I have found that the longer I hunt, the more I reflect on what I find to try to hear it's story. It's a point. Big Deal, but what does it and all the others you found with it tell you about the area you are hunting.
Recently, I had one of many confrontations with an academic arch friend of mine concerning a type of point and what it means. I find it very frustrating that kids with a couple of years of "book learning" and not field "clod kicking" time is so quick to make up their minds about things and disregard any optional theories, especially if they are from an "outsider" like me (outsider being a non-arch amature collector).
I volunteer with the local arch society to investigate sites in the area. I have learned so much about the cultures behind the artifacts in doing so, and even though I cannot keep any of the finds, it is still a rush to come up on a really nice piece. I would recommend it to any of you who are interested in the story behind those finds. As with me, there was some distrust initially, but they have learned to trust and respect me and actually use my background (geology) when needed. Nevertheless, there are those moments.
Recently, we were conducting some test digs in an area and were coming across some very small madison-type points. One of the professors at the site was excited, as he and some others are publishing the point as a new type. Many of you in the southeast have seen these. They are the ones many say were used in blowguns; a theory I find rediculous, as I have experience with blow guns from Borneo and there is no way you can get that point through a blowgun with any significant power. That is why in SE asia and SA they use sharpened bamboo - very affective. Anyway, we began talking about the point and what they may have been used for. Their view was that these were used for small foul and animals as sort of a light game point. I agree up to a "point". Where I differ is they view them as adult weapons. I do not.
In my 45 years of kicking dirt clods, I have seen a lot of areas with these points. In almost all of the areas, the points are exclusive and typically found with greenstone farm implements, hoes, celts, etc). So in my many hours of walking (in between the fantasies of finding a clovis cache) I began to wonder what that meant. What would you say was the most important skill an indian could have in say woodland times? (pause for effect). It would have been the ability to put food on the table (or dirt floor) whichever the case may be.
Early accounts by Europeans have indicated that the vast gardens associated with the villages were maintained or guarded by the children to keep animals and birds out. Hunting was a primary skill for (I assume the boys/men) of the community. To me, it would make sense if I were a Dad in that setting, to show my son 1) how to make a bow and 2) how to use it. Now at 6 or 8, you would not be able to pull an adult bow to use it, so it only makes sense that they would have made scaled down versions that they could handle. Madison (triangular) points also, would have been an easy point to teach your son to make, but again, you would make them scaled down for the size of the bow being used. In this way, your son is learning both how to make these essential items for survival and also how to use them on crow, turkey, squirrels, etc. Any game they got would be included in the stew with pride and eventually they would work into standard issue weaponry. That would explain why you find so many with greenstone in areas obviously used for farming. When you think of the number of kids and the time they would have farmed an area, it would explain the usual abundance of the points in restricted areas.
As for adult use, a typical arrow shaft would have probably been about 3/8 inch in diameter and many of these micro-hamilton/madisons are less than that and less than 1/2 inch long, so how would you lash it without having just a large mess at the end of your arrow. It (to me) makes more sense to have these associated with the "lego" version where arrows were probably less than 1/4 inch in diameter.
What do you think?
Moderator Note: although the above image has the correct filename, I suspect it is not the correct image.
Recently, I had one of many confrontations with an academic arch friend of mine concerning a type of point and what it means. I find it very frustrating that kids with a couple of years of "book learning" and not field "clod kicking" time is so quick to make up their minds about things and disregard any optional theories, especially if they are from an "outsider" like me (outsider being a non-arch amature collector).
I volunteer with the local arch society to investigate sites in the area. I have learned so much about the cultures behind the artifacts in doing so, and even though I cannot keep any of the finds, it is still a rush to come up on a really nice piece. I would recommend it to any of you who are interested in the story behind those finds. As with me, there was some distrust initially, but they have learned to trust and respect me and actually use my background (geology) when needed. Nevertheless, there are those moments.
Recently, we were conducting some test digs in an area and were coming across some very small madison-type points. One of the professors at the site was excited, as he and some others are publishing the point as a new type. Many of you in the southeast have seen these. They are the ones many say were used in blowguns; a theory I find rediculous, as I have experience with blow guns from Borneo and there is no way you can get that point through a blowgun with any significant power. That is why in SE asia and SA they use sharpened bamboo - very affective. Anyway, we began talking about the point and what they may have been used for. Their view was that these were used for small foul and animals as sort of a light game point. I agree up to a "point". Where I differ is they view them as adult weapons. I do not.
In my 45 years of kicking dirt clods, I have seen a lot of areas with these points. In almost all of the areas, the points are exclusive and typically found with greenstone farm implements, hoes, celts, etc). So in my many hours of walking (in between the fantasies of finding a clovis cache) I began to wonder what that meant. What would you say was the most important skill an indian could have in say woodland times? (pause for effect). It would have been the ability to put food on the table (or dirt floor) whichever the case may be.
Early accounts by Europeans have indicated that the vast gardens associated with the villages were maintained or guarded by the children to keep animals and birds out. Hunting was a primary skill for (I assume the boys/men) of the community. To me, it would make sense if I were a Dad in that setting, to show my son 1) how to make a bow and 2) how to use it. Now at 6 or 8, you would not be able to pull an adult bow to use it, so it only makes sense that they would have made scaled down versions that they could handle. Madison (triangular) points also, would have been an easy point to teach your son to make, but again, you would make them scaled down for the size of the bow being used. In this way, your son is learning both how to make these essential items for survival and also how to use them on crow, turkey, squirrels, etc. Any game they got would be included in the stew with pride and eventually they would work into standard issue weaponry. That would explain why you find so many with greenstone in areas obviously used for farming. When you think of the number of kids and the time they would have farmed an area, it would explain the usual abundance of the points in restricted areas.
As for adult use, a typical arrow shaft would have probably been about 3/8 inch in diameter and many of these micro-hamilton/madisons are less than that and less than 1/2 inch long, so how would you lash it without having just a large mess at the end of your arrow. It (to me) makes more sense to have these associated with the "lego" version where arrows were probably less than 1/4 inch in diameter.
What do you think?
Moderator Note: although the above image has the correct filename, I suspect it is not the correct image.
Comment