger himself, in the same fashion as the Montgomery shelters. A number of artifacts seem to be missing from Dellinger’s notes on the site, including C-76. Unfortunately exact provenience has been lost. Of interest, however, is that these artifacts, like the atlatl fragment, mimic what has been found in the way of atlatl tackle in the Southwest. The fragments are all similar in dimensions, and made of wood with a spongy outer texture, no pith, and alternating leaf scars. The wood is most likely a type of willow. Sockets were drilled to accept a foreshaft, and the sockets are supported with wrappings of sinew. Dimensions are similar between the three mainshafts, especially their diameters. This would seem to indicate they were of a matched set.

Drawing Comparisons with Basketmaker Atlatls

The atlatl of the Southwest’s Basketmaker II period can be simply described as a relatively flat slat with a spur excavated from a trough and finger loops at the handle for a split-finger grip. Direct radiometric dating on two Basketmaker artifacts from New Mexico yielded dates between 1140 and 410 B.C. (Fields 2005). Typical of Basketmaker atlatls, which the Montgomery artifact also exhibits, are a convex dorsal surface and flat ventral surface; as well as notches for a split finger grip with indentions and lugs for the attachment of leather or sinew finger loops. Such points of attachment are visable on several Southwestern artifacts which are missing their loops (Kidder 1919; Frison 1965; Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Cosgrove 1947). Basketmaker atlatls were constructed of hardwood, typically Gambel Oak, and the majority show excellent craftsmanship. These are also characteristics of the Montgomery atlatl.

Table 1Dimensions of the Montgomery Atlatl Fragment

Overall length 32.7 cm (12 7/8 in)of handle 8.3 cm (3 ¼ in)of finger notches 2.2 cm (7/8 in)of main body beyond notches 22.2 cm (8 ¾ in)of slit 4.1 cm (1 5/8 in)from notches to slit 15.2 cm (6 in) Thickness of main body 1 cm (3/8 in)of flared finger notches 1.9 cm (3/4 in)of handle below finger notches 1.1 cm (7/16 in)at proximal end 0.6 cm (1/4 in)

5

Width at center main body 1.8 cm (11/16 in)at distal end 1.7 cm (11/16 in)at proximal end 1 cm (3/8 in)of both pairs of lugs 1.3 cm (1/2 in)of finger notches 1 cm (3/8 in)of slit 0.3 cm (1/8 in)

Diameter of drilled hole 0.4 cm (5/32 in)

Measurements of the finger notches begin at the base of the lugs. Measurements taken respective to finger notches begin on the side of the notches closest to the portion measured.

The Montgomery artifact is felt to most closely resemble an atlatl from Ceremonial Cave in southwest Texas (Cosgrove 1947:Fig. 68a), which has a similar shape in the handle and other similarities in dimensions, including the formation of the indentations and lugs and a mainshaft width that does not taper outward. In thickness the main body of our artifact is only slightly thicker than several atlatls from the Southwest (Hunter 1992), however not quite as thick as the specimen from Ceremonial Cave. The handle of the Montgomery atlatl is the perfect length for the author, who uses a replication of an atlatl from White Dog Cave in northeastern Arizona which also exhibits a handle of this exact length (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:80-87, Plate 33 b, c). Although in comparison with atlatls of the Great Basin the Basketmaker form can be said to follow a rather strict format (Hester et al. 1974b), although plenty of individual and cultural innovations can also be seen in overall shape, loop design, and the attachment of weights, decorations and fetishes. The Montgomery artifact shows its own unique characteristics. The purpose of the carved slit and drilled hole are unknown, though a hole was also drilled through an atlatl from Lukachukai, Arizona, possibly as the point of attachment for a decoration or fetish (Mason 1928:309-310; Pepper 1905). The slit on the Montgomery atlatl may have similarly been such a point of attachment. Unique characteristics in wood working are not uncommon in the Basketmaker artifacts. Incised lines and grooves decorate the Ceremonial Cave atlatl, which also has an unusual wrapping of buckskin around its center. The Lukachukai atlatl was also decorated with incised lines. An atlatl from Cave 1 in Arizona had a unique weight with a hole drilled through it to accommodate the lashing (Kidder 1919), attached at approximately the same location as the slit on our specimen. Pitch was commonly used for the attachment of weights to the atlatl shaft in the Southwest and Great Basin (Tuhoy 1942:92; Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Frison 1965), however none was observed on the Montgomery artifact. Nearly every Basketmaker artifact shows some form of individual creativity and adornment, though outside influence should remain in consideration. Dr. Whittaker of Grinnell recently pointed me to an article on Cuban archaeology, in which certain objects were identified as atlatl fragments and thought to be made for attachment in a slot (Figueredo 2010).

6

A proximal fragment from Ceremonial Cave is the only specimen described by Cosgrove which has intact loops, which are made of a strip of sinew split and slid over the handle. Leather was far more common, often in multiple plies though sometimes rolled around a stiff core possibly of sinew (Lindsay et al. 1969; Mason 1928:308). Where variations occur regionally or across time in the construction of loops, at times certain methods also persisted. Concerning the flare in width at the finger notches of the Montgomery artifact, such flaring is also visible on an artifact from Key Marco (Cushing 1896) and on the atlatls of Lovelock and Potter Creek Caves (Hester 1974b), though not on any Basketmaker specimens. However this could easily be a product of more singular innovation. The Montgomery finger notches also run parallel to one another, where the majority of Basketmaker atlatls have elliptical finger notches to match the curvature of the fingers. A few exceptions occur, particularly in the atlatls of Broken Roof Cave (Guernsey, 1931), Spring Creek Cave (Frison 1965) and “N.C.” Cave (Tuhoy 1942). The proximal fragment from Ceremonial Cave also depicts a light groove running the full length of the dorsal surface which follows the wood grain, as does an atlatl from Plush Cave in southeastern Oregon (Allely 1992, Hester 1974b). In both cases the groove represents the pith center of the limb.

Table 2Dimensions of Three Atlatl Dart Mainshaft Fragments

A B CLength 26 cm (10 7/32 in) 23.5 cm (9 1/4 in) 19 cm (7 1/2 in)Diameter 1.6 cm (5/8 in) 1.6 cm (5/8 in) 1.6 cm (5/8 in)Sinew width 1.2 cm (1/2 in) 1.1 cm (7/16 in) 1.1 cm (7/16 in)Socket width 1 cm (3/8 in) 1 cm (3/8 in) 1.1 cm (7/16 in)Socket depth 2.9 cm (1 1/8 in) 2.5 cm (1 in) 3.3 cm ( 1 5/16 in)

Deterioration at the edge of the sockets may marginally skew socket depth measurements. Shaft diameters were taken just below the sinew wrappings.

There is potential confusion in the terminology used to describe this style. Taylor (1966), for instance, describes Basketmaker type atlatl fragments at Frightful Cave in northeastern Mexico as of the “Mexican” type, due to that region being inhabited in late prehistoric times by Mesoamerican groups. The Basketmaker type in its more southern form (i.e. along the southern edge of the Southwest and beyond), exhibits some clear differences from northern forms, such as longer grooves with parallel sides (Fields 2005). The variety of Mesoamerican atlatls with grooves and shell finger loops is likely a development of this southern form. However the term “Mexican” was first introduced by Krieger as a broad term for the southern North American form of atlatl with “mixed” spur, or grooved with a spur which is partially inset but also rises above the shaft (Cressman et al. 1940:28-34). Thus the Basketmaker type would primarily fall into the larger “Mexican” category, with the exception of a number which have female spurs, or

7

spurs which are completely inset. As will be discussed, however, a second basic form was in use by Mesoamerican groups, with a male spur which rests above the shaft and is not preceded by a groove, a round shaft, and sometimes a cross peg at the handle. This form is likely much older than the former. In some cases in the literature a “Mexican” atlatl may simply be an atlatl of Mesoamerican origin. For the purposes of this article however, it is important to maintain distinctions between these two basic atlatl forms. Krieger’s initial designation will therefore be recognized, though with more consideration given to overall form and grip type. Many atlatls composed of flat slats with split-finger grips would otherwise not fall into the Mexican category due to variations in spur formation.

Basic Function

Many atlatlists believe that the flexibility of the dart adds to its momentum at the end of the throw as it flexes straight and springs away from the atlatl spur. The flexibility of the atlatl is also considered to be an innovation along these lines, with atlatl weights increasing the amount of atlatl flex and therefore the amount of spring action (Perkins 1993, 2010). Recent studies with high speed photography have proven this not to be the case (Whittaker and Maginnis, 2006). In all cases the dart is fully flexed when it leaves the spur, and therefore no energy can be transferred back to the spur via its oscillation. Instead, the launching of the dart is an action entirely reliant on the movements of the human body, with the atlatl working in conjunction with the arm and the rest of the body as a 3rd degree lever (Whittaker 2005:12). The flexibility of the dart is necessary in order to maintain forward trajectory while allowing for the rise and fall of the atlatl spur during the throwing motion. While variations in form at times reflect utility, specifically in terms of prey (as will be discussed below), a number of confusing theories on exact function and technological advancement may be replaced with studies concerning individual and cultural innovations of these systems. This, it is felt, is especially the case concerning weight attachment and atlatl flexibility (Garnett and Pettigrew 2010).

Basketmaker Atlatl Function and Implications for Hunting

To reach a concise understanding of the specific functionality of a Basketmaker system, it is important to replicate the atlatl with the specific darts it was meant to throw. A problem generally arises however, in obtaining information on the darts. While normally only fragments have been found and these not well described, a total of 16 complete dart shafts are known from the Southwest (Cosgrove 1947; Guernsey and Kidder 1921, Heizer 1951). Three of these were found in White Dog Cave along with two whole atlatls, providing a rare instance in which the ancient hunter’s complete atlatl tackle can be observed (Fig. 3) (Pettigrew 2009). In general the known Basketmaker darts, which average a little over 5 feet, are much shorter than the darts most enthusiasts prefer today. Many modern atlatlists believe short darts to be hopelessly inaccurate. The White Dog Cave system has proven otherwise. It functions differently than anything I had used before but remains continually surprising and a pleasure to throw. Using my

8

replications, I can throw with enough accuracy at 15 yards to strike a paper cup and the dart flies straight, with low oscillation and flat trajectory. To elaborate on the importance of replicating both the atlatl and darts together, the White Dog Cave darts have been noted to function less well with a weightless Basketmaker design like that of Sand Dune Cave. Similarly, a difference of 1/8 inches in the diameter of the distal end of the dart reduced balance of the system and therefore control and accuracy. Balance is an important aspect of this particular system, where three small weights are fitted to the back of the atlatl shaft. This aids in holding, and throwing with a loose wrist. It is not felt that the addition of weights necessarily improves functionality of the atlatl and dart in general, in terms of either power through spring action or even accuracy. The Sand Dune Cave system for instance would likely function better with different darts. Rather it is the complex tuning of weight, dimensions, materials, etc., of the specific Basketmaker atlatl systems which is important, and has led to misunderstandings and faulty conclusions (Garnett and Pettigrew 2010).

Back to the size of these darts; many proponents of modern atlatl hunting insist on the use of 6 to 8 ounce darts for hunting medium to large game (Berg 1996, 2007). The White Dog Cave darts weigh approximately 1.6 ounces. However atlatls and darts are commonly depicted in southwestern rockart in the hands of hunters in pursuit of mountain sheep, apparently their favorite game (Whittaker et al. 2008). An even more striking example came out of Spring Creek Cave in northern Wyoming, where Frison discovered a very small, delicate atlatl and fragments of others of the same type (1965). Only fragments of the darts survived, but they were well enough described to support reconstruction. The system proved effective enough to likely take antelope and deer (Frison 2004:209-214). Bison however, would seem to be out of the question. Such would seem to be the case with the Basketmaker systems in general, the darts of which show regional variation in materials and specific dimensions, but followed the same basic format (Cosgrove:56).

Figure 3. The author holding a replica of the White Dog Cave atlatl and dart system.

9

Several experiments on the penetrating capabilities of atlatl darts have been carried out, though as yet none of which I am aware have been made with close replicas of Basketmaker systems. Frison’s experiments on African elephants showed that using very heavy darts of 12 ½ ounces or more, a hunter could inflict a lethal wound on a mammoth from 20 meters away (1989). Comparing data from his experiment with archaeological evidence he dismantles the long held vision of desperate hunters surrounding a raging mammoth in a bog, no doubt the animal’s home turf, and replaces it with effective weapons and tactics (1989, 2004). An unpublished experiment prior to that failed to produce lethal wounds on an elephant carcass with 8 ounce darts which had previously been used to kill cattle (Banks 1981). Information circulating among modern atlatlists provides other examples. Mike Richardson, an atlatl enthusiast from Alaska, had the opportunity to experiment on a fresh, full-grown, female moose carcass. His 8 ounce dart penetrated the vitals to about 1 foot. Justin Garnett discovered a white tail deer which had been struck by a vehicle and lost control of its hind legs. He laid it to rest with a Basketmaker atlatl and a light cane dart which penetrated the full width of the chest cavity and collapsed both lungs. My own experiments on a cow carcass failed mostly due to poor hafting techniques, though a single 8 ounce dart penetrated the vitals to a depth of 6 inches (Pettigrew 2008). The main purpose of that experiment was to determine whether the light darts from White Dog Cave could kill bison, which doesn’t seem at all likely, that animal having an even thicker, tougher hide than cattle. An interesting characteristic of these darts are their foreshafts, the exact purpose of which is a common topic of discussion. The old theory of the mainshaft disengaging to the point of bouncing back a number of feet on impact so that the hunter could retrieve the dart, refit the tip and make another throw (Webb 1957) does not seem to have been based on experimental evidence, as the mainshaft never bounces back no matter the design of the socket (Frison 1989). However the sockets on Basketmaker darts are shallow, generally about 1 inch deep, the fit is anything but permanent, and any traces of glue are missing from the artifacts (Frison 1965:89; Cosgrove 1947:50-58). In fact loss of the foreshaft as it falls out in flight is a constant threat and care must be taken to ensure a good fit. Frison adds that the cone may be abraded in a spiral, and fitted in with a slight twist, and that wetting the joint with saliva also helps (2004:212). It is questionable whether these darts were meant to penetrate much past the socket joint anyway, and if the mainshaft were to disengage as the animal began running this could lead to the preservation of the mainshaft, perhaps lending a bit of credence to the above theory. In any case, the addition of removable foreshafts, which average around 6 inches in length, provides a number of useful characteristics, most importantly by expanding the atlatl tool kit while simultaneously reducing its mass (Ahler and Geib 2000). Broken points can be replaced and a variety of tips can be carried, such as bone and wood blunts for small game, so that the hunter has to carry only 3 or 4 mainshafts but is thus prepared for a variety of situations (LaRue 2010). Travel is also made much easier with a small number of light, short mainshafts with their dangerous tips removed. Considering the popularity of running in the Southwest for sport, ceremony, travel and hunting (McDougal 2009; Nabokov 1981), the latter may be of considerable importance.

10

Four foreshafts from the Ozark bluffs were depicted by Harrington. One from the Bushwhack shelter has a long cone-shaped taper meant for a hollow cane socket joint (1960: Plate 25 c). It mimics perfectly what enthusiasts have produced independently for cane darts (Mills 2009). Harrington also mentions that fragments of river cane darts were discovered though he depicts only one potential proximal fragment. Considering the modern popularity of cane, which is tough, easy to straighten and grows very consistently, its use in archaic times seems obvious. In the Southwest whatever material was regionally available was used (Cosgrove, LaRue). So far 5 different dart materials have been identified in the Southwest and Great Basin; willow, phragmites reed, box-elder, elderberry, and sotol (Cosgrove 1947:50, 54; Kidder and Guernsey 1922; Davis and Smith 1981; Frison 1989:768; LaRue 2010). I have found producing darts of Basketmaker dimensions to be more difficult with river cane due to its rigidity. Unless shafts with higher taper rate can be found, the dart must be longer or skinnier. To lend more credence to the arrival of the Basketmaker system in the Ozarks, the day after viewing the Montgomery artifact I was called back in to view the wood dart fragments discussed above. The use of wood for dart shafts in a region were large cane breaks filled the river valleys is intriguing. Three of the fragments, the fourth being too deteriorated to measure, were of the same diameter, and in the same range as dart fragments from the Southwest and Great Basin. To explain the common length at which they were broken, in the range of 12 inches, it could prove useful to again consider the excavations at White Dog Cave where the darts were broken before being placed into the cist, “on account of their length”, writes Guernsey, though the atlatls were also bent in half and this was supposedly done ceremoniously (Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Webb 1957).

Origins of the Cross-peg Grip

In 1922 a whole atlatl was discovered by Mr. Weimar, the owner of Allred Bluff along the White River near Larue, Arkansas. It was collected by Harrington on his return the following season (Fig. 5 f) (1924, 1960). This atlatl has become well known among modern atlatlists as simple and crude, with a grip that many deem uncomfortable. It consists of a peeled stick with a carved spur, a hole drilled through the handle and a peg shoved through for the grip. Simple it may be, though time has ravaged the wood, wearing down the outer surface and causing a deal of cracking. This has also made identification of the wood difficult, though ash seems a good guess. Harrington notes that the only other location where atlatls of this type were found was in the Aztec Empire, mentioning artifacts found near the Great Temple of Mexico (1924:5). These are described as miniature atlatls (Saville 1925), though the resemblance to the Bluff-dweller artifact is uncanny (Fig. 5 b, c).

Table 3Dimensions of the Allred AtlatlOverall length 50.8 cm (20 in)from handle to peg 8.5 cm (3 3/8 in)

11

from distal end to spur 3.5 cm (1 3/8 in)

Thickness of distal end 2 cm (3/4 in)thickness of handle below peg 1.8 cm (5/8 in)

Height of spur 0.5 cm (3/16 in)

Dimensions are approximations, taken from high quality scaled photographs of the artifact, compliments of the Museum of the American Indian.

Nuttall was the first to realize that the strange implement in the hands of gods and warriors in Mexican codices and stone carvings were spear-throwers. In “The Atlatl or Spear-Thrower of the Ancient Mexicans”, she illustrates a number of them, many of which are fitted with finger pegs (Fig. 4). “These carved representations, and the colored pictures in the Codices are so minutely and carefully executed and so clearly reveal both

structure and method of use that they fully compensate for lack of detail concerning these points in the Spanish Chronicles,” writes Nuttall. In terms of method of use concerning the atlatls with finger-pegs, we see them being held with a hammer grip in most cases, with the shaft resting between the index and thumb as in holding a hammer. We are told that in one myth, “the Aztecs, during their migration, in the year 5 Cane, reached a locality which they subsequently named Atlacuihuayan in commemoration of the fact that whilst there, they invented the atlatl and yaomitl = war-arrow, or spear.” In two different manuscripts this town is represented by atlatls with cross-peg grips (Fig. 4 c). Nuttall was unaware at the time of an artifact now located at the Museo Nacional de Antropologia, illustrated by Saville (Fig. 5 a) (1925, Plate 17, 18), and photographed by Hassig (1988, Fig. 6). An atlatl decorated in turquoise and representing a serpent, it has been suggested to be among the artifacts first presented to Cortez by delegates from Tenochtitlan (Hassig 1988). The Spanish saw more of these atlatls which they commonly described as “a scepter like a bishop’s crosier”. Throughout the codices these crosiers can be seen in the hands of gods and heroes. Huitzilopochtli was the god of war, responsible for inciting the Aztecs to battle and outfitting them with the atlatl and dart. He was said to be born with an atlatl and darts in hand, and

Figure 4. Atlatls in the Mexican codices. Copied from Nuttall (1895).

12

Nuttall recognizes the image of his atlatl in a codex recounting his birth (Fig. 4 c, d); “This is curiously carved in the semblance of a serpent and is provided with lateral finger-pegs.” In the same codex the atlatl itself is called Xiuatlatl, meaning blue, or turquoise atlatl, and is regularly referred to with the symbolic name of Xiucoatl, for “Turquoise Serpent”. The only two examples of Xiuatlatls remaining in existence, the one mentioned above adorned in turquoise and another merely painted blue (Eggebrecht 1986), do not have finger pegs. This type is also common in the codices (Fig. 4 f, g), and is likely related to those with pegs, being otherwise of the same basic form. It is interesting that Nuttall compiled these descriptions and recognized the clear use of finger pegs in the codices before either the Bluff-dweller atlatl or the miniature specimens from the Temple of Mexico had been discovered, the only intact specimens which exhibit this grip. On a side note it is also interesting to compare the strong relationship of the atlatl and serpent in Aztec culture with Pepper’s experiences with the snake and atlatl relationship in the Southwest (1905:115-116). It doesn’t seem too much to wonder if the Bluff-dwellers also considered their much simpler atlatls to resemble the snake. Harrington mentioned that artifacts from the Ozark bluffs closely resembled those of the Southwest. According to Baerreis, however, the only Southwestern culture to resemble the Bluff-dwellers were the Mogollon, and then only partly at best, where the best comparisons can be made with other cultures of the Southeast (1951:78-94). Concerning the atlatl type in question, Cosgrove photographed an artifact from the Upper Gila area which he called a

Figure 5. Atlatls of the same type from Arkansas (d; Harrington 1960) (f; Compliments of the Peabody Museum, Harvard), Northeastern Mexico (e; Taylor 1966), and the Aztec Empire (a, b, c; Saville 1925).

13

“crochet hook”, or possible fragment of a crude atlatl (1947:146). It is almost certainly the distal half of an atlatl of the Bluff-dweller type. Rock art may help substantiate this. At Hunter’s Shelter, a tiny room in the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico, hunters are depicted butchering a large cervid, their atlatls and darts lying on the ground around them (Fig. 6 a) (Mark and Billo 2009). Though the images are small and simply drawn, the resemblance to the Bluff-dweller atlatl is clear. Known as Red-Linear, this style is generally considered Late Archaic in origin, with two radiocarbon AMS dates at 1280 ± 150 B.P. Not far away along the lower Pecos River, Grant shows us a very similar image of an atlatl in the act of launching a dart (Fig. 6 b) (1966).

The intact Bluff-dweller atlatl seems to have a spur carved straight from its shaft, as does the artifact from the Upper Gila. An interesting detail in another distal fragment illustrated by Harrington is that the top of the spur and the material behind it appear slightly higher than the rest of the shaft, indicating a spur carved at an offshoot branch (Fig. 5 d). At Frightful Cave Taylor shows us the distal half of an atlatl which consists simply of a peeled stick with a spur carved at an offshoot branch (Fig. 5 e). Three fragments of this type were discovered in the cave in the three different layers of occupation. Atlatl fragments in the upper layer are of the Basketmaker type, and attributed to Mesoamerican groups as mentioned above. The former Taylor identifies as older, early Coahuila, and indicates the likelihood that they only appeared in later layers due to disturbance at the site by its later inhabitants. The earliest radiocarbon dates from Frightful Cave fall between 7600 and 7300 B.C. The author indicates throughout that what appears to have been a single analogous culture endured from the earliest dates probably until the arrival of the Spanish. Interestingly enough the oldest atlatl found in North America, that of site NV-Wa-197, only about 1000 years older than the above dates, also had a handle at the end of a round, skinny stick, though carved rings as opposed to a peg formed the grip (Allely 1992; Hester 1974b, 1974a). In this regard a case has been made for atlatls of a similar form existing across the Americas and even into Europe

(Massey 1961). This form consists of a round stick for the shaft, a male hook being attached or carved directly from the shaft, the occasional attachment of weights, and variations on the grip including loops and other attachments. Such atlatls were found on California’s Baja Peninsula where the author states older traits persisted due to geographic isolation, having the most in common with South American and Caribbean forms (Massey 1961); at eastern mound-builder sites such as Indian Knoll (Massey:87; Webb 1957; Whittaker 2008), and at the sites mentioned in this article. It is not only the wide distribution but also the age of this form which is of interest. Krieger’s Mexican type makes up the second and more recent, basic atlatl form found in the Americas. As yet it is unclear when this type may have been introduced.

Figure 6. Cross-peg atlatls in rockart from New Mexico (a; Mark and Billo 2009), and Texas (b; Grant 1979).

14

One final case for the use of the cross-peg grip in the Valley of Mexico was found by Saville in a Mexican magazine from 1925, written about the contemporary use of the atlatl for waterfowl hunting on Mexican lakes. Beyer, the editor, of course covered its use at Lake Patzcuaro, but also noticed it in the hands of boys from a town in the district of Texcoco, near the capital. Further investigation found it at nearby villages and finally that it had once widely been used by nearly all the villages before the drying up of the lake. The atlatl then consisted simply of a cane stock with a groove and hook, but Saville goes on to say, “Beyer heard from a resident of Jaltocan, that before the lake had dried up in the vicinity of that settlement, a somewhat similar instrument was in use, with a cross-piece, probably a peg, like that seen in the miniature atlatls to be described.” With all of this it’s likely that those serpent atlatls with and without the peg are variants of the same style, having originated from a far older type like those seen at the Bluff-dweller sites and at Frightful Cave in northeastern Mexico, and that this type was far more widespread and its use well founded than has been given credit. But what is the usefulness of a peg grip? Many atlatlists have been experimenting with the type and lately have asked exactly how it is used, indicating they found it uncomfortable. The peg can provide stability in a handle otherwise made from a skinny stick. In many of the codices we see it held with the index finger hooked over one peg and the thumb pressed against the other. In one instance no fingers are hooked over the pegs (Fig. 4 e), and in others a potential peg is located at the end of the handle (Fig. 4 a). In practice at times multiple fingers may be held comfortably over the pegs. Garnett, in his stone tool reproduction of the Bluff-dweller atlatl, also notes that it can be effectively used with a split-finger grip (2010). In all cases the peg provides a guide for the vertical alignment of the hook. As indicated by the artifacts from Mexico and the Ozarks, and through experimentation, the atlatl shaft should be light in the hand, at which point the most leverage can be achieved. Through practice one becomes more comfortable with this grip, though true comfort doesn’t seem to have been its purpose.

Conclusions

Though the Montgomery fragment shows some unique characteristics, in the flare in width at the finger notches and especially the slit carved through the shaft, its overall shape mimics the Basketmaker type of the Southwest. In the Great Basin this type followed the typical pattern of that region and merged with several others, adding to the apparent hodgepodge. In Mexico it morphed into something of its own, finding its way into the hands of Aztec warriors and eventually collectors in Europe, who passed down atlatls related to the Basketmaker type with fine shell finger loops and intricate carvings inlaid with gold. Considering this already wide distribution it doesn’t seem at all surprising that such an artifact was discovered under an Ozark bluff, but with that discovery we can be freer to really wonder at the true limits of its distribution, and at its origins. Fortunately, due to the relative consistencies of the type and excellent preservation in the Southwest, following close replicative experiments a better understanding of the specifics of ancient hunting practices is possible. Of interest in this

15

regard, and considering Spring Creek Cave as the best example, is the spread of a particular atlatl system of relatively small size across a number of environments where available prey varied considerably. Similarly, the type typically referred to as “Bluff-dweller” had a much larger range and deeper cultural foundation than previously suspected. In fact it potentially covered over 7000 years of use, based on radiocarbon dating from Frightful Cave for the Coahuila complex, and reached conservatively from the Ozarks to the eastern Southwest and down into the heart of Mexico, where it also found its way into the hands of heroes and gods and was heavily employed in the war against Spanish conquest, only to be finally lost with the drying up of Lake Texcoco at the turn of the 20th century. Taylor indicates that the Coahuila complex was a long lasting tradition, undergoing various changes through time and being pressured by Mesoamericans who brought with them the Basketmaker atlatl type, though Coahuila never really disappeared until the arrival of the Spanish. This is supported by the Aztec’s use of the cross-peg atlatl. The Red-Linear style of Hunter’s Shelter is also thought to date from the Late Archaic, crossing over into Basketmaker times. As yet, one can only wonder at the consequences of this intermingling in the Ozarks, where the Basketmaker type is now known to have existed. That the Coahuila and Bluff-dweller artifacts are related is further supported by a discovery made by Baerreis who, in speaking on basketry, reveals that a basket was found in southern Missouri which had a grass foundation; “The foundation type is interesting since a survey of its distribution indicates that a grass-bundle foundation is prevalent in western Texas and in Coahuila, Mexico.” Perhaps further analysis of these old collections will prove fruitful in this regard.

Acknowledgments: The writer thanks John Whittaker of the Anthropology Department at Grinnell for his knowledge and support in the research of the above topics, and Pascal Chauvaux for sharing his extensive library of atlatl literature. Special thanks also go out to the folks at the Arkansas Archaeological Survey in Fayetteville for their interest and extreme willingness to help, to my father and Uncle Shorty the timber harvester for their help in identifying local flora, and to the folks at Paleoplanet.net for their eagerness to experiment and share their experiences.

References Cited:

Ahler, Stanley A. and Phil R. Geib 2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:799-820.

Allely, Steve 1992 Great Basin Atlatls: Notes from the N.W. Corner. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 1(4):48-56.

Baerreis, David A.

16

1951 The Preceramic Horizons of Northeastern Oklahoma. University of Michigan Press 6:77-94.

Baker, W. E. and A. V. Kidder 1937 A Spear Thrower from Oklahoma. American Antiquity 3(1):51-52.

Banks, Larry 1981 Unpublished article on lithic tool and atlatl experiments on an elephant carcass.

Berg, Robert S. 1996 Atlatl Hog Hunt on the Alapaha River. The Atlatl 17(2): 1-2.

Atlatl Hunt at Fallow Hallow. The Atlatl 17(1)

2007 Comparison of Various Atlatl Materials. Thunderbird Atlatl Webpage. (http://thunderbirdatlatl.com/) accessed 070/7/10.

Cosgrove, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 24(2). Cambridge.

Cressman, L. S., Howel Williams and Alex D. Krieger 1940 Early Man in Oregon; Archaeological Studies in the Northern Great Basin. Eugene: University of Oregon.

Chauvaux, Pascal 2003 European Prehistoric Atlatls Inventory Trial. The Cast Spring 2003:12.

Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1895 The Arrow. The American Anthropologist 8(4):307-349.

1896 Exploration of Ancient Key Dweller’s Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 35(153):329-448.

Davis, Alan C. and Gerald A. Smith 1981 Newberry Cave. Redlands: San Bernardino County Museum Association.

Eggebrecht, Arne 1986 Glanz und Untergang des alten Mexico; Die Azteken und ihre Vorlaufer. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.

17

Fields, Ronald C.D. 2005 New Mexico Atlatl Research Continues. New Mexico Archeological Council Webpage. (http://www.nmacweb.org/AtlatlFinal3.pdf) accessed 07/07/2010.

Frison, George C. 1965 Spring Creek Cave, Wyoming. American Antiquity 31(1): 81-94.

1989 Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. American Antiquity 54(4): 766-784.

2004 Survival by Hunting. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Garnett, Justin 2010 An Experiment in the Replication of an Intact Arkansas Bluff-Dweller Atlatl. The Atlatl 23(2):9-10.

Garnett, Justin and Devin B. Pettigrew 2010 Basketmaker Transitions and an Experiment Involving Atlatl Weights and Grips. For The Atlatl, in prep.

Grant, Cambell 1979 The Spear-thrower from 15,000 Years Ago to the Present. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(1):1-19.

Guernsey, S. James 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona; Report on the Field Work of 1920-1923. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1). Cambridge: Harvard University.

Guernsey, S. James and Alfred V. Kidder 1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona; Report on the Excavations, 1916-17. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2). Cambridge: Harvard University.

Harrington, Mark R. 1924 The Ozark Bluff Dwellers. American Anthropologist n.s. 26(1):1-21.

1960 The Ozark Bluff Dwellers. Indian Notes and Monographs 12. New York: Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation.

Hassig, Ross 1988 Aztec Warfare; Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

18

Heizer, Robert F. 1951 Preliminary Report on the Leonard Rockshelter Site, Pershing County, Nevada. American Antiquity 17(2):89-98.

Hester, Thomas R. 1974a Archaeological Materials from Site NV-Wa-197, Western Nevada: Atlatl and Animal Skin Pouches. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 21:1-43. Berkley: University of California.

Hester, T.R., M.P. Mildner and L. Spencer 1974b Great Basin Atlatl Studies. Romana: Ballena Press Publications in Archeology, Ethnology and History No. 2.

Hunter, Wryley 1992 Reconstructing a Generic Basketmaker Atlatl. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 1(4):57-61.

Keddie, Grant 2007 Quiltanton Lake Atlatl (EcRg-Y:1). A Technical Description. Electronic Document, accessed 7/10. URL http://www.bcarchives.bc.ca/Content_Files/Files/QuiltantonAtlatlDraftWeb.pdf

Kidder, Alfred V. and Samuel J Guernsey 1919 Archeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. US Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 65.

1922 Notes on the Artifacts. In Nussbaum, Jesse L. A Basketmaker Cave in Kane County, Utah, pp. 107-113. Indian Notes and Monographs. New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

LaRue, Chuck 2010 Looking Closer at Basketmaker Atlatls and Darts. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 39.

Mark, Robert and Evelyn Billo 2009 Pictographs at Hunter’s Shelter: Possible Extension of the Red Linear Style Into the Guadalupe Mountains of Southern New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist, 54(211): 201-210.

Massey, William C. 1961 The Survival of the Dart-Thrower on the Peninsula of Baja California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(1):81-93.

19

Mason, J. A. 1928 Some Unusual Spearthrowers of Ancient America. By The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.

McDougal, Christopher 2009 Born to Run; A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Mills, Tom 2009 Making a Rivercane Atlatl Dart. The Atlatl 22(2):1-7.

Nabokov, Peter 1981 Indian Running; Native American History and Tradition. Santa Fe: Ancient City Press.

Nuttall, Zelia 1891 The Atlatl or Spear-thrower of the Ancient Mexicans. Archeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum 1(3). Harvard University, Cambridge.

Pepper, George H. 1902 The Throwing-stick of a Prehistoric People of the Southwest. Proceedings of the International Congress of Americanists, 13th Session, New York. pp. 115-117.

Pettigrew, Devin B. 2009 Throwing Rocks, Not Darts with Atlatls. The Atlatl.

2008 White Dog Cave Darts. The Atlatl 21(3).

2008 Light Versus Heavy; Hunting Strategies of Basketmaker and Other Atlatl Wielding Indians. Unpublished Honors Thesis.

Pettigrew, Devin B. and John C. Whittaker 2010 North American Atlatl Artifact List.

Perkins, W. R. 1993 Atlatl Weights: Function and Classification. The Atlatl 15(2).

2010 Mechanics and Physics of Atlatl and Dart Systems. BPS Engineering Webpage. (http://www.atlatl.com/) accessed 07/07/2010.

20

Saville, Marshal H. 1925 The Wood-Carver’s Art in Ancient Mexico. New York: Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation.

Stirling, Mathew W. 1960 The Use of the Atlatl on Lake Patzcuaro, Michoacan. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 173:265-268. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Taylor, Walter W. 1966 Archaic Cultures Adjacent to the Northeastern Frontiers of Mesoamerica. In Handbook of Middle American Indians 4:59-94. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Tuhoy, Donald R. 1942 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):80-106.

Webb. William S. 1957 The Development of the Spearthrower. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Whittaker, John C. 2010 Annotated Atlatl Bibliography. Grinnell College Webpage. (http://web.grinnell.edu/anthropology/Faculty/johnw.html) accessed 07/07/2010.

2009 The Aztecs and the Atlatl. Mexicolore Webpage. (http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/) accessed 07/07/2010.

2008 Atlatl Artifacts at Indian Knoll. The Atlatl 21(2).

2005 Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology. Experimental Archaeology. Edited by Jeff Ferguson, in prep.

Whittaker, John C. and A. Maginniss 2006 Atlatl Flex: Irrelevant. The Atlatl 19(2): 1-3.

Whittaker, John C., Byl Bryce and Chuck LaRue 2008 Southwestern Rockart; Atlatl Hunting with the Basketmakers. The Atlatl 21(4):4-6.

Whittaker, John C., P. R. Geib, B. Bryce, and C. LaRue 2009 Sand Dune Cave Atlatl. World Atlatl Association Webpage. (http://www.worldatlatl.org/) accessed 07/07/2010.