Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clovis-like

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clovis-like

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_28648.jpg
Views:	286
Size:	159.5 KB
ID:	253262Click image for larger version

Name:	image_28650.jpg
Views:	272
Size:	218.2 KB
ID:	253264Click image for larger version

Name:	image_28649.jpg
Views:	281
Size:	142.4 KB
ID:	253263 I happened upon this point at an antique store in St. Thomas, Ontario a few months ago. While turning it over in the display case my hand was literally shaking, as I was hoping that there might be a flute on the opposite side. It appeared that there wasn't.

    In my infinite wisdom I classified it as a Hi-Lo (10,000 BP) on Haldimand chert.

    A month ago I decided to bring it into the last meeting for the season of the London chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. Upon showing it to one of the chapter archaeologists and stating what I thought it to be it became evident that I was not correct in my classification. The artifact was passed around and made its way to Chris Ellis, who informed that it was a snapped tip of a 'Clovis-like' projectile point (13,000 BP) on Collingwood/Fossil Hill chert. He stated that upon it being snapped the base had been reworked in order for the point to be further utilized.

    The point was found in the St. Thomas, Ontario area. It is 4 cm in length, 2.4 cm in width, and is 7 mm thick.

    I am very much in awe of this artifact.
    Last edited by Hi-Lo; 06-23-2017, 07:15 AM.

  • #2
    Great store find.
    Look to the ground for it holds the past!

    Comment


    • Hi-Lo
      Hi-Lo commented
      Editing a comment
      Part of me is still thinking that I might wake up from a dream.

  • #3
    What a thrill to find that it is older than you expected.
    Bruce
    In life there are losers and finders. Which one are you?

    Comment


    • Hi-Lo
      Hi-Lo commented
      Editing a comment
      Yes, it was a without question a welcome surprise.

  • #4
    Hi Hi-Lo. It's a nice little point for sure. You may have a good ID and I'm not saying anyone made a wrong ID, I'm just trying to learn more so I'm wondering what are the characteristics that Chris Ellis (I am assuming it is someone who you think is a good typologist) used to say that the base of a Clovis had been snapped. While there may be a flute on one side as you say, it doesn't show clearly to my eyes. Would you tell us which of the pics shows a flute as I would like to look more closely and see what I missed. As you probably know flutes can be relatively short and often don't extend farther than halfway from the base. Sometimes the topmost part of the flute shows a hinge fracture and sometimes they can appear as a very long thinning flake.

    Comment


    • #5
      Hi Joe,

      If my post was misleading I apologize, in that I didn't intend to suggest there was a flute.

      I will try to be more specific in a future post that may shed more light on the specific questions you have. I am off to pick up the kids. If I don't respond later today I will do so tomorrow.

      I am fortunate to be able to call Chris Ellis a friend, and have learned a great deal from him. I am attaching a couple of files that will shed further light on his research, etc.

      http://canadianarchaeology.com/caa/a...topher-j-ellis

      Western University, in vibrant London, Ontario, delivers an academic and student experience second to none.


      Regards,

      David

      Comment


      • sailorjoe
        sailorjoe commented
        Editing a comment
        Hi David. Thank you for providing the additional information. I was unaware of the work that Ellis does or has done. It helps me to see where you and he are coming from.

      • sailorjoe
        sailorjoe commented
        Editing a comment
        And BTW I meant to add that Ellis has a very impressive publications list and it seems like he has examined a tremendous number of broken Paleo age artifacts which certainly makes one give a lot of credence to his opinion. But y question did not doubt his opinion, I only wished to learn about what are the characteristics on your artifact that led him to that opinion. It seems like it may be the sum of several small characters none of which are strong enough to make a determination; but when taken in total they force that conclusion. So characters such as lithic type were used and other things that we can not see unless we were to handle it. Still it would be good to know provenance.

    • #6
      Congratulations on great pick up! You never know what will turn up in a Antique Store or Flea Market.

      Von

      Comment


      • Hi-Lo
        Hi-Lo commented
        Editing a comment
        Thank you. I was fortunate to have it land in the display cabinet.

    • #7
      That's a great score! It does look rebased, although I am personally weak where blade attrition and point salvaging is concerned. Mr. Ellis is highly regarded as an authority on the Paleo Era in northeastern NA. I included one of his papers as a "sticky" in the Northeastern typology section of our information center. I imagine you are thrilled that he was able to offer an opinion on your purchase.

      http://anthropology.uwo.ca/cje/Publi...d%20Points.pdf

      It seems telling, given his interpretation of your point, that Ellis made an effort to interpret one assemblage in particular, Debert, as a function of reworking, in other words, salvaging:

      ".....aside from examining the three factors—style, function and raw material properties—that have been used so often to explain variability, I pay special attention to the effects of varying life histories on assemblages. Whether one refers to them as reduction sequences or chaîne opératoires (see Shott 2003), the idea that life histories can significantly affect tool variability is not new...."

      "Paleoindian point studies initially tended to see morphological change in terms of simple fore-section edge resharpening—a product of gradual “attrition” rather than “chance” or more catastrophic breakage, to use Shott and Sillitoe’s (2004: 352) terms. However, more recent work, particularly on west- ern Folsom assemblages, has recognized that more major breakage patterns, and subsequent attempts at reworking, can significantly alter point morphology and even affect tool design (Ahler and Geib 2000; Bement 2002). I extend such ideas to the eastern assemblages considered here, and argue that a major source of the variability and distinctiveness of Debert is one not previously considered, namely that the assemblage reflects an extensive degree of reworking."
      Last edited by CMD; 06-20-2017, 05:09 PM.
      Rhode Island

      Comment


      • #8
        Well, it doesn't get much better than that for a store find, congrats.
        Searching the fields of NW Indiana and SW Michigan

        Comment


        • #9
          Thanks Greg. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

          Comment


          • #10
            Hi Joe,

            I would draw your attention to the link that Charlie (CMD) included in his post. This is Chris Ellis's article that examines said point salvage and rebasing/reworking.

            Regards,

            David

            Comment


            • #11
              Thanks Charlie. It was an interesting meeting to say the least. As stated in my original post I thought it was on Haldimand chert. Upon Chris Ellis informing that it was on Collingwood chert my head kind of exploded. As you may know anything on Collingwood chert that is found in my area means Early Paleo; the toolstone having been quarried some 245 km north. Artifacts on Collingwood chert in southwestern Ontario are extremely rare. And yes, having Chris Ellis classify my artifact was a great moment. He asked me to attempt to determine roughly where the point was found in that it would have been important to include it on the Clovis-like point survey. I tried to convince the store owner to allow me to reach out to the individual that found the point. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
              Last edited by Hi-Lo; 06-21-2017, 08:35 AM.

              Comment


              • #12
                Originally posted by Hi-Lo View Post
                Thanks Charlie. It was an interesting meeting to say the least. As stated in my original post I thought it was on Haldimand chert. Upon Chris Ellis informing that it was on Collingwood chert my head kind of exploded. As you may know anything on Collingwood chert that is found in my area means Early Paleo; the toolstone having been quarried some 245 km north. Artifacts on Collingwood chert in southwestern Ontario are extremely rare. And yes, having Chris Ellis classify my artifact was a great moment. He asked me to attempt to determine roughly where the point was found in that it would have been important to include it on the Clovis-like point survey. I tried to convince the store owner to allow me to reach out to the individual that found the point. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
                So the material also points to a rebased Clovis-like tip. I did not realize that. Ellis mentions in that article that the fluting itself will be obviously missing on some rebased tips. I had gone to the info center yesterday because I knew I had posted an Ontario point guide there. Only then did I realize and remember that I had also included the point variability article by Ellis.


                There is definetly important lessons to be drawn, applicable to many point types, that all collectors could benefit from in considering Ellis's approach with Debert points. Most typology guides, while they show size range, only provide examples of the average morphology or shape for specific types. One reason why I appreciate my own mentor, the late Jeff Boudreau's, unpublished revised guide, is he included examples of points showing varying degrees of resharpening, etc. He even included a section on blade attrition, showing the stages of blade attrition, and the resultant point morphologies. For example, Otter Creek points, a Northeast analog to Big Sandy, have distinct side notches. But through blade attrition, you can end up with Otter Creek points showing distinct ears, but the shoulders are completely resharpened away, and the side notches less distinct, or even missing altogether. Making it understandably more difficult for some collectors to recognize the type when they find such examples.

                One reason I tell my friends, and have to remind myself as well, not to get hung up too much on typing, or try to "force" a find into a type, is because of all the possibilities that must exist due to point attrition, rebasing of tips, etc., and that will affect the shape of a point. It just makes typing harder. Sometimes typing is an easy enough call. But oftimes I struggle, and what Ellis describes for the Debert assemblage is likely part of the reason. More guides that are in general usage by collectors in their respective regions, would be improved if such reworked examples were included along with the "average" forms for a particular type.

                It's too bad the shop owner could not simply reach out to the finder and ask him where it was found, and why that info would be important.
                Rhode Island

                Comment


                • #13
                  Hi David. Please note my comments that I appended to your comment about my original comment. And thanks for a learning opportunity. Some good reads there. Perhaps I will get back and add a pic of the distal end of a Clovis that a novice could ID. One that wouldn't spark much discussion except for comments like heartbreaker. If I don't then it will mean that I am sensitive to pirating your thread and should start a new thread somewhere else if I want to show pics of broken points. A good thread you started much better than the actual point for me.

                  Comment


                  • CMD
                    CMD commented
                    Editing a comment
                    It might also be a good idea to have a thread that talks about, and shows examples of, how blade attrition, rebasing, salvaging in general, can affect the morphology of a point enough to make type identification more difficult to the average collector. I know I am personally very pressed at times to type my finds, and I suspect reworking of those points is a major reason for that difficulty. Of course, now that I suggested it, it might be difficult for me to find examples in my own collection, especially given that I struggle to type my finds for the very reasons I mention here. I completely agree that this thread by David raises issues that are important for many collectors to understand. And, for sure, I struggle as much as anybody, and perhaps more then most, because I am not "fluent" in these matters.

                  • Hi-Lo
                    Hi-Lo commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Pirate away Sailor! I am constantly attempting to garner further information about everything that has been touched upon in this thread; a steep learning curve for me. As stated earlier, I am fortunate to be a member of the London chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. And, I am fortunate to be a member of this forum; happy in that the thread is prompting a discussion.
                    Last edited by Hi-Lo; 06-22-2017, 10:44 AM.

                • #14
                  That's the first re-tooled Clovis I've seen & I would not have recognized that had I seen it. Thanks for the paleo lesson!
                  Child of the tides

                  Comment


                  • #15
                    Nice point and interesting conversation.

                    Re based tips can sometimes be identified by the lack of good basal thinning. In the early stages of manufacture the maker will thin the base with percussion leaving flake scars extending from the base towards the tip. Those basal thinning flakes are usually planned and prepared with nice strong platforms. When the point is broken you then have a squared edge that must be turned back into a working edge or sharpened edge. This is usually done by pressure flaking and flipping the point back removing flakes from either side. After the snapped area has been turned back into a "zig Zagged" edge the base can be reworked with percussion or pressure flaking.
                    Its often the case I've found that the remaining tip section that is to be rebased isn't substantial enough for percussion to be effective without substantialy reducing the size. This is why a lot of rebased points are thicker at the base with steeply beveled basal edges. Its a quick fix to salvage the remaining material.
                    Last edited by Kyflintguy; 06-21-2017, 03:23 PM.
                    Josh (Ky/Tn collector)

                    Comment


                    • Hi-Lo
                      Hi-Lo commented
                      Editing a comment
                      You are correct Josh. Thanks for your response. I will try to post some better photos of the base.
                  Working...
                  X