Mass. quartz quarry blank

[clambellies]

Here's a slab of nice quartz that was found in Uxbridge, Mass.  It was found alongside the Blackstone river, at the base of a hill.  On the opposite side of that hill is a high outcrop of quartz that the NA's had mined and worked.  Back in the late 60's (maybe 1970's) a Mr. Raymond Lemire had a dig study published in a Mass. Arch. Society Bulletin. He found cached quarry tools, blanks, and all the typical debitage you'd expect to find at a quarry site.
Since my piece was found by the river, it makes me wonder if it was dropped as it was being carried to a canoe.  The Blackstone river would allow a NA to travel north to the headwaters in Worcester, Mass or all the way south to Narragansett Bay in RI.  Not to mention up the main tributaries that dump into the Blackstone.  I wonder where it was headed?

[Hoss]

It looks flat in that side view. Is it bifacially flaked to a center line?

[clambellies]

It is basically flat, 3 sides are fractured, like with a big hammer stone, but not really any fine bifacial flaking.  The bottom side in the first photo has a little more of bifacial flaking, but nothing too fine.  It's certainly too rough at this point to be considered a pre-form.

[Hoss]

All of my blanks are finished by percussion.  None are squared off like that one. I do not doubt they would have carried that to camp to make something but being away from the quarry and closer to the river it may have just come from upstream.  I do not understand what you are suggesting. " It's certainly too rough at this point to be considered a pre-form."

[clambellies]

The spot where I found it wasn't a campsite, it did come from a plowed field, but no other artifacts have been found there (at least by anyone I knew).  Since it was found 1/4 mile on the other side of a hill that had a major quartz quarry I think it was headed away from that area and not towards it.
What I meant by "It's certainly too rough at this point to be considered a pre-form", I meant that it has not been reduced to the point of being considered anywhere close to a cache-blade.

[OnewiththewilD]

hey clambelly, i read them old mass. bulletins all the time, just curious, whats the name of that particular report?

[CMD]

OnewiththewilD wrote:

hey clambelly, i read them old mass. bulletins all the time, just curious, whats the name of that particular report?

  This is the only article by Lemire, and it was in the Worcester area. Jay, you can search the bulletins by author......

http://library.bridgew.edu/exhibits/BMAS/pdf/MAS-v36n0304.pdf

[clambellies]

I just went looking for the bulletin with Lemire's article and all I found was the one Charlie posted.  Now I wonder if I read it somewhere other than a Mass Arch Soc Bulletin.  I remember it as having Fowler's nice pencil drawings of artifacts.  Besides the quarry debitage, Lemire found a cache of quarry tools -and- blanks stuffed into a natural crevasse in the glacial granite there.  The site is still visible, now with a house just below it.  My brother lives three house down from it.  I'm going to have to go search through my man cave and see if I can't locate the article.

[CMD]

clambellies wrote:

I just went looking for the bulletin with Lemire's article and all I found was the one Charlie posted.  Now I wonder if I read it somewhere other than a Mass Arch Soc Bulletin.  I remember it as having Fowler's nice pencil drawings of artifacts.  Besides the quarry debitage, Lemire found a cache of quarry tools -and- blanks stuffed into a natural crevasse in the glacial granite there.  The site is still visible, now with a house just below it.  My brother lives three house down from it.  I'm going to have to go search through my man cave and see if I can't locate the article.

  Sorry, just figured it was the quarry in question, because south of Worcester would be near the headwaters of the Blackstone. Time period also seemed right. Figured you might have mistaken the quartzite quarry he describes with quartz.
Here is what I used, and I searched by author:

http://library.bridgew.edu/exhibits/BMAS/browse.html

[clambellies]

Ok, everyone, I solved the mystery and it's my mistake.  I searched the internet with no results and went through my old Mass Arch Soc Bulletins one by one, page by page and found what I thought had been reported by Raymond Lemire to have been reported by John Dauray.  It's tucked away in an article by William Fowler and is a preliminary report by Dauray, so that's why it didn't show up in any searches.  It's in the Apr-July 1972, vol 33 Bulletin, titled "Some Aboriginal Stone Works In New England", on page 23.
I guess for a long time in my mind I associated this with Raymond Lemire, as I had used the previous studies by Lemire to check out the places he wrote about, and thought this was one of them.
It's worth checking out the Bulletin if you have it or find it online.  Besides the quarrying tools found on the site, there were end picks and tools associated with making steatite bowls, and there are 3 know steatite quarries within 5 miles.  Also interesting (to me anyways) is that on page 25 are some of Fowlers drawings of artifacts found, and artifact #4 is a prepared blank which is about the same size and shape of the quartz piece I found. 
Sorry for my previous wild goose chase.

[CMD]

The issue in question.....

http://library.bridgew.edu/exhibits/BMAS/pdf/MAS-v33n0304.pdf

[Hoss]

I really cannot see how they call some of those blanks. To me a blank has always been a crude preform of sorts. I guess it was my up bringing because that is what my Dad referred to them as. " Blanks" he never used preform.

[painshill]

Hoss wrote:

I really cannot see how they call some of those blanks. To me a blank has always been a crude preform of sorts. I guess it was my up bringing because that is what my Dad referred to them as. " Blanks" he never used preform.

  Strictly speaking (at least for North America) the archaeological convention is that a “quarry blank” is an early stage bifacial piece which has (generally large) percussion flakes removed, but no pressure flaking or other secondary working. It’s usually oversized and represents a rough-out for a series of potentially possible tools. Further removal of flakes to thin and shape it converts it into a late stage biface (sometimes just called a “bifacial blank”). When it has additional working to the extent that only one tool type can be made from it, then it’s known as a “preform”. In some cases, it’s possible to say what kind of point was going to be made from a preform.
We don’t have quite the same clarity(?) of distinction over here in Europe for a couple of reasons. What you guys might perceive as early or late stage bifaces have frequently already seen use as functional tools and exhibit use-wear which proves it. We also have a much narrower set of possibilities for finished bifaces and a limited diversity of point types such that there may be no clear boundary for when a blank becomes a preform and the terms are used much more interchangeably.