It is widely assumed that some drills are reworked points or knives (Ellis et al. Reference Ellis, Wortner and Fox1991:9; Lennox and Fitzgerald Reference Lennox, Fitzgerald, Ellis and Ferris1990:423; Morrow Reference Morrow2016:98; Stothers and Abel Reference Stothers and Abel1993:43; Winters Reference Winters1969:51–52). This is a common assumption for sites where the bases of both points and drills are similar in shape and where good quality toolstone is scarce (Poulton Reference Poulton1985:2). Implicit in this view is that the point would remain hafted while being reworked into a drill (Goodyear Reference Goodyear1974:33). Albert Goodyear (Reference Goodyear1974:30–32) illustrated a likely sequence of repeated resharpening of Dalton points into what he termed a “Final” stage of drill-like forms. Recognition of the possibility that sharpening the edge of a stone tool can result in changes to its shape and sometimes its use can be traced in part to George Frison (Reference Frison1968). Arthur Jelinek (Reference Jelinek and Cleland1976:22) later referred to this type of reduction as the Frison Effect.
This report tests whether the Frison Effect applies to the relationship between Iroquoian triangular points and drills. Points and drills having similar shaped bases from the same site were measured. Typically, reworking a point into a drill would result in a shorter drill than point, especially if a point tip broke. Drills from reworked points would be expected to have less mass than the points. If points were reworked while remaining hafted, drill bases would be expected to be unaffected and have the same width and shape as the original point. The maximum width of both triangular points and drills occurs at their base. Given that points would be expected to be longer and to have the same basal width as drills, on average, points would be expected to have a greater length:width ratio than drills. Thickness of drills, such as basal width, should be unaffected by making them from points.
Drills and Points from Eaton
The drills and points in this study come from the multicomponent Eaton site in West Seneca, New York (see Figure 1). The major component is an Iroquoian village dating to the middle of the sixteenth century. Eaton was the focus of 17 summer archaeological field schools between 1975 and 2000. Students excavated 257 excavation units, each measuring 2 m2. Portions of three Iroquoian longhouses are represented by post molds, as is a palisade, across a northern portion of the site. Unlike many Iroquoian sites that were bulldozed during cultural resource management investigations in order to plot post mold distribution, the excavated plowzone was sifted, which resulted in the recovery of a rich lithic assemblage. This included a total of 335,433 pieces of lithic debris and 3,085 utilized flakes (publications on lithics from Eaton include Engelbrecht Reference Engelbrecht2014, Reference Engelbrecht2015; Engelbrecht et al. Reference William, Bradbury and Kwoka2020, Reference Engelbrecht, Bradbury and Salisbury2021; Salisbury and Engelbrecht Reference Salisbury and Engelbrecht2018; Poplawski et al. Reference Poplawski, Kwoka and Engelbrecht2012; Roets et al. Reference Roets, Engelbrecht and Holland2014).
Figure 1. Map of the Eaton site. (Map by Roderick Salisbury.) (Color online)
A total of 82 whole drills of various forms and 121 drill fragments were identified from excavations at Eaton. Three refits of drill fragments reduced the total number of specimens to 200. Triangular-shaped drills are the most common drill form, with 42 whole triangular drills and 19 triangular drill fragments (see Figures 2 and 3). Other drill forms from Eaton are as follows: key-shaped, N = 19 whole, 5 fragments; rod-shaped, N = 9 whole, 11 fragments; microdrills, N = 9 whole; and T-shaped, N = 1 whole, 2 fragments. Madison arrow points are the most common point form on the site, with 516 whole points and 1,714 fragments. Both triangular points and triangular drills have similar shaped bases.
Figure 2. Triangular drills: (top) 1481, 1414, 1428, 1401; (middle) 1537, 1408, 1357, 1512, 1396; (bottom) 1379, 1389, 1361, 1422, 1458.
Figure 3. Triangular drills: (top) 1397, 1363, 1518, 1546; (middle) 1461, 1558, 1462, 1510, 1457; (bottom) 1485, 1321, 1358, 1382, 1525.
Whereas bits of nontriangular drills from Eaton are typically diamond shaped in cross section, the bits of triangular drills tend toward oval in cross section. Some drills narrow considerably above the base, suggesting that these specimens were hafted with the ligature wrapping around the edges of the drill in a manner similar to that of side-notched points. The triangular points, on the other hand, were likely hafted by wrapping the ligature only around the shaft (Engelbrecht Reference Engelbrecht2014:355). Functionally, there is an advantage for projectile points to detach from their shaft in the target, but no advantage for a drill to easily detach from the shaft.
The triangular points from Eaton have been discussed in three publications: Engelbrecht (Reference Engelbrecht2014, Reference Engelbrecht2015) and Salisbury and Engelbrecht (Reference Salisbury and Engelbrecht2018). Based on similarities in basal shape, it is assumed that the triangular drills and triangular points are contemporaneous and associated with the Iroquoian village component. For images of triangular points from Eaton, see Engelbrecht (Reference Engelbrecht2014:258).
The average maximum length, maximum width, the length:width ratio, maximum thickness, and mass of triangular points and triangular-shaped drills were compared (see Table 1). Although there is overlap in metric values between triangular points and drills, t tests indicate a significant difference in the means of width, length:width ratios, and thickness. Figure 4 illustrates the range of thickness values for points and drills. On average, triangular drills also tend to be longer and weigh more than points, though these differences are not statistically significant.
Figure 4. Histogram comparing thickness of points and drills. (Color online)
Table 1. Eaton Triangular Points and Drills.
Given that morphology is not always an indicator of function, it is possible that some specimens classified as points were used as drills and vice versa. Use wear studies by Smallwood and colleagues (Reference Smallwood, Pevny, Jennings and Morrow2020) indicate that two Final Stage Dalton points having a drill-like form were used as perforators. Miller and Redmond (Reference Miller and Redmond2016) indicate that Late Archaic drill forms at a site in northern Ohio were used to perforate dry hide. It is therefore possible that both triangular drill forms and points could have served as perforators of deer skin, an important resource for Iroquoians (Engelbrecht et al. Reference William, Bradbury and Kwoka2020).
Studies of points and drills at other Iroquoian sites document metric differences between points and drills that also cast doubt on the manufacture of drills from points. In a study of Huron chipped stone tools at the Keffer site in Ontario, Lerner (Reference Lerner2000:67) noted that drill thickness tended to be relatively greater than point thickness. Wright (Reference Wright1977:80, 86), while stating that the 17 drills from the Neutral Walker site are reworked points, also notes that the average length of drills was 33 mm, whereas that of points was 28.8 mm.
Discussion and Conclusion
It seems unlikely that points were refashioned into drills while hafted. Point foreshafts are generally too short, and arrow or dart shafts are too long, to function as ideal drill shafts. A foreshaft is advantageous to a mobile hunter in reloading a projectile point without the necessity of carrying numerous shafts (Frison Reference Frison1978:333). If it is of a stronger material than the main shaft, it can be of lesser diameter, facilitating penetration (Howard Reference Howard1995:294–295). These would not be advantages for a drill hafted to a foreshaft in a sedentary situation. Whereas longer foreshafts could be rolled between the palms for drilling, shorter foreshafts could not. A listing of the length of 45 foreshafts from the western United States ranges from 56.9 mm to 446 mm, with an average of 141.2 mm (Zeanah and Elston Reference Zeanah and Elston2001:115, Figure 4). Although drills were not likely used when hafted to foreshafts, other stone tools may have been. A drill form hafted to a foreshaft could have been used as a perforator at the Dalton Brand site (Goodyear Reference Goodyear1974:33; Smallwood et al. Reference Smallwood, Pevny, Jennings and Morrow2020).
If a point were hafted to a simple arrow or dart shaft, the length would prove cumbersome for drilling or for use as a handle for a perforator. A study of ethnographic and archaeological arrow shafts from across the country in the American Museum of Natural History (New York) indicates that they were on average over 80 cm in length (Thomas Reference Thomas1978), whereas ethnohistoric accounts suggest even greater length for arrow shafts in the Eastern Woodlands (Kent Reference Kent1984:1898). Although long shafts could be shortened, this also seems unlikely given that a fletched arrow shaft takes longer to manufacture than a stone projectile point (Keeley Reference Keeley1982:800; Pope Reference Pope1923:54).
There is some debate as to whether the bow drill was used in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. Martin (Reference Martin1934:96) notes that one was excavated from a Southwest pueblo in 1890, and the regular striations found on microdrills in Mississippian sites suggested to Yerkes (Reference Yerkes1983:511) that the bow drill was used. Speck (Reference Speck1911:224, Figure 33) illustrates a horizontal chest bow drill in use among the Hurons of Lorette (near Quebec) between 1908 and 1911. As McGuire (Reference McGuire1894:658–659) early noted, both the strap drill and the bow drill are improvements over the shaft drill because of the increased revolutions that can be made in a given period of time. Use of both of these requires that a concave object be placed at the butt end of the shaft to steady it either in the mouth (strap drill) or with the free hand (bow drill). In either case, the use of a long shaft would be unwieldy. Lewis Henry Morgan (Reference Morgan1962 [1851]:381) illustrates an Iroquois pump drill for starting fires (DA-YA-YÄ-DÄ-GÄ'-NEÄ-TÄ) and states that they were used since time immemorial. Ground stone collections from Iroquoian sites should be checked to see if there are circular stone disks with a hole in the center that could have been used in a pump drill.
Hayden and colleagues (Reference Hayden, Franco, Spafford and Odell1996:28, 29, 40) suggest that stone drills are specialized tools. The greater mean thickness of the Eaton triangular drills contrasted with triangular points suggests that drills were manufactured intentionally rather than being resharpened triangular points. If they were resharpened while hafted, basal width would be expected to be the same, not significantly narrower. The difference in the mean length:width ratios between points and drills is striking. The drills in this study do not weigh significantly less than points, nor are they significantly shorter—both of which would be expected if they were reworked points. Onondaga chert was readily available to the inhabitants, so conservation of lithic material was likely not a high priority for the knappers at this village site (Engelbrecht et al. Reference Engelbrecht, Bradbury and Salisbury2021). The greater thickness of drills would confer durability, a desirable quality for use in drilling. Arrow points for warfare were made to be used once, and they likely shattered upon hitting bone, which caused greater damage, whether their target was human or animal. Unlike drills, arrow points were made to be broken (Engelbrecht Reference Engelbrecht2015).
If drills were not made from points, why are their bases similar? Assuming they are contemporaneous, the knapper likely made the type of base for points and drills that he/she was most accustomed to fashioning and hafting. The Frison Effect describes morphological changes that occurred with the resharpening of Dalton points into drill-like forms, but it has been uncritically applied to the production of drills from points in other sites without adequate consideration. Drill shafts, arrow shafts, and spear shafts have different design characteristics, which argue against the reworking of projectile points into drills while the tool remained hafted. The frequency with which knappers worked points into drills at other sites remains to be explored.
Acknowledgments
The major remaining portion of the Eaton site is now owned by the Archaeological Conservancy. Thanks go to Christian Gates St-Pierre for preparing the abstract in French. Roderick Salisbury is responsible for Figure 1. Three anonymous reviewers made suggestions that strengthened the manuscript. Finally, the author is indebted to the late Jack Holland, who discussed many of the specimens in this article with the author.
Funding Statement
The Eaton site was excavated by 17 summer field schools from SUNY Buffalo State, SUNY Buffalo, or from both institutions in joint sponsorship. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of both institutions.
Data Availability Statement
The drills that form the basis of this study are curated in the Anthropology Department at SUNY Buffalo State. Data from the Eaton site have been uploaded to tDAR. The drill attribute list (document 468910) and drill Access table (dataset 468911) are part of the Eaton Chipped Stone Collection (collection 21804), which is part of the Eaton Site Project (project 6030) on tDAR.
Competing Interests
The author declares none.
