Tweet
If quality flint/chert blades/scrapers were common in eastern mass, I wouldn't take the time to examine items like this, and the CRM survey wouldn't have granite debitage listed. Crude material up here
-
Location - Eastern Massachu -
awassamog, I've been hunting in RI and Ma for some 60 years. Certainly does not mean I have all the answers, or am never wrong when I think I do have the answers, but I have to offer my opinion that none of those rocks appear to be artifacts at all. I would not call them geofacts either, since geofacts are natural rocks that can resemble artifacts, and, IMO, those do not resemble artifacts.Rhode IslandComment
-
Yes, our region is not blessed with high grade knappable material. The expanded and revised edition of Boudreau's typology has a section on the lithic materials encountered here. Many varieties of rhyolite, for example. Hornfels, which is actually very knappable, the reason the Jack's Reef folks for instance, who seem to have insisted on the best lithic, preferred hornfels second only to jasper. Perhaps the two poorest lithic found in our region is argillite, which in our region is actually a form of argillaceous slate, and quartz, our most common lithic. We also encounter Lockatong Argillite, imported from NJ and Pa, which is actually argillaceous shale. It is probably unfortunate that the CRM survey listed granite debitage, because, I can assure you, they were not actually knapping granite to make the same kind of tools, like points, scrapers, drills, knives, etc., as were made with the knappable lithics that are present in our region. Agricultural tools were often made of sandstone, things like hoes and spades. I have seen those made of sandstone that was indeed chipped to get the desired form. But, I'm sorry, the hardstone pieces you show, which may be granitic, and not granite itself per se, are not crude tools.Originally posted by awassamog View Post
So yes, we are not blessed with the best lithics, although Limerock, RI jasper is a beautiful and quality lithic, and many of our rhyolites are not bad lithics at all, really. The two lithics that were least desirable where quality is concerned would have to be argillite and quartz. Quartzite was not the best lithic by any means, either. Of course all three of these lithics were used in other regions of the country as well. I cannot explain the CRM report, but if it is causing my fellow New England collectors to confuse granitic rocks with actual knapped artifacts, that is unfortunate, IMHO.....
Someday, maybe bring some of those rocks to one of our New England chapter of the American Society of Amateur Archaeology meetings(ASAA), and you will get the same feedback and opinions from many Massachusetts collectors. You can then also show them to Dr. Mike Gramly. Meetings are held at the science museum in Norwell, Ma. Next meeting is this Jan. 27th.Last edited by CMD; 01-02-2018, 09:17 AM.Rhode IslandComment
-
The Massachusetts Archaeological Society's Robbins Museum, in Middleboro, Ma., has a display case of some of the more common tool stones used in southern New England. These are not the best photos, but perhaps better then nothing. The best guide would be the late Jeff Boudreau's revised typology, as it has a good photo section showing the most common regional and exotic lithics encountered in southern New England area collections....
Rhode IslandComment
-
I think the report attests to the reality of raw materials and toolmaking here, that even though good ryolite (or better) is present, granite debitage was found and noted.
I do suspect that the granite items in the "flake" column are much
less like thinning flakes and more that the counters determined them to not be "shatter", and chose not to have a 3rd column better describing the "not shatter" items. I find it all I interesting
Limerock? Exciting to know about that discovery, I'm not far from there. I've read a few papers discussing/describing the jasper. What I don't recall is any evidence of prehistoric quarrying, reduction, debitage, and that the jasper was exposed on the surface in prehistory...
Location - Eastern MassachuComment
-
By the way, ive been wrong before, many times, i think I took the wrong road less traveled in my life!Location - Eastern MassachuComment
-
CMD Thanks for mentioning the ASAA meetings. I'd like to join, when I tried a few years ago they weren't taking new members. If I could attend the next meeting I'd be thrilled.
I've viewed the exhibits at MAS with awe, I'm a member.Location - Eastern MassachuComment
-
Here is the 1999 article that describes the discovery of prehistoric workings of Limerock jasper. Visually, it is indistinguishable from the same color jasper from Pa. Chemical analysis studies have suggested Pa. jasper predominates here, but, obviously Limerock jasper was sourced by the prehistoric peoples here:Originally posted by awassamog View Post
Rhode IslandComment
-
I'll post a meting notice here on the site as we get closer. The Jan. meeting is a makeup, as an ice storm cancelled the December meeting. Not hard to join. $25/year, and guests are always welcome as well, membership not required.....Originally posted by awassamog View Post
Rhode IslandComment
-
I can only speak for the situation in southern New England. That said, here the natives preferred specific toolstones for specific classes of artifacts. Although it would be rare to find a basalt point in New England, basalt can be knapped to some degree, and so points are found fashioned from it elsewhere in the country. Here, for the gouge/adze class of artifacts, basalt was one of the preferred toolstones, pecked and ground into shape. Of course, gouges and adzes were fashioned from other hardstone as well, and even argillite, hardly a hardstone, was not an uncommon lithic for such tools. Most axes were also pecked and ground into shape from the large varieties of hardstone toolstones found in this region.
Agricultural tools, such as spades and hoes, and food processing tools, such as pestles, were very often fashioned from sandstone. Along the shoreline margins of Narragansett Bay, pebbles and cobbles of Rhode Island Formation sandstone is the most common rock type encountered, so there was not likely a need to actually quarry sandstone for tools. I have a few agricultural tools, all from one site, fashioned from that sedimentary rock. Not truly knappable, the sandstone could nonetheless be chipped into shape. So unpredictable as to breakage, failure must have been not uncommon. But here is an example of a likely spade fashioned from sandstone. There has been chipping accomplished on the edges and to fashion the bit. These can actually be more easily overlooked or unrecognized by surface hunters who are simply not accustomed to looking for such tools. Sandstone plummets and pestles are simply more easily recognizable. But, just to show a tool that was somewhat chipped into the form seen here from a rock that would not under any other circumstances be selected as a knappable toolstone.
Don't mind me, I must be in writing mode this morning, lol...
Rhode IslandComment
-
Interesting, I would have guessed that to be rhyolite/felsiteLocation - Eastern MassachuComment
-
I would venture to guess that granite debitage is rarely encountered at sites here, and was rarely used aside from hammerstones, grinding stones. I become intrigued when I see things like this CRM report/quantification. I wonder why, what was the tool maker trying to do. I'm less curious now as we've kicked it around a bit this morning. Maybe the waste represented nothing more than a hammerstone breaking down. Seeing what they describe as flakes and shatter would be interesting to me. Cheers!Last edited by awassamog; 01-02-2018, 11:50 AM.Location - Eastern MassachuComment
-
Greg, I value all the comments, im here to read, learn, and interact. If you've reached a conclusion on the granite "flakes and shatter" reported on the CRM chart, lets hear it...I'd be amazed you could , I can only speculate as I've shared.
This shouldn't be a touchy subject.
Last edited by awassamog; 01-02-2018, 04:25 PM.Location - Eastern MassachuComment
-
You can guess, assume or state those pieces of granite you have are artifacts but the study and science of artifacts by professionals along with the accumulated years of collecting by folks like us and throw in the knappers and geologist that know granite doesn't work like that and you know there is no basis for that thought. For all we know those pieces of granite were deposited just like that by glaciers. It's all speculation.
You keep falling back to the CRM report as your argument then try to paint me into a corner. I'd be more amazed you could . Just trying to keep it real and not turn common rocks into artifacts so future collectors can learn the truth.Searching the fields of NW Indiana and SW MichiganComment
-
Wow! What a shame. Sorry you feel this way. You should not take something like this personally, and as to the experience/wisdom in this community, i never had reason to doubt or think of it. But I can tell you this, i dont think the wise owls & elders here need you to protect thier honor against me. Run along and find another threat, you've got the wrong guy.
Location - Eastern MassachuComment
Comment