Looking For Identification

[mullet]

I do not want to sound like I'm disputing what you think also. All of the flake scars could be made exactly for the needs you describe. I have found on a few occasions when I've been asked to help Identify and appraise points and blades in Florida, which I know more about then other areas, that I have had to explain to some of the owners when they showed me a flake that was a bulbed percussion flake that just because it fit their thumb and finger it wasn't made just for that reason.

 My opinion for what it's worth is a guess just like yours, I think it's a preform. Ask most of the real pro's in this section and most of them will say to thin the base and point section first, which is what I think I'm looking at when I look at you photos. Especially the flake scar on the tip of the blade. It could have started out as a Paleo preform, discarded, picked up again 3,000 years later, used again and discarded, and picked up again for a driveway.

If I was home I would post pictures of artifact preforms that look similar.

[Tower]

I've never taken any formal classes in archaeology , but I'd put my field experience against the best of them. I've found more artifacts than I care to count. Over 1000 as of several years ago.  Before I am judged by some, I have never sold one. They are my personal collection & I've always had landowners permission.   With that being said. It looks like what I would call a late stage preform. It doesn't look like a finished tool.  Now I'm not saying it wasn't used as is, but it doesn't look like a point or knife to me. Without a finished tool the or uncovering it in context  all anyone can do is guess to it's age. I've found very rough performs out of alibates stone 400 miles from the known outcrops. Just my 2 cents worth.   Tower

[JackCrafty]

In my opinion, this point cannot be labelled as a specific type.  But, and that's a big but, it's very interesting to discuss artifacts like this because all sorts of information, experience, and knowledge comes to light.  It's also important to note that it takes a lot of knowledge to know what something isn't as well as what something is.



Some people are of the opinion that stone tools were used opportunistically and that preforms were used as knives or scrapers, for example, before they became spear points or arrow points.  This is reasonable but not realistic.  Let me illustrate with a little dialog:

Hunter/Gatherer 1: "Hey Bub, can I borrow that preform you just made?"

Hunter/Gatherer 2: "NO!"

Hunter/Gatherer 1: "Can I use it for a knife?  C'mon... How about a saw?  A scraper?"

Hunter/Gatherer 2:  "Nope, nope, nope!"

Hunter/Gatherer 1:  "WHY?!"

Hunter/Gatherer 2:  "Because you might break it or lose it and I have plans for this preform.  I walked 600 miles to get this stone.  And I spent an hour making this preform.  I'm going to make a spear point from it when I have time.  If you want a knife, saw, or scraper, use one of those flakes you are standing on.  Now go play with your atlatl and leave me alone."

Hunter/Gatherer 3:  (Thinking to himself) That guy with a preform is a jerk.  Therefore, his attitude doesn't exist.  That preform is a knife.  End of story.

[JackCrafty]

Just in case someone can't see or can't access the pictures, I'm posting screen shots below (hope that's OK, Ahnlaashock).

[JackCrafty]

Here are some photos of a Late Archaic preform (for a corner tang knife).  Note the large flake removals, with some almost reaching the other edge.  I took these pictures myself at a museum where I live.  Bottom line:  flaking is a matter of skill, not a matter of time period.

[Ahnlaashock]

I do not sell points either, and my collection will go to the university at my death. 
Again, not argument.  Discussion.  I appreciate all of your input! 
I just went through about 500 pieces, comparing, but there is almost no resemblance or even comparison to anything else in the collection. 
It is much thinner than most.   It is thinner than any blank or preform the same size, sometimes half as thick or less. 
The material in the collection is from an excavation in Ohio where they were going to build a highway over what was believed to be a summer camp area used by multiple groups over the years.  Tools were manufactured at the site, and there were many different types of stone found, but all of the workmanship is pretty much consistent, at least in this collection.  The can of bird points and flakes is at another site today, so I can't get into them.   
I believe what is making people think it is so thick, is the twist and curved edge, and my photography skills.   
An easy comparison.  The biface preform the same size is .7 inches thick.  The smaller biface flat scraper or preform is .4 inches thick, and is much shorter.  The head is itself .386 thick at the thickest point.   The small unfinished head is .450 thick except for a hump that was not removed yet, which is even thicker yet. 
My problem may be the other artifacts I am comparing it to.  They are pretty much from the one site, and maybe that group just produced thick tools.  What would the expected thickness of a 3.25 inch finished point be?   
Looking online, at Clovis types of approximately the same length, this point is within .030 of the same thickness as the average thickness of a fully finished point.   It is thinner than many.
Sorry, but my metric calipers are hiding.  Throw a caliper on a couple of heads 3 3/8ths long and tell me how thick they are, if you have the time.   Thanks in advance!  The posted picture came in while I was getting this post done, so I will comment on it after I post this one.  Thank you all for the time and help! 

http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/comp001.jpg.html

Y

[JackCrafty]

Don't worry about arguing, I don't.  Everything's cool, m'friend.   

From what I've seen, the average width to thickness ratio of finished bifacial blades is around 3:1.  Comparing length to thickness is not usually done.  The exception might be when comparing prismatic blades to each other, but that's another type of technology.

[Ahnlaashock]

The tip is .386/1.5. 

[JackCrafty]

So, your point's width:thickness ratio is 3.88:1. That would mean that, on average, your point is more refined than a simple bifacial blade with a 3:1 ratio.  I can understand why you would consider this artifact is "different" form the other ones you have.  It appears to be very thin by comparison.

"Thinness" is different for everyone but if I had to put a number on it, a ratio of 5:1 or greater is what is normally considered "thin".  And anything 9:1 or greater would be considered "ultra-thin".

[Ahnlaashock]

Yes, but if you do a search and start writing down the thickness of Clovis or Agate Basin points that are at least 3 3/8ths in length, you will not find anything much thinner than this piece, and many that are actually thicker, in completely finished trim.   The thinner stuff is all much younger than those types. 
Question.  On the blade image you posted in response, how is that identified as a corner notch knife blade? 
I much appreciate the polite discussion! 

[JackCrafty]

I have lots of data on clovis artifacts and a couple books with charts showing measurements.  I agree with you on the observation that your piece has similar proportions to a finished paleo projectile point.  But that observation, plus the long flakes on the surface, does not make a strong argument in favor of it being a paleo point or a finished piece.

The corner tang preform I posted is part of a cache of corner tang bifaces found near the surface, many of which have extensive plow damage.  I posted one of the better ones.  See the picture of the cache below.  (The smaller tools and flakes on the left are not part of the cache).

Have you heard back from arrowheadology or other forums?  I have some experience with artifacts but not nearly as much as those guys.  I wish I could be more help to you in identifying this piece but I really couldn't even guess as to what it is.

[Ahnlaashock]

Very nice! 
So, you are using find context to call that a corner notch knife blade.  I fully understand that, but what is it that determines if the piece is a knife blade or a point?   The almost square base?   Lack of fluting?  Shape?  Not being perfectly symmetrical?   Offset at point? 
Thanks in advance for the education! 

I am trying to understand the whys, which is how I function on almost all questions.  I have to know how it works. 
Arrowheadology has not contacted me in any way, and my original account has been disabled, so I can not even inquire on the chat function.  I emailed them and asked about this, with no answer there either. 
PaleoPlanet was very helpful, and I have been reading quite a bit on that site. 

I had an idea.  I was going to highlight the knapping pattern with color that would not stain the piece in any way.  I settled on colored chalk, and rubbed the piece with it.  Live and learn.  I had examined the piece using a 10x lapidary grade optivisor system, and even looked at a couple of things with a microscope.  I declared things, and the pictures back those things up. 
The chalk changed the entire discussion.  If you wish, I will do it again and post a picture.  It reveals details that even close examination doesn't, at least to a beginner like me.  Those wide continuous trenches from face to face, are an illusion.   

[JackCrafty]

So, you are using find context to call that a corner notch knife blade.  I fully understand that, but what is it that determines if the piece is a knife blade or a point?   The almost square base?   Lack of fluting?  Shape?  Not being perfectly symmetrical?   Offset at point? 

The artifact I posted is Late Archaic preform (for a corner tang knife).  It is not a knife blade.  It is a preform for a specific type of knife. It was not used as a knife in the preform stage.  It was cached away with other preforms for later refinement.

The way archaeologists classify artifacts is a great mystery to most people but it's quite simple in their eyes:  an artifact is classified according to evidence of its use.  If there is no evidence, they use an educated guess based on similar examples.  If there are no similar examples and no evidence of use, the object cannot be classified as far as tool type (knife, projectile point, etc).  There are many unclassified stone artifacts currently in the record.

One of the biggest pieces of evidence that is used these days is something called "use wear".  This takes the form of striations and/or polish on the surface of working edges.  Certain activities (like dry scraping a hide) change, dull, or damage the surface of working edges in unique ways.

The shape alone (or morphology as archaeologists call it) is not used by itself to determine if an artifact is a knife, drill, arrowhead, or whatever.  Features like squares bases, flutes, shape, symmetry, offset points, etc. are used to group artifacts together so they can be called something like "clovis points".  The features are not used to prove what they were used for.  The "use wear" is what is used to prove what they were used for.

[Ahnlaashock]

I now understand why it is a preform.  I now understand why it is impossible to tell if it is a point or a knife.  I now understand why there is no way to even guess who or what.   I even understand that if you take the correction one way, it could be a very thin flat variety, and if you correct the other way, it would be thick enough to flute.  After finding the key to what I was not seeing, everything else tha has been said makes sense, right down to there being no early type knapping. 
I found what I needed to make me understand.  Thank you for assisting me in that! 
I will have to read a few thousand pages I believe. 
I see your point on identification. 

[JackCrafty]

What was it that I said that assisted you?