A Rhode Island Frame

[CMD]

Please excuse this brief revival of what is now an old thread. I like to "complete" things if something new crops up. In this instance, I believe 5 of the weights that came from this site are the type classed as "bow ties" here in southern New England. All have at least one flat side and I believe compare well with the Pa. examples shown at the link. I found two in storage a couple of days ago, and put them together for a group shot. Again, I believe learning about my sites has made them much more meaningful to me.

Some Pa. Tie on atlatl weights....

http://www.pa-artifacts.com/Tbanner05.html

Would I love to find a finely finished drilled bannerstone? Heck yeah! But these are Early Archaic and until recently, that was a fact still waiting to be discovered by me. In instance after instance, these revelations come long after the fact.

[Ron Kelley]

Hey Charlie, Those are some nice tie on weights. What strikes me is that they have more work (pecking) than a net weight has. Also most look to be smaller than net weights. I sure would like to know the weight of the smaller ones. Thanks

[OnewiththewilD]

those are awesome!!! (big sigh)...one more thing im gonna have to train my eye for!   

[CMD]

Ron Kelley wrote:

Hey Charlie, Those are some nice tie on weights. What strikes me is that they have more work (pecking) than a net weight has. Also most look to be smaller than net weights. I sure would like to know the weight of the smaller ones. Thanks

  Ron, here we go.
Top row, left to right: 62 gm. ; 43 gm
Second Row: 45.1 gm; 116.5 gm
Bottom Row: 151.6 gm.

[CMD]

Ron Kelley wrote:

Hey Charlie, Those are some nice tie on weights. What strikes me is that they have more work (pecking) than a net weight has. Also most look to be smaller than net weights. I sure would like to know the weight of the smaller ones. Thanks

  Well, net weights can come in all sizes, including very small. Here is a good example. It weighs 24.5 gms, under an ounce.
From this same site. Have quite a few like this from this site. Again, it's a judgement call as to natural or a notched weight. I usually favor man altered when they have tiny notches on opposite sides like this. Very often the notches are just not that deep, which might make it even more of a questionable call, but I have found small flat slightly notched pebbles like this at so many sites, after awhile it becomes hard to view them all as natural coincidences, or as examples of small flat pebbles that just get nicked naturally in this fashion time and time again.
And the lesson I've learned is to be prepared to find very casual artifacts showing minimal alteration by man. They are more common then one might think. And sometimes you're just never 100% certain, but take them home to ponder. But, over the years I believe, In fact, that I have learned to recognize rocks that have undergone any degree of "messing with " by humans. I honestly feel I've developed an eye for such things after decades of doing this. So, even though it's not always easy, in fact I often tell people "I can tell you if a rock has received even the slightest alteration by a human. It's something that has come from decades of experience studying such casual artifacts. So if it's been messed with even slightly, I usually will recognize it."
A tiny notched pebble, 24.5 gms.

[CMD]

Economy of effort. I think the natives must have taken that approach time and again. In the group shot of possible tie on weights above, the grey shale example in the top row is a good example of the approach in action. Though broke at one end now, it had a somewhat natural "spread of wings" shape. Clearly the native realized this could be notched in a way that created balance on both sides of any notches and with a wing like form. Absolutely no refinement required. Naturally, any artifact hunter would prefer a refined, well fashioned tie on, as shown elsewhere in this thread. But it's important to try and learn to recognize the many casual examples of artifact classes that exist because "economy of effort" was irresistible at times. And you can't be too picky about these artifacts. Collect at least a few examples if they are present at your sites.

[Hi-Lo]

Charlie... 'casual artifacts"... is that an original? I really like that phrase. And, thanks for the reminder to look for such things. If you can spot those you can spot anything.

[CMD]

Hi-Lo wrote:

Charlie... 'casual artifacts"... is that an original? I really like that phrase. And, thanks for the reminder to look for such things. If you can spot those you can spot anything.

  I don't remember, lol. It just refers to artifacts that were rocks picked up and altered quickly, little alteration required to get what was desired. I guess I am using it in contrast to "refined". So casual vs refined is just the difference between taking advantage of a rock that allows for "economy of effort" vs. one that was very well fashioned, shaped, perhaps ground, etc. because certainly Early Archaic tie on weights could be refined tools.
The fact is I can be mistaken as much as the next guy. You have to be cautious when dealing with "casuals" because geofacts can creep in, so to speak. You need to be able to judge when it's just a natural coincidence or "tease", and when it is likely altered by a human being. And these things are a type of artifact that lends itself to creating these casual examples.
They were not thinking of future collectors using these. But that's true of every object they fashioned or used. But I've trained myself to find them, I believe, though it's hardly that difficult, once you assume they should be out there. When I say they were not thinking of future collectors, they could care less if it's recognizable after all. That's up to us. And I will make mistakes, but at risk of thinking too highly of myself, I really don't think that at all, but I think I've just got a lot of experience doing this and feel fairly confident, though sometimes it takes time to decide if I should have collected it, or I was mistaken and should have left it.

[Hoss]

This post is a blast from the past. Charl what do you think of these two. Both from different multi component sites in Western CT both have light basal grinding along base and lateral edges. The larger white quartz one is beveled from resharpening.

This last one is almost Chalcedony like it has that waxy look to it in hand.

[CMD]

Those are killer, Hoss!

[clambellies]

Great artifacts Charlie - Wonderful presentation also!

[waterglass]

Very interesting.

the back ground in the frame really sets off the lithic colors in last picture of your second post.

[-=METACOM=-]

Awesome post, and amazing pictures as usual.

[waterglass]

I am starting to get an eye to appreciate the lithics and points of your area better. Showing the shadow in those pictures really helped me see the point for what it is.

[CMD]

I am starting to get an eye to appreciate the lithics and points of your area better. Showing the shadow in those pictures really helped me see the point for what it is.

Thanks. It really does help showing the silhouette I find. I did that with the Kirk I re-found recently. You can see the serrations far easier. Of course, you can't see any flaking showing the silhouette, but I find it very useful myself to help me see the point "for what it is".