Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ylit20

Lithic Technology

ISSN: 0197-7261 (Print) 2051-6185 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ylit20

Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life, Legacy, andContributions to Archaeology, Lithic Technology,and Flintknapping

Metin I. Eren & Lauren E. Patten

To cite this article: Metin I. Eren & Lauren E. Patten (2019): Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life,Legacy, and Contributions to Archaeology, Lithic Technology, and Flintknapping, Lithic Technology,DOI: 10.1080/01977261.2019.1598624

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1598624

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 11 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 216

View Crossmark data

Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life, Legacy, and Contributions to Archaeology,Lithic Technology, and FlintknappingMetin I. Erena,b and Lauren E. Pattenc

aDepartment of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA; bDepartment of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History,Cleveland, OH, USA; cStone Dagger Publications, Lakewood, WA, USA

ABSTRACTRobert J. Patten passed away suddenly on February 8, 2017. His influence on flintknapping, lithictechnology, and archaeology, however, continues on. Here, we review Patten’s life and myriadcontributions.

KEYWORDSFlintknapping; lithictechnology; experimentalarchaeology; Paleoindian;Folsom; Robert J. Patten

For good or bad… I wanted to steer my own direction,and I wasn’t too concerned with finding somebodywho had already blazed a trail and follow[ing] them…no, I said, I can blaze my own trail to see where it leads– (Patten, 2011)

Introduction

Robert J. Patten was special (Figure 1). On one hand, asarguably, in our opinion, one of the most skilled andtalented flintknappers in three million years of homininstone tool making, but someone without any advanceddegrees, Patten had one foot planted firmly in the popu-lation of citizen scientists, avocational archaeologists,and hobby knappers. On the other hand, the qualityand quantity of his contributions to the scientific litera-ture are on par with, or surpass, many professionalarchaeologists who possess the very degrees Pattenlacked. Yet, rather than choose sides between thesetwo blocs, Patten blazed a trail to an undiscoveredcountry, one in which the line between professionaland non-professional was not only blurred, but non-existent, and all that mattered was producing the bestscience possible while also providing the best scienceeducation. On his journey, Patten inadvertently becamethe sturdiest of bridges connecting two lands; the mostpatient of diplomats communicating between two,often wary, factions.

Here, we recount Robert J. Patten’s life, reviewhis body of published work, and provide somethoughts on his legacy, which, undoubtedly, is stillbeing realized.

Life of Robert J. Patten

Patten was born on March 4th, 1944, in the Grand Valleyof western Colorado, where his family had homesteadedin the late 1800s. As a boy, hearing his grandfather’s talesof seeing the Ute leader, Chipeta, migrating through thevalley with her people, Patten became intrigued with thestone artifacts he found on his boyhood wanderings, andparticularly with how they were made. Having only rudi-mentary information available, and no one to teach him,his early attempts at replication were necessarilyawkward, and sometimes painful, but ultimately theyled to a lifelong obsession with flintknapping (Patten,2011) (Figure 1). Indeed, what makes Patten’s knappingtalent so remarkable is that he was not taught, or eveninfluenced, by any other knapper (Patten, 2011).

During his high school years, Patten worked summersas a rodman for the US Geological Survey and, decidingthat getting paid to explore the landscape was exactlythe career he wanted, he enrolled at Colorado State Uni-versity to pursue the required Civil Engineering degree.In 1964, still in college, Patten was introduced to theLoveland Stone Age Fair, an annual gathering of artifactcollectors that had begun in the 1930s (Figure 2). Thrilledat finding others who shared his passion for stone tools,Patten began demonstrating his now-accomplishedflintknapping skills, at first, in the parking lot. But wheninterested crowds began to gather, he was quicklyinvited to become an integral part of the fair, an associ-ation that was to last more than 50 years.

Upon graduating CSU in 1966, Patten was forced toput his Geological Survey aspirations on hold when his

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon inany way.

CONTACT Metin I. Eren meren@kent.edu Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA; Department of Archaeology,Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA

LITHIC TECHNOLOGYhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1598624

Army draft number came up low. To get a favorableassignment, he chose to enlist, a move that wouldallow him to utilize his new degree (Figure 1). He wasto spend the next three years in the D.C. area, teachingcartographic drafting at Fort Belvoir, and later, creatingcomputer simulations in Bethesda, MD. His off-dutytime he spent exploring the Smithsonian, or fossilhunting along the Chesapeake.

Once discharged, Patten returned to his native Color-ado to accept the long-awaited cartography field pos-ition with U.S.G.S., a job that took him on an annualcircuit throughout the Rocky Mountain Region, fromMontana to Texas. For Patten, it was the perfect assign-ment, allowing him autonomy, and the chance to con-stantly explore new landscapes. During brief stays ininnumerable small towns, he haunted libraries and

Figure 1. Bob Patten at the Colorado National Monument; As a boy in Clifton, CO; Flintknapping as a teenager; US Army, 1967.

Figure 3. 1977 Knap-in, Arlington, VA – Top: Bob Verrey, MikeJohnson, Bob Patten; Bottom: Scott Silsby and Bob Patten.

Figure 2. Patten at the Loveland, Colorado Stone Age Fair. Top:giving a knapping demonstration; bottom: with Rob Bonnichsen.

2 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN

museums, researching whatever he’d happened to dis-cover during his off-hours, be it artifacts, antiques, ordinosaur fossils.

But inevitably, the field-mapping project was com-pleted and Patten was assigned a position in theSurvey’s Lakewood, CO office. In 1976, to temporarilyescape the politics and confinement of his desk job, herequested a six-month detail at the Survey’s mainoffice, in Reston, VA. In hopes of finding other knappersin the area, Bob contacted Dennis Stanford at the Smith-sonian, whom he’d met some years earlier while visitingthe Jones-Miller bison kill site. Dennis directed him toScott Silsby, a local flintknapper, who invited him to aChristmas party hosted by the Northern VA chapter ofthe Virginia Archaeological Society. It was there thatBob met his future wife, Laurey, who was working on agraduate degree in archaeology at George WashingtonU, and moon-lighting weekends at the Natural HistoryMuseum, where Patten soon became a regular visitor.On their first outing together, an archaeological fieldsurvey followed by a fossil hunt along the Potomac,Bob demonstrated his interest by knapping her a fullyfluted Clovis point – quite a statement, for a first date.The following summer, the two helped to organize aflintknapping get-together at the Long Branch NatureCenter, in Arlington, VA, dubbing it a “knap-in”(because, after all, it was the ‘70’s), a designation thatwas quickly to become ubiquitous for all such gatherings(cf. Whittaker, 2004, pp. 64–65) (Figure 3). Among those

attending were Stanford, Silsby, Errett Callahan, BruceBradley, Mike Johnson, Bob Humphrey, Jack Cresson,and many other notables, both archaeologists and knap-pers alike.

Bob and Laurey were married in the Spring of 1978,and returned to Colorado, where Bob was eventuallyput in charge of the U.S.G.S.’s Photo-lab contract. EachJune, the two hosted the Colorado Front Range Flint-knapping Workshop at their home in Lakewood, anevent which was to continue for more than 35 years.During that time, and especially after his retirementfrom the Survey, in 1997, Patten wrote and illustratedthree flintknapping/archaeology books, with Laureyacting as editor, sounding board, and artistic contributor.In 2003, on a trip to Guatemala hosted by John Clark, ofB.Y.U., Patten found inspiration for his fourth book, adetailed thesis on Mayan knapped stonework and itsconnection with mathematical and astronomical obser-vations. The book was nearing publication when BobPatten passed away, very suddenly, from an undiag-nosed heart ailment on February 8th, 2017.

Archaeological and flintknappingcontributions

Flintknapping, and understanding flintknapping

Patten had “fun” flintknapping (Patten, 1983, p. 156),could “make thinner bifaces than almost anyone else”(Whittaker, 2004, p. 182), and was prominent in the“development of the knapping community as it standstoday” (Whittaker, 2004, p. 61). His body of flintknappingpieces extended across the Pleistocene and the Holo-cene, ranging from simple flakes to Mayan eccentrics,from trihedral points to Danish Daggers, and fromClovis to the Pre-Contact Period (Figures 4 and 5). Butperhaps Patten is best known for his body of trulyphenomenal late Paleoindian replicated pieces: Folsom,Eden, Scottsbluff, and Agate Basin, among others(Figure 6). Of these, Folsom was his favorite.

Patten explored, adopted, invented, and perfected avariety of flintkanpping techniques from basics likedirect percussion and pressure, to the use of forkedsticks, the rocker punch, fluting anvils, and “flexi-billets.” Among his myriad contributions to flintknap-ping, one that stands out in particular is his emphasison the importance of support; i.e. how the core orbiface is held, and how the hand holding the core orbiface can influence the removed flake through theapplication of pressure (e.g. Patten, 1980a, p. 17, 2005,pp. 82–86, 2009).

In our experience Patten’s contributions to flintknap-ping were unique, because they often went far beyond

Figure 4. Examples of Patten’s flintknapping. Clockwise, startingat the bottom: Burlington chert biface hafted on a black walnuthaft carved with an Anatolian design; quartzite Folsom pointhafted onto a foreshaft; Clovis point on Georgetown chert;Danish Dagger; Cobra; Danish trihedral point.

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY 3

the replication of physical objects. Patten was notsatisfied with simply making stone tools and possessingan intuitive understanding of how to do it. As an analogy,all of us can use an iPhone and its software applicationslike Google Maps, Yahoo Weather, and Twitter. Patten, incontrast, wished to decipher the computer programmingthat runs those apps, to figure out how the liquid crystalsof the iPhone functioned, and to understand how theiPhone itself was physically constructed. In otherwords, he wanted to explicitly and formally understandhow and why flintknapping was possible. Toward thisend, Patten’s two books, Old Tools-New Eyes (firstedition: 1999; second edition: 2009) and Peoples of theFlute: A Study in Anthropolithic Forensics (2005), his collab-orations with Tony Baker (between 1996 and 2009), andcorrespondence with Andrew Pelcin, helped shape muchof his flintknapping theory.

Earlier iterations of this explicit and formal approachto flintknapping can be seen in Patten’s nascent work,likely the result of his engineering training. Forexample, Patten (1981) suggested that physics “rather

than humanistics” be used for taxonomy, and that taxon-omy should be applicable to problem-solving (echoingDunnell, 1971). It is noteworthy that in that samearticle, Patten (1981, p. 12) preceded Thomas’ (1986)“flintknapper’s fundamental conceit” by five years,writing “If my experiments give a certain result bydirect percussion with a baton then the Indian who gotthe same results must also have used direct percussionwith a baton – a questionable result.”

An important concept to which Patten’s flintknappingresearch contributed greatly was that of equifinality, i.e.that multiple production methods can, and do, result insimilar flaking products. While today, the equifinality offlaking products is widely recognized (e.g. Eren et al.,2016), and vital to our understanding of evolutionaryconvergence in stone tool technologies (e.g. Adleret al., 2014; O’Brien, Buchanan, & Eren, 2018; Will,Mackay, & Phillips, 2015), Patten’s work was an early pre-cursor to this recognition and understanding. Forinstance, Patten (1978a) found from replication that“dense rock percussors can be made to perform the

Figure 5. Patten’s Dalton replication, cast by Bostrom at each stage of manufacture (black plastic specimens). The actual knapped stonepoint can be seen in the lower right (white).

4 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN

same function as soft hammers by striking a yieldingsurface at the time of impact.” Or, when it came toClovis fluting, Patten (1979b, p. 6) found that the particu-lar technique was “difficult at best to identify.” This is notto say that Patten avoided speculation about prehistoricflintknapping techniques, but, unlike some of his con-temporaries, was regularly candid about when his infer-ences or conclusions were speculative, and when theywere not (e.g. Patten, 1980b). Nonetheless, Patten oftensaw “the thorny problem of equifinality” in flaking pro-ducts from different knapping techniques, which “both-ered” him, and “should bother a lot of other people”(Patten, 2011).

Process controls

One of Patten’s most important contributions to thestudy of prehistoric stone tools is his concept of“process controls,” which he describes as “systematicimpositions placed on process tasks that act to reducevariation in the final product by augmenting inherentskill” (Patten, 2012, p. 25). The theme of process controls

is clear in much of Patten’s earlier work (e.g. Patten,1978b, 1978c, 1978d, 1980b), but it is not crystalizeduntil Peoples of the Flute (2005) and his 2012 article inLithic Technology. Given all the potential sources of varia-bility that can contribute to stone tool variation (e.g.Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel, 2015), process controlsaremeant to “level the playing field” so that a greater stan-dardization of product can be achieved (Patten, 2012,p. 26). Process controls can bemechanical, action-oriented,or conceptual, and, in certain circumstances, may bedifficult to identify in the archaeological record (Patten,2012, p. 28). An example of simple process control is redu-cing the edge of a core to ensure that the correct platformthickness is struck, platform thickness being a key determi-nant of flake size. Thus, by reducing the core edge back toa specific location, a knapper can ensure that s/he willachieve the desired flake size. Process controls are cultu-rally transmitted (sensu Mesoudi, 2011) for the purposeof reducing the required skill necessary for individuals toachieve a particular product. In this sense, the concept ofprocess controls is different than both the “chaine opera-toire” (Sellet, 1993) and the “reduction sequence” (Shott,

Figure 6. Patten produced 25 Folsom projectile points for David Hunzicker’s thesis (left and top right). Bottom right: a Folsom pointknapped by Patten.

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY 5

2003), being an element of the former and ensuring thesuccess of the latter.

A more complicated set of process controls proposedby Patten is that necessary to flute Folsom points (Patten,2002), and includes controls such as building a uniformpreform crest and establishing a platform offset. Whenprocess controls are established for each stage of pro-duction, even stone tools seemingly difficult toproduce, like Folsom points, can be made more manage-able. Indeed, Patten’s proposed set of process controlsfor Folsom point production – inferred from congruentarchaeological and experimental analyses – led him tosuggest that “contrary to popular opinion, fluting aFolsom point does not appear to require any greatdegree of skill because process controls act to minimizedifference in individual talent” (Patten, 2002, p. 308). Thisdiscovery was highly important because much ink wasspilled by archaeologists on how to flute Folsompoints, and knappers were creating elaborate contrap-tions involving pressure and levers. Patten, however,demonstrated with simple, specific flute removalprocess controls, all that was needed was soft hammerdirect percussion (2008). In other words, there aremany different ways to hold a football; but if one usesthe process controls of placing the point of the ball inone’s palm, curving one’s wrist along the ball’s convexity,keeping one’s elbows tucked in, etc., even novices willhave a better chance of avoiding a fumble.

The understanding and documentation of processcontrols not only can help archaeologists understandprehistoric technology, but also help them evaluate theauthenticity of artifacts when considered in conjunctionwith a suite of other analyses (e.g. microwear, etc.). Anexample of this practice is the collaboration betweenHolen, Muniz, and Patten (2008) to determine whetheror not the Angus Nebraska Fluted Point was a fake.Patten’s observations of the point’s flake scar patterningand morphology led him to suggest that it was indeedgenuine, because “the Angus artifact retains indicationsof prior stages of manufacture that match process con-trols known to have been used by Clovis and otherPaleoindian fluted point technologies” (Holen et al.,2008, p. 359).

Process controls have become an importantconcept in archaeologists’ understanding of lithictechnological evolution, the learning of how to knap,and the cultural transmission of knapped artifacts(e.g. Lycett, 2011, 2013; Lycett & Eren, 2019; Lycett,Schillinger, Eren, von Cramon-Taubadel, & Mesoudi,2016a; Lycett, Schilllinger, Kempe, & Mesoudi, 2015;Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel, 2015; Lycett, vonCramon-Taubadel, & Eren, 2016b; Schillinger,Mesoudi, & Lycett, 2014).

Flintknapping as test, model, and methodvalidation

Patten’s tremendous knapping skill and experienceallowed him to propose rich, illustrative descriptions ofprehistoric artifacts (e.g. Patten, 1978b). But Pattenunderstood that stone tool replication could also contrib-ute to hypothesis-driven archaeology. As such, in the twoyears before his passing he co-authored a review paper(Eren et al., 2016) that evaluated how stone tool replica-tion could be used (1) as a means of testing a question,hypothesis, or assumption about certain parameters ofstone-tool technology; (2) as a model, in which infor-mation from empirically documented situations is usedto generate predictions; and (3) as a means of validatinganalytical methods. In particular, Patten substantiallyhelped distinguish between, and characterize, “flintknap-ping as test” versus “flintknapping as model,” likelybecause he had contributed towards both of these cat-egories previously, although they had not yet been expli-citly defined. For example, using flintknapping as a test,Patten contributed to the testing of whether overshotflakes are the most efficient means for thinning abiface (Eren, Patten, O’Brien, & Meltzer, 2013, 2014).Using flintknapping as a model, Patten examined arange of archaeological phenomena ranging fromflakes to Folsom points (e.g. Hunzicker, 2008; Shott,Patten, & Hunzinger, 2007). Indeed, the early seeds ofPatten’s use of flintknapping to create models for inter-preting lithic products goes back to 1978 when he con-ceived of, and published, a simple and extremely usefulway to think about pressure flaking. Characterizing thebounds of pressure flaking techniques as either a“push” or as a “pull” force, he then proposed “templates”of predicted results from each of these extremes (Patten,1978e, 1979a).

Other, and continuing, contributions

It is difficult to summarize an entire career’s worth ofscientific advances in a single article. We hope that thereader will peruse Patten’s published literature (listed inthe references section), and explore his numerous contri-butions to our understanding of stone tool making, bothpast and present. An interview with him is also freelyavailable online (Patten, 2011). However, we would beremiss if we did not mention a few of his other projectshere. Beyond experimental archaeology and flintknap-ping, Patten contributed to prehistoric archaeology aswell. With Dennis Stanford, Patten described and pub-lished the R-6 Cody site (Stanford & Patten, 1984).Patten also discovered the Antelope Springs Folsomsite in South Park, Colorado (Patten, 2005, p. 2008) and

6 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN

analyzed the Watts cache found near Fort Collins, Color-ado (Patten, 2015). Additionally, he helped excavateGoodson Rockshelter in Oklahoma, and shaped the prin-ciple investigators’ understanding of the site (Eren,Meltzer, & Andrews, 2018).

Patten had a number of ongoing projects at the timeof his passing. Among them include the description of anew cache from Ohio, an analysis of North Americanmounds, and a book about Mayan knapped stoneworkand its connection with mathematical and astronomicalobservations. We provide the latter two items in the Sup-plementary Online Materials.

Finally, Patten’s artifact collection was donated toKent State University as part of the Robert J. andLauren E. Patten Endowment, and is currently in theprocess of being systematically published (e.g. Eren,Bebber, et al., 2018; Norris et al., 2019).

Memories, thoughts, and legacy

Patten left a global legacy not only on our understandingof flintknapping, lithic technology, and archaeology(Figure 7), but also made lasting impressions and

memories upon the practitioners of these subjects, stu-dents and professionals alike. He won numerousawards for his work, including the 2004 Society for Amer-ican Archaeology Crabtree Award (Figure 8), but perhapsthe greatest tribute comes from those he touched. Manytributes, comments, and memories can be found onlineon websites and forums like Facebook and PaleoPlanet,and below are thoughts from some of his friends, col-leagues, and students (in alphabetical order).

Bob was a huge influence on me, as he was with hun-dreds – perhaps thousands – of other knappers, stu-dents, and archeologists. Around 1980, I stumbledacross an announcement that the Denver Museum ofNatural History would have a knapping demonstration.I had never seen a flintknapper, but had heard rumorsthat they existed. I had to learn more about this magicand was waiting at the front door when it opened. Ilocated the flintknapper, who of course turned out tobe Bob, and watched him all day until closing time,filled with a thousand questions, but so awe-struck Icould barely breathe. Bob, as always, was patient, kind,and full of information, all of which was over my head.As everyone knows, Bob was an innovator, alwaystrying new techniques. Some worked, some didn’t.Without a doubt, my favorite memory of Bob demon-strating a new technique happened at the one-and-only Folsom, NM knap-in. Bob was doing somethingradical: he laid a Folsom preform, fluting nipple prepared,in his open palm with nothing but gravity to hold it inplace. No fingers wrapped around it, not even a pieceof leather on top. Then he’d strike the fluting platformwith some kind of big percussor. Amazingly, thepreform would often bounce a little and the channelflake would detach. One time, though, Bob gave thepreform a good whack and away it went. It flew about30’ and hit a man in the back of the head. Bob, calm asever, said, “Well, that’s never happened before.”Another vivid memory happened about five years ago.We were visiting a mutual friend who owned a large col-lection of Paleoindian points. They were displayed inbeautiful cases laid across a dining room table. Boband I were on opposite sides of the table looking at aframe of Folsom specimens. One in particular caughtmy eye – it was subtly but distinctly different from therest. As I leaned over for a closer look, Bob tapped onthe glass to point out that same Folsom and looked upat me. Unfortunately, we were interrupted and didn’tget to finish that conversation, and I never heard Bob’sthoughts about that point. If I ever have the chance totalk to Bob again, that will be the first thing I’ll ask him.And then I’ll have to thank him for being the greatperson he was – the innovator, the questioner, the crafts-man, the mentor. Bob will be sorely missed. (WoodyBlackwell, Personal Communication)

Bob was a great inspiration to me, both as an individualand as a knapper. He generously shared his knowledge,both within the professional archaeological and amateurcommunities, as attested by his wide range of publi-cations. I greatly appreciated his passion for unravelling

Figure 7. Patten regularly provided public demonstrations, andwas featured on television documentaries. Here shown on thePBS NOVA documentary Making North America – Human (2015).

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY 7

the mysteries of the human experience through examin-ing the minute details of flaked stone technology. Iespecially remember a fascinating conversation whereBob explained to me his insights into the possible math-ematically symbolic details of Mayan eccentrics. Thisencouraged me to continue delving into potential sym-bolism expressed in that durable substance; flakedstone. I will always admire Bob’s relentless quest toexplore “alternative” methods of flaking stone and notbe confined by orthodoxy (e.g. the forked sticksupport). I also enjoyed Bob’s ability to engage in con-structive debate with professionalism and respect.While our paths didn’t cross frequently, it was always adelight to meet Bob and Laurey, whether at the SAAs,at an archaeological project, a knap-in or in their backyard. (Bruce Bradley, Personal Communication)

I first became aware of Bob Patten through his “leadingedge” writings on Paleoindian lithic technology in

Flintknapper’s Exchange, a newsletter edited by ErrettCallahan and Ruthann Knudson, published in the1970s. Bob’s contributions to this seminal, quarterlynewsletter were always inspirational and informative toa “neophyte” rock breaker like myself. Bob was alwayschasing flaking techniques, holding positions anddiverse methods to replicate the past. In that he wasexemplary. Bob was the ultimate “gentleman”: courte-ous, soft spoken, always generous with his time and will-ingness to help struggling “learners of the craft,” orexpound on his latest techniques and discoveries inlithic technology. I am a better person, lithic technologistand archaeologist for having known Bob. Needless to sayhis passing has left a gaping void in New World lithicstudies and archaeology. (Jack Cresson, PersonalCommunication)

I first met Bob more than twenty years ago though ourmutual friend Tony Baker. Bob and Tony were kindred

Figure 8. Awards for contributions to flintknapping and archaeological research. Top left: Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Crab-tree Award “For his tireless efforts over the past 40 years to teach ancient stone-tool technologies to professional and avocationalarchaeologists, and for his flint-knapping experiments, which have led to major insights into Paleoindian technologies and lifeways.”Top right: Loveland Archaeological Society “In appreciation of your many years of devoted service to the Loveland ArchaeologicalSociety and the Loveland Stone Age Fair.” Bottom left: George Steward Memorial Award “In recognition of contributions made tothe Loveland Archaeological Society and the Stone Age Fair in the spirit and generous nature of George Stewart.” Bottom right:Rick and Doris Hamilton and the Beaver Creek Clan “For thanks and appreciation.”

8 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN

spirits dedicated to (one might even go so far as to sayeven obsessed with) lithic technology and Paleoindianarcheology. Soon after meeting Bob, I developed adeep respect for him as one of finest, if not the best,flint knapper I have ever met. Over the following yearshe shared with me his extensive knowledge of lithictechnological systems and much more. After leavingthe Denver Museum of Nature and Science, I sub-sequently joined the faculty at the University of Coloradoat Boulder, and called upon Bob several times for hishelp. On one occasion he selflessly devoted hours tothe production of a series of Folsom projectile pointsfor one of my students who intentionally damagedthem as part of his master’s thesis in lithic fractureanalysis. On another occasion he shared his time andexpertize with me during my analysis of the bifacesfrom an archeological site (On Your Knees Cave) I wasexcavating in Alaska. I will be forever grateful to himfor his insights about lithic reduction sequences asthey might pertain to the On Your Knees Cave artifacts.After leaving Colorado, I continued to see Bob at theannual meetings of the Society for American Archaeol-ogy, where he would share with me his latest thoughtsand ongoing projects. Bob was deeply saddened bythe death of our mutual fiend Tony Baker, and hegreatly missed Tony’s camaraderie and friendship. I liketo think that Bob and Tony are somewhere flakingstone together and talking archeology. (E. James Dixon,Personal Communication)

Bob was a very good friend. I am inspired by his love oflearning and deep curiosity. For many years I attendedthe Knap-In that he held in early June. Bob providedshelter with tarps spread over the grass in his backyard to catch the flying chips of stone as beginnersand experts fashioned stone tools. His wife Laureyalways cooked a delicious meal for the knappers todevour at their mid- day break. Every year Bob intro-duced new knapping techniques in search of a reliableway to replicate the fluting found in Clovis points. Every-one freely shared their knowledge and learned fromeach other. This gathering that Bob created was a giftto all of us who knew him. It was my great goodfortune to know this extraordinary man. (Bob Easton, Per-sonal Communication)

I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to meet Boband learn from him. I first met Bob maybe 10+ yearsago at the Loveland Stone-age Fair where he wasshowing how to reduce a chunk of hard quartzsitewith a hammer stone. Maybe about 8 years ago, I metup with him again and told him I was a closet knapperand with that he invited me over to the Front Rangeknap-in. I love the fact that he focused on small andsubtle nuances in knapping that make a big differencein your success. Bob was ever the gentleman andalways had time to show you his suggestions for howto manage a particular angle or support for getting theright flake to release. If nothing else, he always wantedto be sure you were learning and he was a man thatloved to share, which was one of his finer attributes.(Tim Evans, Personal Communication)

Bob was a good friend and mentor of mine. He also wasthe featured knapper at my Beaver Creek Knap-Ins &Primitive Skills Gatherings for over a decade. In lateryears he experimented with a variety of techniquesand technologies including a variation of the rockerpunch fluting method on Folsom points. He was an out-standing man that I am proud to have known, as well asto call him a mentor. (Rick Hamilton, PersonalCommunication)

Bob made my Master’s Thesis possible by providing 25replica Folsom points for use in an experimental archae-ology project firing atlatl darts into sides of beef to studyFolsom durability, impact damage, and changing mor-phology through multiple rounds of damage and rejuve-nation. In addition to making the points, Bob met withme 5 times to repair and resharpen the damagedpoints. (David Hunzicker, Personal Communication)

Without question, Bob, a non-degreed experimentalarcheologist, was one of the two most influentialpeople in my professional career. Bob was a maverick.He was always experimenting with new ideas. Theupshot was not so much that Bob taught me new lithictechnology techniques but that he taught me more cog-nitive ways to think about archeology. He taught me tonever be satisfied with the prevailing models, whichare often from a modern perspective; to always pushthe envelope and be willing to look at things withoutwearing blinders; and when presented with an appar-ently intractable problem, to seek ways to bridge thegap. Bob taught us how to think freely. (MichaelJohnson, Personal Communication)

Each of my experiences with Bob were memorably posi-tive and productive. I first met him at a Folsom flintknap-ping workshop in Austin around 1999. When he foundout that I was interested in Clovis caches, he was quickto point me toward the Watts Cache. Though he wasfirst to “discover” it by identifying it as Clovis in the col-lections of the Ft. Collins Museum, he was never proprie-tary about it. On the contrary, he was eager for me toexamine it and then to promote my work. What’smore, though I was a young punk graduate student, henever treated me that way. He engaged with me as if Iwas a worthy scholar, which made me feel like I wasbecoming one. (David Kilby, Personal Communication)

Bob came to the St. Louis area to attend the MidwestFlintknapper’s Convention (Now, the Devil’s Hole Knap-in) around 1984 or 1985. We decided to go to theKroger store parking lot in High Ridge Mo. to get someBurlington chert. It was about 78 degrees but the humid-ity was about 90% that day. The best chert was at thebottom of the hill from the parking lot but there was aconcrete-lined drainage ditch leading right to the bestchert. After Bob and I quarried for about an hour, itwas time to carry our treasure to the truck. That drainageditch was only about 200 feet long but it took us about 3rests to make it to the top, on each trip, and we madeabout 3 or 4 trips. We were both suckin’ air like a teamof exhausted Missouri mules and on the third trip wewere so exhausted that we both thought we were

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY 9

going to croak right there. However, we took home somerighteous Burlington chert! However, the next morningwhen we woke, I came down to the basement and Bobhanded me a Colorful Burlington Folsom he had justfinished. I asked “Did you make this out of that stuffwe got yesterday?” He said, “Heck no, I found thispiece in your driveway and made this point. You wastemore flint than we even get to see out in Colorado!!”Damn, I sure miss that guy! (Larry Kinsella, PersonalCommunication)

Bob was a great guy - really kind, generous, smart, andintellectually curious. I met Bob in the early 1990s at aknap-in in Folsom, New Mexico when I was a still-newgraduate student. I was impressed by his skill as aflintknapper and his generosity with his knowledgeand time. Bob and I shared interests in rocks, flintknap-ping, and Folsom technology. Bob invited me to hisannual knap-in in Lakewood that year, where I metmany more people passionately interested in thosesame things. At some point I suggested that he andTony Baker meet and collaborate on researchingFolsom fluting technology, which they did. The three ofus took part in the 1997 and 1999 Folsom Workshopsat TARL in Austin. And for several years, dinner withBob and Laurey Patten, Tony and Simone Baker, andothers was a highlight of my annual SAA trips. Bobhelped me understand Folsom lithic technology and pro-vided critical data, ideas, and research contacts for mydissertation. I miss him. (Phil LeTourneau, PersonalCommunication)

Bob Patten was a very good friend and key mentor in myknapping experience. I first met Bob in the early nineties.I had never been to a knap-in before, but I did attend theFront Range Knap-In and at that time had the privilege ofmeeting Bob. During my initial visit, Bob took me downin his basement and began showing me his Folsompoints that he has made over the years. Several ofthese points were made from an extremely highquality local chert. I mentioned I knew of severalsources of this exquisite material. At that moment wehit it off: we were bonded by stone. Bob was a truescholar. He always had a new theory he was workingon, and continually coming up with new ways to holdor flute a biface. Then there was the deep mathematics(i.e. “Golden Means” etc.) he was into. When Bob wouldstart talking about that stuff it would go way over myhead in a hurry. I knew then it was time to hunkerdown on the couch a get ready for a listen. Bob and Iwent on several road trips together over the years. Ialways looked so forward to our engagement and cher-ished every mile we traveled down the highway, alongwith our deep conversations, and his dry wit. Inclosing, I feel so fortunate to have had the honor andpleasure of knowing Bob Patten. He is truly missed.Like the people who made the artifacts we are socurious about - they have all passed - we will followtheir path sooner or later. (Greg Nunn, PersonalCommunication)

My first SAA conference was in 2004 in Montreal. I didnot know anybody at the time, but every night I went

to dinner with new friends, as Laurey and Bob warmly wel-comed me into their group (including Tony and SimoneBaker). This was very special and meant a lot to me.Ever since then, at all the SAA’s and Plains Conferences Iattended, Bob was always prepared to have a chat andshare a meal. More recently Bob and I were involved ina knapping experiment in 2016. I sent Bob raw materialsfrom across North America, and he managed to getsome himself from various sources. Once we had laidout the research question and what it was I was lookingfor, Bob set up a methodology and took photos andmade notes from different stages of the production. Hewas very supportive and got quite enthusiastic regardingthe results. He sent me all the finished points and asample of the raw material, along with his image fileand all his notes. (Alan Slade, Personal Communication)

Bob’s passing is a tragic loss for all of us experimenters inlithic technology, of which Bob was a true pioneer andteacher, a man imbued with great patience and caring.I recall Bob gently telling me once at a Folsom Workshopto throw away my copper-tipped pressure flaker and useantler. Not in any aggressive or demeaning manner, butto just stop doing it wrong. I became accustomed tousing copper for pressure work because that is how Ibegan and to my everlasting discredit I never managedto evolve. But one look at my work and Bob’s was all Ineeded to be chagrined. (Phil Wilke, PersonalCommunication)

5. Conclusion

Robert J. Patten possessed a special kind of sight. It wasnot just that he could look at contour lines on a map andsee a landscape of crests, drainages, and outcrops, lit-erally in three dimensions. Or that he had trainedhimself to focus so closely on anomalies that he’d beenknown to spot a chipped stone artifact in a roadcut, at40mph. He was a visionary, who saw connections,relationships, and inter-related systems in what othersshrugged off as the mundane. And all that he saw, hesought to analyze, to understand, to explain – and,once understood, to disseminate – freely, withoutseeking credit or self-aggrandizement. Many of his writ-ings might have qualified him for a graduate degree inarchaeology, yet he purposely did not seek onebecause he had no wish to be bounded by a single dis-cipline. His interests were in everything and, as he saw it,his background in engineering, geology, cartography,and flintknapping allowed him to provide his own,unique, unbiased contributions to archaeology in a wayfew others were, or are, equipped to do (Figure 9).

Acknowledgements

M.I.E. would like to gratefully acknowledge L.P. and the RobertJ. and Lauren E. Patten Endowment, the latter supporting

10 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN

student archaeological research at Kent State in perpetuity.M.I.E. and L.P. would also like to thank all of those whoshared thoughts and memories of Bob, and allowed us toreproduce them in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Metin I. Eren is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology and co-director of the Kent State University Experimental ArchaeologyLaboratory.

Lauren E. Patten is a writer, archaeology editor, and owner ofStone Dagger Publications, Lakewood, CO.

References

Adler, D., Wilkinson, K., Blockley, S., Mark, D., Pinhasi, R.,Schmidt-Magee, B.,… Gasparian, B. (2014). Early Levalloistechnology and the lower to middle Paleolithic transitionin the Southern Caucasus. Science, 345(6204), 1609–1613.

Dunnell, R. (1971). Systematics in prehistory. New York, NY: TheFree Press.

Eren, M. I., Bebber, M., Miller, G., Buchanan, B., Boulanger, M., &Patten, R. J. (2018). Description, morphometrics, and micro-wear of late Pleistocene-early Holocene artifacts fromSouthwestern Kentucky, USA. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience: Reports, 20, 516–523.

Eren, M. I., Lycett, S. J., Patten, R. J., Buchanan, B., Pargeter, J.,& O’Brien, M. (2016). Test, model, and method validation:The role of experimental stone artifact replication inhypothesis-driven archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology, 8(2),103–136.

Eren, M. I., Meltzer, D., & Andrews, B. (2018). Is Clovis technologyunique to Clovis? PaleoAmerica, 4(3), 202–218.

Eren, M. I., Patten, R. J., O’Brien, M., & Meltzer, D. (2013). Refutingthe technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic cross-ing hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2934–2941.

Eren, M. I., Patten, R. J., O’Brien, M., & Meltzer, D. (2014). More onthe rumor of “intentional overshot flaking” and the pur-ported Ice-Age Atlantic crossing. Lithic Technology, 39, 55–63.

Holen, S., Muniz, M., & Patten, R. J. (2008). The angus Nebraskafluted point: A comment on Howard’s authentication results.Plains Anthropologist, 53(207), 357–356.

Hunzicker, D. (2008). Folsom projectile technology: An exper-iment in design, effectiveness and efficiency. PlainsAnthropologist, 53(207), 291–311.

Lycett, S. (2011). “Most beautiful and most wonderful”: Thoseendless stone tool forms. Journal of EvolutionaryPsychology, 9(2), 143–171.

Lycett, S. (2013). Cultural transmission theory and fossil homininbehaviour: A discussion of epistemological and methodo-logical strengths. In R. F. Ellen, S. J. Lycett, & S. E. Johns(Eds.), Understanding cultural transmission in Anthropology:A critical synthesis (pp. 102–130). New York, NY: Berghahn.

Lycett, S., & Eren, M. I. (2019). Built-in misdirection: On thedifficulties of learning to knap. Lithic Technology, 44(1), 8–21. doi:10.1080/01977261.2018.1539322

Lycett, S., Schillinger, K., Eren, M. I., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., &Mesoudi, M. (2016). Factors affecting Acheulean handaxevariation: Experimental insights, microevolutionary pro-cesses, and macroevolutionary outcomes. QuaternaryInternational, 411, 386–401.

Lycett, S., Schilllinger, K., Kempe, M., & Mesoudi, A. (2015).Learning in the Acheulean: Insights from experimentsusing handaxe form as a ‘model organism’. In A. Mesoudi& K. Aoki (Eds.), Learning strategies and cultural evolutionduring the Paleolithic (pp. 155–166). New York, NY: Springer.

Lycett, S., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2015). Toward a “quan-titative genetic” approach to lithic variation. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory, 22(2), 646–675.

Lycett, S., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Eren, M. I. (2016).Levallois: Potential implications for learning and culturaltransmission capacities. Lithic Technology, 41(1), 19–38.

Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Norris, D., Perrone, A., Miller, G., Buchanan, B., Bebber, M., &Eren, M. I. (2019). Description, morphometrics, and micro-wear of two Clovis point bases from Pandale, Val VerdeCounty, Texas. Submitted to the Bulletin of the TexasArchaeological Society: In review.

O’Brien, M., Buchanan, B., & Eren, M. I. (2018). Convergent evol-ution in stone-tool technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Patten, R. J. (1978a). Cushioned percussion. Flintknapper’sExchange, 1(1), 5–6.

Patten, R. J. (1978b). The Denver series point #14: Eden.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 1(1), 18–20.

Patten, R. J. (1978c). The Denver series point #3: Fluted Sandia.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 1(2), 28–29.

Figure 9. Patten, demonstrating at his annual Front Range Flint-knapping Workshop, Lakewood, CO (2014).

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY 11

Patten, R. J. (1978d). The Denver series point #7: Hell Gap.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 1(3), 29.

Patten, R. J. (1978e). “Push” vs “pull” flaking. Lithic Technology, 7(1), 3–4.

Patten, R. J. (1979a). Response to Huckell Re: “push vs. Pullflaking”. Lithic Technology, 8(3).

Patten, R. J. (1979b). Denver series point #34: Blackwater DrawClovis. Flintknapper’s Exchange, 2(2), 5–6.

Patten, R. J. (1980a). Soft stone hammer percussion.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 3(1), 17.

Patten, R. J. (1980b). Folsom staging: A speculative approach.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 3(2), 7–10.

Patten, R. J. (1981). Review of Hardaker’s taxonomy.Flintknapper’s Exchange, 4(1), 12.

Patten, R. J. (1983). Trihedral points. Contract Abstracts and CRMArchaeology, 3(2), 156.

Patten, R. J. (2002). Solving the Folsom fluting problem. InJ. E. Clark & M. B. Collins (Eds.), Folsom technology andlifeways (pp. 421–451). Special publication 4, LithicTechnology.

Patten, R. J. (2005). Peoples of the flute: A study in anthropolithicforensics. Denver, CO: Stone Dagger Publications.

Patten, R. J. (2008). The making of Folsom points. PrehistoricAmerican, XLI(4), 28–29.

Patten, R. J. (2009). Old tools-new eyes: A primal primer offlintknapping (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Stone DaggerPublications.

Patten, R. J. (2011). On flintknapping: A short interview with BobPatten. Retrieved January 13, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = jRN4IbXOL2k

Patten, R. J. (2012). Explaining the temporal change inartifacts by the use of process controls. Lithic Technology,37(1), 25–34.

Patten, R. J. (2015). Watts Clovis cache, Larimer County,Colorado. Southwestern Lore, 81(2/3), 84–90.

Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. (2014). Copying error andthe cultural evolution of “additive” vs. “reductive” materialtraditions: An experimental assessment. American Antiquity,79(1), 128–143.

Sellet, F. (1993). Chaîne opératoire; The concept and its appli-cations. Lithic Technology, 18(1–2), 106–112.

Shott, M. J. (2003). Chaîne opératoire and reduction sequence.Lithic Technology, 28(2), 95–105.

Shott, M., Patten, R. J., & Hunzinger, D. (2007). Pattern and allo-metric measurement of reduction in experimental Folsombifaces. Lithic Technology, 32(2), 203–217.

Stanford, D., & Patten, R. J. (1984). R-6, a preliminary report of aCody site in North-Central New Mexico. In C. J. Condie (Ed.),Papers of the Philmont conference on the archaeology ofNortheastern New Mexico (Vol. 6, pp. 188–199).

Thomas, D. (1986). Points on points: A reply to Flenniken andRaymond. American Antiquity, 51(3), 619–627.

Whittaker, J. (2004). American flintknappers: Stone age art in theage of computers. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Will, M., Mackay, A., & Phillips, N. (2015). Implications of Nubian-like core reduction systems in Southern Africa for theidentification of early modern human dispersals. PLoS ONE,10(6), e0131824.

Other papers and outputs by Robert. J. Patten

Patten, R.J. 1970. [Video] Knapping Instruction. Filmed byColorado State University, CO., Department of Anthropology.

Patten, R.J. 1979. The Denver series point #17: Browns valleypoint. Flintknapper’s Exchange 2(1):17-18.

Patten, R.J. 1979. The Denver series point #5: Folsom point.Flintknapper’s Exchange 2(2):16.

Patten, R.J. 1981. Comments on channel flake removal.Flintknapper’s Exchange 4(1):7.

Patten, R.J. 1990. [Video] Search for the First Americans. Clovisreplication filmed by BBC Horizons, shown by NOVA.

Patten, R.J. 1999. Evaluating methods of Folsom fluting. Paperpresented at the Folsom Workshop conference, Austin, TX.

Patten, R.J. 1999. [Video] Nickels’ Worth. Filmed by Denver’sChannel 9 TV.

Patten, R. J. (1999). Old tools-new eyes: A primal primer offlintknapping (1st ed.). Denver, CO: Stone DaggerPublications.

Patten, R.J. 2000. Solving the Folsom fluting problem. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Society ofAmerican archaeology.

Patten, R.J. 2001. Making Folsom fluted points. Paper presentedat the pioneer Museum, Ft. Collins, CO.

Patten, R.J. 2001. [Video] The Lindenmeier Site. Folsomreplication filmed by the Smithsonian for the State ofColorado.

Patten, R.J. 2002. Investing in a lithic Economy. Paper presentedat the Colorado archeological Society, Boulder, CO.

Patten, R.J. 2003. The Watts Clovis cache. Paper presented at theColorado archeological Society, Ft. Collins, CO.

Patten, R.J. 2005. Parsing Folsom rock. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Society of American archaeology,Salt Lake City, UT.

Patten, R.J. 2006. Process controls: The power behind thethrone of typology. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Society of American archaeology, San Juan, PuertoRico.

Patten, R.J. 2007. Parsing Folsom rock. Lithic Technology 32(1):69-78.

Patten, R.J. 2015. Indexing flakes According to their Mode ofCreation. Journal of Lithic Studies 2:97-107.

Patten, R.J. 2016. [Video] Making North America. Shown byNOVA.

12 M. I. EREN AND L. E. PATTEN