Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: Ahnlaashock on October 21, 2013, 09:23:40 pm
-
I found a point in Washington County Missouri, about a mile off Indian Creek.
It is a little over 3.25 inches long, and 1.5 wide at the widest. It is wider in the middle, and tapers towards the base and the tip. It is not knapped to a center line that you can tell, some of the trenches extend from edge to edge, and the knapping is from whatever angle was needed, with no pattern attempted that can be seen. The base is pretty crude, and if there is grinding done, it is not readily apparent. It seems like the base is still rough on one side, and that may be grinding, but it doesn't appear to be. There is no grinding on the edges seen at all. One edge is straight, and the other has a pretty good curve to it. There is some twist near the base, but the actual base is formed to align with the tip edges.
I have tried to link pictures several times, but all that did was make my entire post go away each time. I will include the photobucket addresses, and I can take more pictures if needed.
The closest matches online seem to be some of the Agate Basin type points. I would appreciate it if anyone could give me more information. I contacted the university, and I supplied information and pictures to the person I was directed to, but have not heard anything back. I tried joining one of the sites dedicated to arrowhead hunting, but they don't seem to want any new members. I have read several hundred pages on the subject online, but that is just confusing the issue even more.
Anyway, thanks in advance for any assistance offered, and here are the photobucket addresses of a picture of each side.
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/lancepoint003.jpg.html
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/lancepoint002.jpg.html
-
Looks like a preform to me and a heck of a lot like a Clovis preform.
-
I live at the head of the valley where the Mastodon historic site is located, near St. Louis Missouri. They have many Clovis type artifacts, and what I have does not even resemble those, but my knowledge is not enough to say more. This one is from about 60 miles from that site, and was scooped from a creek and used as gravel on a farm road, where I found it.
After you said Clovis preform, I examined it again. The base is not in line with the tip either. Is it possible this is a partially formed reject? Rejected because of the curve in the one edge and the twist at the base?
I took pictures of the two edges and the base and will include the addresses here.
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/ed3fbf1b-91c6-4c44-8c6b-93009a70afff.jpg.html
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/03b65a70-f7c9-411f-8aad-25e922273538.jpg.html
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/lancethree008.jpg.html
-
I am no expert. Take it over to http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/forums/10 (http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/forums/10) and see what folks have to say. You could also contact Dr. Juliet Morrow at the Jonesboro station of the Arkansas Archeological Survey for an opinion. Just google Arkansas Archeological Survey and look for the station archeologists. She is at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro and quite the lithics expert, especially paleo points.
-
Thanks for the help!
I tried to join the Arrowheadology site, but that was a bust for a week now, and all that has happened is that my password no longer works to even check if I was accepted or not. Hopefully the site you gave me will be better!
-
You`ll find quite a few people over there on the "planet" who`ll be willing to help you identify your find if possible. I`ve met many of them in person in the past few years & continue to be impressed with the knowledge I`ve found in them for the asking.
You might also try looking at http://www.projectilepoints.net for comparison purposes.
-
I had already been all through that site, and found nothing to really hang an ID on. One of the listed attributes of the Agate Basin in most descriptions is the lack of twist, which this one has at the base for sure.
I made inquiries on the site recommended. The Doctor Morrow recommendation was followed up on, and the email was returned because no such address was found. I got the address off the Doctor's own website.
-
Dalton Knapper, I looked at a bunch of images of Clovis material, and you are correct that it could very well be one of the points identified as Clovis. I considered your words about it being a preform, and looked at it trying to decide if that was the case. The knapping for the shape was completed, and it was sharpened on the edges and tip I believe. Flakes were definitely removed to form the base.
I believe it was completed after examining it again.
Some of the Clovis points are very close, at least what you can tell from the images.
I just spent a couple of hours looking at images, and I keep coming back to the Agate Basin selections. The shape is correct, the material is a dead ringer for many Agate Basin type points. What seem most compelling to me, is the knapping and how it was done. The Agate Basin stuff is the closest I have seen, but I am not even a good beginner, so it could be several of the options found here in Missouri.
-
It looks like an unfinished preform to me. The uneven edges is because of platforms that have been set up and not hit. The best way to tell a type of point and the age is by what kind of base it has. Since the base on this one has not been knotched or fluted it could be the start of anything. Fluted points being quiet old and knotched points starting around 3000BC, with small projectile(arrowhead) points the Woodland period.
-
That's a good point Mullet. Really, without an archeological context or some distinguishing feature, real ID may be pretty limited. I wonder if there are associated artifacts in the area or if it was found in a creek bed or garden with no other diagnostic materials. Since you are so close to the museum, I'd drop by there and ask for contact information for their archeologist. At least they would be familiar with your area. Good luck.
-
The two pros both said they believe it is a preform, but that it could have been used as it is.
That is four for four saying preform.
The base is worked to a sharp edge in the center, and is only thick at the edges and further into the piece.
The only thing the pros said was that the work is early type.
Oddly, under 10X magnification, the small flat area on the point appears to be deliberate. There is an obviously worked trench forming it on one side, and it is still pretty sharp. It looks to date from about the same time as the rest of the work. Did any group use a small chisel tip instead of a pointy tip?
The one side has three wide trenches that run from low on the right hand edge, at about a 45 degree angle, all the way to the other edge, higher on that side. Then three more trenches were done lower on the left hand side, and terminate into the first of the right hand trenches. Those six lines form at least 80 percent of that side, and the only other work on that side is at the tip and the base, which is sharp edged in the middle, but thick at each side. I was hoping that knapping pattern would help identify the source. The work on the other side is very much like the drawings of the knapping on some Clovis types, and does not run across the piece from edge to edge like it does on the other side. Under magnification, there are what appear to be the remains of central percussion platforms on each side. One of the shorter left edge trenches was obviously done by percussion, and took several attempts to finish. The rest are pretty smooth.
I will get back in the creek and see if I can find more evidence of any kind. The site is near the confluence of a creek and Indian Creek, and I was out there Sunday with three women. They did not want to get in the creek because of the stick tights and burrs this time of year. While we were walking, I picked up a piece of very fine grained chert of a silvery gray color that looks to be as fine a knapping material as I have ever seen, short of obsidian. One of the women with me is Anishinaabe, and she was impressed enough that she took it home with her.
There is the confluence of two streams, abundant woodlands game, and material to make points, altho this point is not made of that material. I believe the rest of the question lies in whether or not I do the work to find more, and if my old eyes can spot the things that are there.
My wife says she thinks I am OCD! I spent several hours watching video's of creek finds in place, just to try and get my eyes to begin to pick up what they are looking for! The one pro says if I find anything else to contact her again. The creek is short enough that I may actually be able to find the source of the nice chert, and hopefully some bigger pieces of it.
I am a lapidary. I can go to my workshop and produce stunning very sharp points if I choose, but I know very little about the actual practice of knapping beyond some small instruction at gem and mineral shows. I know very little at all about knapping using primitive methods. What little I have done was done using a heavy stick that had a metal point, and a protective hand pad. To be able to produce the work on this piece with a hammer stone would be a remarkable talent.
Thank you for all the help! I assume that I will be dragging back in to ask again!
The point was scooped from the creek in a tractor bucket of gravel, and I found it where the gravel was used to repair a wash in a farm road that crosses my property. I am not even sure where the gravel was actually taken from the creek.
Again, thank you for the assistance!
-
The museum does not have an Archeologist now. Just workers that can't tell you anything beyond prepared scripts.
-
Dang. I missed this one.
I don't know if I can add too much to what has already been said... but I can't resist, so hear goes: ;D
Artifacts like this are very difficult to classify even when they are found in context with finished points. There are several reasons for this: (1) This may have been obtained in trade. Bifaces were transported and traded over thousands of miles in permanently unfinished states. They are called "trade blanks". It might not have been meant to fashioned into a point at all... it would loose its trade value! (2) Most ancient preforms are much larger than the intended finished piece. These days, with modern production methods and tools, we are accustomed to seeing preforms that are very close in size to the finished pieces. If this is a preform, we must first determine what "stage" of the process this one comes from. With primitive tools, a lot of mass is lost during the reduction process. If it is a "stage 1" preform (very early shaping), the intended point may only be 15% of the mass of this piece. Or, it may be very close to being finished. If we don't know the stage, we really don't have any idea of the size of the intended piece. (3) The age is always in question with artifacts like this. Rough bifaces were often buried, sometimes relatively deep, causing confusion and uncertainty if age is being determined by depth. Surface finds, like this one are, impossible to date... which makes it almost impossible to classify. (4) There are many unknown uses for bifaces. We still don't know if they were used for games, for example. (5) And, lastly, you will rarely find two or more experts who will agree on the age or identity of rough bifaces when asked separately. That is, if you can find any experts.
Oh yes, there is no such thing as "early" flaking or "late" flaking or whatever.
-
Please do not think I am arguing with you. I don't have the knowledge to do that, and I value your input very much.
I am not sure it was not used exactly as it is. It is not fluted, but the base is worked to thin it to a knife edge in the center for hafting.
The work on the tip is even more confusing, since the flat on the tip appears to be deliberate. Hopefully I can find more artifacts in the creek that will provide more clues.
I suspect you are right about the trade part, because of the stone used. I have a celt that is made from stone from Central America, but was recovered in Ohio.
The no early type is confusing, since two archeologists just told me the work is early type. I will not pretend to know much of anything myself, because I don't. I actually wondered if it was a discard because of the curve in the one edge and the twist in the base that makes it look so thick in the pictures.
I have done very little knapping, but this one appears would require about half the material removed to fix the curve and the twist, if everything went perfect. I am a lapidary, so I am very familiar with working stone, and how much goes to waste. Turing ten carat pieces into 3 carat finished stones is normal to me.
I have looked at a few thousand heads, and own a 1300 piece collection that was left to me. I have dozens of trade blanks, and this is nothing even remotely like them. This piece is fully worked over the entire surface, and I am not sure how they managed the wide even troughs all the way from edge to edge like they did. The obvious percussion marks in the smaller troughs I do not believe could have been made by a hammer stone at all, and would almost have required indirect percussion techniques, and I found absolutely no examples of that on any of the blanks I have examined or seen online.
In the end, it doesn't matter anyway, because I treasure it as it is.
Makes me want to get some of my material out and try to learn to properly knap tools of my own!
Last time I did that, I took a nodule of rainbow obsidian, and just to be safe, i used a leather welding glove. When I struck the piece to try and drive off a workable spaul, it shattered in my hand, and completely destroyed the glove, luckily only cutting me a little bit through it in three places. I figured if I was going to learn, I was going to need someone else as a teacher, and abandoned it for the time. This piece has brought my interest back, and I have been watching videos for two days!
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with me!
-
These are trade blanks.
http://s429.photobucket.com/user/ahnlaashock/media/tradeblanks002.jpg.html
The three at the left are worked on one side and then driven off the core afterwards. I originally said bottom, but I used the wrong picture for that to be correct. Apologies for the brain fart!
If what I found is a trade blank, it is nothing at all like the other trade blanks I have in the collection, or any of the unfinished pieces really. That does not really mean anything, but this explains why I am resistant to saying the one I found is a blank.
Again, discussing, not arguing!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Just in case someone can't see or can't access the pictures, I'm posting screen shots below (hope that's OK, Ahnlaashock).
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
The tip is .386/1.5.
-
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".
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What was it that I said that assisted you? :)
-
You calmly and patiently made me work it out on my own.
What made the difference was a video, but I would not have ever watched it, if not for this conversation.
I was not looking from the correct perspective, and you forced me to look from yours, which is what such discussions are for!
-
Nice point, I have one just llike it I dug up in Jefferson counth where they put Northwest High School at
.
-
There is no doubt that this entire area has had people living in it for a very long time.
I dropped into the creek that point came out of the day before deer season, and I worked my way up the creek, looking for large pieces of workable stone. I was picking up the likely looking pieces and knocking a couple of flakes off to see what it was.
It rapidly became clear, that most such pieces had already been picked up and had had a couple of flakes knocked off to see what they were. Some of the scars were old enough to be forming patina over the scars again. Some were old enough that the patina on the scars appeared the same as the other cortex.
I believe I have found the material they were looking for, but it will have to wait until I get time to go again, since I figured the hunters would not react well to someone playing in the creek, and hitting rocks together!
The area you mention is just about the same distance from the river as the area I found mine in is, and pretty much every such large drainage here has had people living in it for a very long time!