Let's Figure This One Out

[G10+]

Wow I get goose bumps just thinking about digging in a productive spot , Good luck

[-=METACOM=-]

Nice chunk of material whatever it is.

[waterglass]

Just a guess, and a knapper would know better, but it looks to me like they got about everything they could out of it, then tried to make a new length wise spalling surface on the ruffed up end but got not joy for their efforts because of the rind. I find cores like that from time to time. It looks like they could have gotten several more useful bits out, but for some reason discarded the core. I think they probably intuitively knew enough about the nature of rock, and how it would fracture, to just toss something that wasn't worth the effort.

It could be that the stone had been fire treated, and the patina differences are caused by that.

[OBION]

Thanks for the replies guys. Many of you were right on track according to archeologist Bill Lawrence (he has done extensive Native American work in my area). He said the material is Fort Payne from about 60 miles east of the site in which I found it. He says the patina difference is creek stain; speculating it was originally a natural spall in a creek, then knapping strikes resulted in some of the fort payne surface not having creek stain. He did say it was very rare in our area to find such a large piece of material because who wants to carry all that weight ; most material would have been reduced to performs before transport. Mr Lawrence said at quarry sites in middle Tn these pieces are common. If he found this at quarry he would have concluded they didn't like how it was working (waterglass, he agrees it would be a tough piece).

Mr Lawrence concluded by saying pieces such as this prove travel and probably trade. Just wonder what was swapped for this? Wonder if they said "I don't want that, where are your preforms?" As Sailorjoe said, fun to speculate