Tweet
Waco Sinkers
Waco Sinkers - Form & Use
These artefacts were first properly described in 1935 by H.G. Moore from a site in Central Texas. They were found as a “group”, although not a cache and are now known to be generally associated with camps. The term “Waco Sinker” was assigned by Frank Watt in 1938 in a paper which attempted to classify them by form, using 536 specimens from a single site.
Watt coined the term because they were initially found in a very limited area adjacent to the Brazos River near Waco, Texas – the homeland of the Tawakoni (later known as the Wacoes) and because they resembled modern day fishing sinkers... but not because of any proven association with fishing. Watt however noted that the Tawakoni were not necessarily the makers of the artefacts: “some sinker camps are not Tawakoni sites and some Tawakoni sites are not sinker camps.”
The provenience within camps (when undisturbed) is usually the first or second terrace where the camp is located. Watt had noted that: “The absence of pottery or sherds in the sinker camps... places them definitely in a pre-pottery horizon.” Typically they are associated with points and tool forms from the Palaeo-Early Archaic period. Finds at the McFaddin Beach site were associated with Palaeo points (notably Eastern and Western Clovis types). At the Gault site they were associated with early Archaic artefacts (notably Clear Fork tools, Angosturas and Hoxies). At the Wilson-Leonard site they were associated with Golondrina and Plainview points and carbon-dating of associated remains yielded a date of 9650-8000 B.P. (Dial et al. 1994).
Subsequent discoveries indicate a much wider distribution – as far south as Atascosa and McMullen Counties (McReynolds, 1981) and also close to the Mexico border in Dimmit and Willacy Counties (Hester et al, 1978). The “sinker” classification was reinforced because initial examples were found close to water (but that’s true of most camps). Generally, the fact that they are less usually found in river-beds and creeks tends to undermine that.
Possible use as charms is not supported by the frequency or distribution of finds and they are also not usually found in burials. The bolo explanation has recently gained ground as the most plausible use – perhaps as a five-stone rig for catching waterfowl. The Brazos River would likely have been much shallower and broader than today… a wetland environment with aquatic grasses and reeds where riverine fauna could have been rich for exploitation (Waters and Nordt, 1995). “Because of the amount of work involved on the 'sinker,' it is difficult to imagine any use other than a personalized Bolo.” (Long, 1977).
There are variations in form and it was initially believed that examples with notches all the way round were bolo stones and those with notched ends or sides were used on nets. Since many examples were found on the Blackland Prairie (including isolated finds), it was assumed that they might have been used on land nets rather than fishing nets, with animals being driven into strategic locations where the weighted nets were stretched to trap and entangle them. Typical specimens are rectangular, ovoid or round and flaked/pecked, with abraded/ground notches at each end of the rectangular stones and opposite each other on the round or ovoid stones. Unlike true bola stones (as far as current knowledge goes), the grooves do not usually encircle the stones but are notched only.
Subsequently, some “potbellied” examples have been found which are both notched on the ends and grooved all the way round, such that they could perhaps have been used in either manner depending on the need at the time. Since “repaired” examples have also been found in groups, plus groups that look as if they were possibly awaiting repair, it’s clear that they were subjected to a certain amount of “rough and tumble” and were sufficiently cared for to ensure re-use.
Over-hunting or changes in the environment and consequent adaptations to hunting practices may explain why they disappear as artefacts in the archaeological record around 7,000 years ago.
These artefacts were first properly described in 1935 by H.G. Moore from a site in Central Texas. They were found as a “group”, although not a cache and are now known to be generally associated with camps. The term “Waco Sinker” was assigned by Frank Watt in 1938 in a paper which attempted to classify them by form, using 536 specimens from a single site.
Watt coined the term because they were initially found in a very limited area adjacent to the Brazos River near Waco, Texas – the homeland of the Tawakoni (later known as the Wacoes) and because they resembled modern day fishing sinkers... but not because of any proven association with fishing. Watt however noted that the Tawakoni were not necessarily the makers of the artefacts: “some sinker camps are not Tawakoni sites and some Tawakoni sites are not sinker camps.”
The provenience within camps (when undisturbed) is usually the first or second terrace where the camp is located. Watt had noted that: “The absence of pottery or sherds in the sinker camps... places them definitely in a pre-pottery horizon.” Typically they are associated with points and tool forms from the Palaeo-Early Archaic period. Finds at the McFaddin Beach site were associated with Palaeo points (notably Eastern and Western Clovis types). At the Gault site they were associated with early Archaic artefacts (notably Clear Fork tools, Angosturas and Hoxies). At the Wilson-Leonard site they were associated with Golondrina and Plainview points and carbon-dating of associated remains yielded a date of 9650-8000 B.P. (Dial et al. 1994).
Subsequent discoveries indicate a much wider distribution – as far south as Atascosa and McMullen Counties (McReynolds, 1981) and also close to the Mexico border in Dimmit and Willacy Counties (Hester et al, 1978). The “sinker” classification was reinforced because initial examples were found close to water (but that’s true of most camps). Generally, the fact that they are less usually found in river-beds and creeks tends to undermine that.
Possible use as charms is not supported by the frequency or distribution of finds and they are also not usually found in burials. The bolo explanation has recently gained ground as the most plausible use – perhaps as a five-stone rig for catching waterfowl. The Brazos River would likely have been much shallower and broader than today… a wetland environment with aquatic grasses and reeds where riverine fauna could have been rich for exploitation (Waters and Nordt, 1995). “Because of the amount of work involved on the 'sinker,' it is difficult to imagine any use other than a personalized Bolo.” (Long, 1977).
There are variations in form and it was initially believed that examples with notches all the way round were bolo stones and those with notched ends or sides were used on nets. Since many examples were found on the Blackland Prairie (including isolated finds), it was assumed that they might have been used on land nets rather than fishing nets, with animals being driven into strategic locations where the weighted nets were stretched to trap and entangle them. Typical specimens are rectangular, ovoid or round and flaked/pecked, with abraded/ground notches at each end of the rectangular stones and opposite each other on the round or ovoid stones. Unlike true bola stones (as far as current knowledge goes), the grooves do not usually encircle the stones but are notched only.
Subsequently, some “potbellied” examples have been found which are both notched on the ends and grooved all the way round, such that they could perhaps have been used in either manner depending on the need at the time. Since “repaired” examples have also been found in groups, plus groups that look as if they were possibly awaiting repair, it’s clear that they were subjected to a certain amount of “rough and tumble” and were sufficiently cared for to ensure re-use.
Over-hunting or changes in the environment and consequent adaptations to hunting practices may explain why they disappear as artefacts in the archaeological record around 7,000 years ago.
Comment