Solutrean style point

[Havenhunter]

Trimbles Tavern Antiques is about a 30 min. drive from my house. They had points 8 -and- 9. Maybe I'll drive up there after the holidays and chat them up.

[pkfrey]

Rodger, Where did you see information that there is evidence of rhyolite quarrying at theSouth Mtn. rhyolite quarry 13,000 years ago? There isn't any evidence of any Paleo Indians using that quarry. If they did, it would stand to reason that many more rhyolite fluted points would be found in the area. There are only two reported fluted points for all of Pa. made from rhyolite. One is broken and in a collection in Gettysburg. Both were found along Rock Creek near the Maryland border. I was involved with the Harrisburg museums excavations to determine how deep the Indians dug to obtain the best quality stone. All the test pits and excavations done on the three major quarrying sites showed the first extensive use of the rhyolite was during the Archaic, ca. 6000 B.C. The earliest carbon dates came in at 4200 B.C. from charcoal found at a depth of approx.4 ft from a shallow rock shelter. This is attributed to the early Transitional Period. The quarry was used extensively during the Transitional period, then during the Early Woodland. Most of the large knife like preforms that people find there are Foxcreek preforms. Just wondered who did any research and found evidence of Paleo indian use at the quarry site.

[CMD]

Paul, from p. 101, Across Atlantic Ice:
"X-ray studies indicated that the knife is made from a banded meta-rhyolite from South Mountain on the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Emmitsburg. The rhyolite used for this knife was only of fair flaking quality, leaving little question that the artifact was made by a highly skilled knapper. A much finer, better knapping grade of banded rhyolite was quarried at another locality, perhaps by the flintknapper who left waste flakes at the Thunderbird Clovis site near Front Royal, Virginia. This might dictate that the flintknapper who produced the Cinmar biface was unaware of the better quality stone that could be quarried elsewhere and that early Mid-Atlantic people had not yet thoroughly investigated the source area"
-------------------------------------------
Of course, by Stanford and Bradley reckoning, this is 20.000+ years ago when South Mt. was sourced for the Cinmar rhyolite, and not 13,000 years ago.....
A search for the source area of the Cinmar blade rhyolite was led by Jeff Speakman of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

[Havenhunter]

This Friday I'm meeting with David Sweet who has "Solutrean" points 8 -and- 9, plus some Quartz Clovis. They are part of the private collection once on display at Gwynn's Island and that were examined by Dennis Stanford. Will take some pix if ya'll are interested.

[painshill]

pkfrey wrote:

Rodger, Where did you see information that there is evidence of rhyolite quarrying at theSouth Mtn. rhyolite quarry 13,000 years ago? There isn't any evidence of any Paleo Indians using that quarry. If they did, it would stand to reason that many more rhyolite fluted points would be found in the area. There are only two reported fluted points for all of Pa. made from rhyolite. One is broken and in a collection in Gettysburg. Both were found along Rock Creek near the Maryland border. I was involved with the Harrisburg museums excavations to determine how deep the Indians dug to obtain the best quality stone. All the test pits and excavations done on the three major quarrying sites showed the first extensive use of the rhyolite was during the Archaic, ca. 6000 B.C. The earliest carbon dates came in at 4200 B.C. from charcoal found at a depth of approx.4 ft from a shallow rock shelter. This is attributed to the early Transitional Period. The quarry was used extensively during the Transitional period, then during the Early Woodland. Most of the large knife like preforms that people find there are Foxcreek preforms. Just wondered who did any research and found evidence of Paleo indian use at the quarry site.

  Hi Paul.
It came from information supplied by the Smithsonian NMNH for the “geocache” entry relating to the quarrying site. The relevant sections of the entry read:
The CINMAR blade is made of stone from the Catocin Formation, of a type known as metarhyolite. A rhyolite is an extrusive volcanic rock with a high content of silica. This Catoctin metarhyolite erupted as rhyolite during the rifting of North America and formation of the Iapetus Ocean that took place about 565 million years ago. Between 320 – 290 million years ago, the Iapetus Ocean closed as the continents reassembled to form Pangea, this tectonic activity metamorphosed the rhyolite as the present day Appalachian Mountains were folded and thrust upward. Subsequent erosion reduced the Appalachians and exposed the resulting metarhyolite of the Catoctin Formation.
Prehistoric North American stone-based cultures found this metarhyolite suitable for fabricating tools. An extensive, long-lasting industry of mining and fabrication using metarhyolite is known to have existed from about 13,000 to 500 years ago. Recent discoveries, including the dredged CINMAR blade, suggest that the mining and fabrication of tools from this metarhyolite may have taken place over a much greater time than previously thought.
For those who don’t know about “geocaching”… it’s an outdoor recreational activity in which participants use a GPS device and other navigational clues to reach a location where there is something hidden that they must find. It started out as a kind of treasure hunt, but has also extended into a fun educational way of discovering things about geology, archaeology, history, heritage etc by visiting historically associated places (all over the world). Typically, the hidden “cache” is something such as a waterproof box that contains a logbook -and- pencil or ink-stamp that enables you to prove you found the site. More recent caches may have a website address where you record that you successfully reached the right location. At some sites the cache box contains small trinkets which you may take away, providing you leave something of equal value in their place.
Geocaching is prohibited by law in the US “in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property”. In this case, the cache is in the Michaux State Forest, but was approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

[CMD]

"Geocaching is prohibited by law in the US “in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property”. In this case, the cache is in the Michaux State Forest, but was approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources."
Interesting. I sincerely wish they did not have one here:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCK4VN_queens-fort-1?guid=355134a9-fb80-4af2-97be-5603ef603231

[pkfrey]

OK, my interest was, if some new research located a paleo component workshop at South Mountain, I would like to know more about it. I've been doing a lot of work at South Mtn, particularly at the Carbaugh Run quarry site, and if a Paleo workshop has been found, then I would look closer for Paleo preforms, or even finished tools. So basically, a geocache was stashed somewhere at Michaux State park to be found by some lucky searcher with a GPS. I'm not sure what this has to do with stating the Cinmar blade was made from material from a South Mtn. rhyolite quarry. Rhyolite quarries are so extensive, and can be found from Pa. down through Md., and well into Va. and the Carolinas. The Catocin Formation will be found exposed in many of these quarry sites, so I don't know how a single blade can be traced back and pinpointed to have come from a very restricted area like South Mtn., when the rhyolite used could have come from any one of the hundreds of quarries from several different states. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[chase]

pkfrey wrote:

OK, my interest was, if some new research located a paleo component workshop at South Mountain, I would like to know more about it. I've been doing a lot of work at South Mtn, particularly at the Carbaugh Run quarry site, and if a Paleo workshop has been found, then I would look closer for Paleo preforms, or even finished tools. So basically, a geocache was stashed somewhere at Michaux State park to be found by some lucky searcher with a GPS. I'm not sure what this has to do with stating the Cinmar blade was made from material from a South Mtn. rhyolite quarry. Rhyolite quarries are so extensive, and can be found from Pa. down through Md., and well into Va. and the Carolinas. The Catocin Formation will be found exposed in many of these quarry sites, so I don't know how a single blade can be traced back and pinpointed to have come from a very restricted area like South Mtn., when the rhyolite used could have come from any one of the hundreds of quarries from several different states. Maybe I'm missing something here.

I am not sure for that formation, but out in the west the matrix of the deposit is unique to each source and can even change in the same formation. Most material can be traced back to the same compounds from the source. Think of it like a finger print.

[painshill]

pkfrey wrote:

OK, my interest was, if some new research located a paleo component workshop at South Mountain, I would like to know more about it. I've been doing a lot of work at South Mtn, particularly at the Carbaugh Run quarry site, and if a Paleo workshop has been found, then I would look closer for Paleo preforms, or even finished tools. So basically, a geocache was stashed somewhere at Michaux State park to be found by some lucky searcher with a GPS. I'm not sure what this has to do with stating the Cinmar blade was made from material from a South Mtn. rhyolite quarry. Rhyolite quarries are so extensive, and can be found from Pa. down through Md., and well into Va. and the Carolinas. The Catocin Formation will be found exposed in many of these quarry sites, so I don't know how a single blade can be traced back and pinpointed to have come from a very restricted area like South Mtn., when the rhyolite used could have come from any one of the hundreds of quarries from several different states. Maybe I'm missing something here.

  Yes... I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. It just so happens that the site was regarded as interesting enough that it now has a "geocache" to be found by anyone who likes doign that kind of stuff.
All such sites have some associated reference information on a website for those who are using geocaching as an educational tool rather than just as a game. In this case, with the assistance of the Pennsylvania DCNR, the reference information was provided by the Smithsonian.
As such, the information details the geologic and prehistoric points of interest related to the metarhyolite found in this area... and that in turn links to the Cinmar blade, because it was Stanford who initiated the analytical work ia the Smithsonian to establish the origin of its material. It was traced with 90% probability to the South Mountain outcrops. It will take me a short moment to dig that report out, since I have it stored on an external disk... but the mineralogy is pretty distinct.

[pkfrey]

That's true, but let's look at this briefly from a common sense, logical approach. Let's assume the Cinmar blade IS Solutrean, and the rhyolite IS from South Mtn. Wouldn't you think that now since the Solutreans found an extensive quarry of very suitable material, they would have continued using this lithic source? And make more blades and tools while they lived along the coastal areas? Where are all the Solutrean culture campsites with additional blades and tools made from this same material?  And again, using just a little logic, if the Solutreans preceded Clovis, then wouldn't you think at some point in time, the Clovis people would have also used the rhyolite quarries? The Clovis people no doubt knew the rhyolite quarries existed, because there are sites less than a mile away from the quarries, where Clovis points are found, but made from other lithic materials. The rhyolite was simply not of the quality Clovis people were looking for. They ignored all the ridges full of rhyolite, and travelled over 50 miles from those quarries to obtain better material.  But, at least one Solutrean flintknapper walked for three days from Va. to Pa., picked up one piece of rhyolite, made a blade, then walked for three more days back to Va. and lost the blade. And we know this because someone traced the rhyolite back to a source from Pa.!!

[painshill]

pkfrey wrote:

That's true, but let's look at this briefly from a common sense, logical approach. Let's assume the Cinmar blade IS Solutrean, and the rhyolite IS from South Mtn. Wouldn't you think that now since the Solutreans found an extensive quarry of very suitable material, they would have continued using this lithic source? And make more blades and tools while they lived along the coastal areas? Where are all the Solutrean culture campsites with additional blades and tools made from this same material?  And again, using just a little logic, if the Solutreans preceded Clovis, then wouldn't you think at some point in time, the Clovis people would have also used the rhyolite quarries? The Clovis people no doubt knew the rhyolite quarries existed, because there are sites less than a mile away from the quarries, where Clovis points are found, but made from other lithic materials. The rhyolite was simply not of the quality Clovis people were looking for. They ignored all the ridges full of rhyolite, and travelled over 50 miles from those quarries to obtain better material.  But, at least one Solutrean flintknapper walked for three days from Va. to Pa., picked up one piece of rhyolite, made a blade, then walked for three more days back to Va. and lost the blade. And we know this because someone traced the rhyolite back to a source from Pa.!!

  Here we're in agreement! personally, I think the case for the Cinmar blade being of Solutrean origin (in terms of who made it, rather than what it is made from) is a long way from proven... for the very reasons you point out. In fact, I would go further and say that the material is in fact rather inferior and difficult to work with.. never mind excercise the precise control required for outre passe flaking as an intentional thinning technique. Stanford and Bradley say as much in their assessment of the blade... referring to it as a testament to the skill of the knapper or some other similar words.
The origin of the material is nevertheless not in doubt... bear with me for a few moments while I just edit what I have to the essential details.........

[painshill]

[QUOTE]painshill wrote:

That's true, but let's look at this briefly from a common sense, logical approach. Let's assume the Cinmar blade IS Solutrean, and the rhyolite IS from South Mtn. Wouldn't you think that now since the Solutreans found an extensive quarry of very suitable material, they would have continued using this lithic source? And make more blades and tools while they lived along the coastal areas? Where are all the Solutrean culture campsites with additional blades and tools made from this same material?  And again, using just a little logic, if the Solutreans preceded Clovis, then wouldn't you think at some point in time, the Clovis people would have also used the rhyolite quarries? The Clovis people no doubt knew the rhyolite quarries existed, because there are sites less than a mile away from the quarries, where Clovis points are found, but made from other lithic materials. The rhyolite was simply not of the quality Clovis people were looking for. They ignored all the ridges full of rhyolite, and travelled over 50 miles from those quarries to obtain better material.  But, at least one Solutrean flintknapper walked for three days from Va. to Pa., picked up one piece of rhyolite, made a blade, then walked for three more days back to Va. and lost the blade. And we know this because someone traced the rhyolite back to a source from Pa.!!

  Here we're in agreement! personally, I think the case for the Cinmar blade being of Solutrean origin (in terms of who made it, rather than what it is made from) is a long way from proven... for the very reasons you point out. In fact, I would go further and say that the material is in fact rather inferior and difficult to work with.. never mind excercise the precise control required for outre passe flaking as an intentional thinning technique. Stanford and Bradley say as much in their assessment of the blade... referring to it as a testament to the skill of the knapper or some other similar words.
The origin of the material is nevertheless not in doubt... bear with me for a few moments while I just edit what I have to the essential details.........
OK… this is from:
New Evidence for a Possible Paleolithic Occupation of the Eastern North American Continental Shelf at the Last Glacial Maximum (Dennis Stanford, Darrin Lowery, Margaret Jodry, Bruce A. Bradley, Marvin Kay, Thomas W. Stafford and Robert J. Speakman)
Identification of the Source of the Rhyolite Used to Make the Cinmar Biface (extract)
Volcanic rocks, such as obsidian and rhyolite can be linked to their geologic source with a high degree of reliability by using analytical techniques such as instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and inductively coupled plasma mass-spectrometry (ICP-MS). These volcanic rocks typically occur in spatially discrete and relatively localized contexts. Such sources are typically chemically homogeneous, and individual sources have unique chemical characteristics.
With sufficient field and laboratory work, the spatial extent of a specific geochemical type of volcanic rock, including primary and secondary deposits, can be established such that a source area can be defined (Speakman et al. 2007; Glascock et al. 1998).
As a starting point for the geochemical source study, more than 350 vouchered rhyolite specimens from eastern US localities ranging from Maine to North Carolina (e.g., rhyolite, metarhyolite, and felsite) housed in the Rock and Ore Collection of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, Department of Mineral Sciences, were visually examined. More than 30 samples exhibiting banding, as well as a few random samples, were analyzed by XRF and compared to data from the Cinmar biface. When compared to other geologic samples from the Eastern US, the Cinmar biface is chemically and visually distinct because of its high (> 800 ppm) Zirconium (Zr) content and its unique banding and color.
Of the eastern US rhyolite samples examined in the National Museum of Natural History’s mineral collection, only one was identified as a likely match: a sample of banded metarhyolite (NMNH 60892) from the Catoctin formation of South Mountain, Pennsylvania. The specific provenance of the sample is listed as “Maria Furnace Road, 1 mile from Tom’s Creek Railroad Trestle.” The sample presumably was collected by Smithsonian archaeologist W.H. Holmes who visited and described the quarry in 1893–94 (Holmes 1897). Maria Furnace is ca. 10 miles southwest of Gettysburg on Toms Creek, which is a branch of the Monocacy River. Following the identification of the probable source as South Mountain, the authors visited the Maria Furnace locale and collected additional rhyolite samples for XRF analysis.
Metarhyolite from South Mountain is widely recognized as a major lithic source used for production of prehistoric stone tools throughout the US Middle Atlantic Region (Stewart 1984, 1987) and an unpublished INAA study (Bonder 2001) has demonstrated that metarhyolites from South Mountain are chemically discrete from other sources in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Both visual examination and chemical analysis confirm that the material used to manufacture the Cinmar biface originated from the South Mountain Catoctin formation. Examination of the XRF spectra (Fig. 5.5) and the plots of the data (Fig. 5.6) demonstrate that rhyolite from outcrops near Maria Furnace are most similar chemically to the Cinmar biface. The authors caution, however, against stating that the stone used to produce the Cinmar biface originated from the vicinity of Maria Furnace given that numerous Catoctin formation metarhyolite outcrops occur throughout the South Mountain area of the Pennsylvania Blue Ridge.

[chase]

I had spoke to Dr. Frison earlier this year. I had the opportunity to speak about the mahffay Clovis cache from Boulder Colorado. One of the questions I asked was how is it possible that we have two lithic sources and no artifacts found from them areas. I did get the answer" I don't know. We have just have not found it." I had said we know they were up there. So when you find the smoking gun. then give credence that what we know and theory may have the missing piece.  Just because we cant ,like Clovisoid said we cant connect the dots, sooner than later we will figure out this mystery. My thought is we will find they came from all directions. and technology was universal and shared.

[pkfrey]

If you read that carefully, they are CONTRADICTING their own analysis! In one sentence they state, " the visual and chemical analysis CONFIRMS the material originated near the Maria furnace", then they go on to say, " the material is MOST similar chemically, implying not EXACTLY the same, and the author, however,  CAUTIONS against stating the stone used to make the Cinmar biface originated from the vicinity of Maria Furnace, given the fact the same stone outcrops throughout the South mountain area! Dr. Robert Smith used the same techniques that you mentioned on a cache of rhyolite blanks called the Wasicki Cache, from indiana Co. These were also confirmed to originate from the South Mtn. quarries. In the graph you posted with all the chemicals listed, there wasn't the trace element, Titania, TiO2, that WAS found in the Wasicki cache. would say we finally nailed it!!
And there you have it! Rodger and I have figured it out. The rhyolite used in the Cinmar blade, originated in the vicinity of ONE of the South Mountain rhyolite quarries, and it's not Solutrean related. It's probably a large Adena related bifacial knife from the early Woodland period!

[chase]

pkfrey wrote:

If you read that carefully, they are CONTRADICTING their own analysis! In one sentence they state, " the visual and chemical analysis CONFIRMS the material originated near the Maria furnace", then they go on to say, " the material is MOST similar chemically, implying not EXACTLY the same, and the author, however,  CAUTIONS against stating the stone used to make the Cinmar biface originated from the vicinity of Maria Furnace, given the fact the same stone outcrops throughout the South mountain area! Dr. Robert Smith used the same techniques that you mentioned on a cache of rhyolite blanks called the Wasicki Cache, from indiana Co. These were also confirmed to originate from the South Mtn. quarries. In the graph you posted with all the chemicals listed, there wasn't the trace element, Titania, TiO2, that WAS found in the Wasicki cache. would say we finally nailed it!!
And there you have it! Rodger and I have figured it out. The rhyolite used in the Cinmar blade, originated in the vicinity of ONE of the South Mountain rhyolite quarries, and it's not Solutrean related. It's probably a large Adena related bifacial knife from the early Woodland period!

The big problem is where the Cinamar was found. Twenty miles from shore. which would indicate that sea levels were lower. So Woodland,  Adena would be  a stretch and Solutrean would be more probable. We can guess and fit what makes sense but its only a guess.