A Different New England Triangle

[CMD]

Yes, I am at it again. Together with my accomplice and friend, Bill from Martha's Vineyard...
This argillite triangle found years ago at a multicomponent site I wrote about recently because I finally realized it had a rather significant(for this region) Early Archaic level, with points of both known and unknown type for New England.
The point is very thin, awfully well flaked for argillite(believe it or not it's well made for this material), has a very deep patina, deep concave base, and one elongated ear, and basal thinning both faces, with basal grinding.
I put it aside and just always wondered about it. It clearly was not a Squibnocket, not a Beekman, not a Woodland triangle like Madison or Levanna. Could it be a Brewerton Eared Triangle? I sure doubted it. That is not a Brewerton ear at all.
Side A.
The elongated ear is at the bottom. Note the tiny node on upper ear in first photo, sort of serving to demark that shorter ear.

Also side A:


Side B. Here is where that deep base and elongated ear on right side really stands out, as does the patina. It is closer to brown in tone then the usual argillite shades. That in curved blade edge is helping create that elongated ear on one side:





So anyway, Bill concluded it is more likely an early triangle then anything else. And that it is likely another of our Daltonesque points.
I don't know. But I do believe it does not fit in any of our recognized later Archaic and Woodland triangles. Sometimes, "feel" is all you have. I had that "feel" that this was much older when I found it perhaps some 10 years ago. This is not a typical New England triangle, whatever it is.....

[Olden]

.
Killer Hardawayish/Early Triangle Charlie!

[CMD]

Alamance triangles for comparison.....

Last one on right top row is somewhat similar. Not calling this one of these, but got to look south of the region for virtually any Early Archaic possibility found here. Seems to be the way it works. Unfortunately, with no type names for most Early Archaic types in New England, and those types suspected hardly ever appearing as classic examples of Southeastern types, it's not an easy task, and never a certain conclusion. That said, all things considered, this triangle is likely Early Archaic. But it can only ever be a best guess pending more certain evidence. Coming as it did from a site containing an Early Archaic level, it seems a likely conclusion at this time.

[CMD]

Just some better photos with scale. And a good excuse to post a photo of a triangle my buddy Bill found in Ma. Wow! An early "something or other"!! Tip restored.
Given the extreme patina and the appearance, seems likely this is an older triangle. Note the little "node" near the base on right ear in first photo. In hindsight, my instinct the day I found this was probably correct.



Alamance points:

  And Bill's!!!

[SDhunter]

That's a really good one Charlie.  Congrats.  Super sharp still

[kayakaddict]

This is a great post and thread and great photos.  What baffles me is the condition of the point.  Any archaic  argillite I find even in a field is so worn the flaking is about gone.  But there it is.  How was this preserved?  Was this from a dig?
Evan

[cgode]

Very interesting Charlie! As another New Englander, I have to agree that it certainly doesn't fit the typical Madison or Levanna. The base as you have said, has a concavity to it that is much more pronounced, dramatically so! I don't see a lot of Argillite here but on my visits out your way, I can't say that I've seen that degree of patination either. Very interesting to say the least!
Might I also inquire, on side "A" of your point, what do you make of the basal thinning? Is that a "thinning" strike.......or dare I say the "F" word??? makes me go hmmmmmm?!?!?!? :unsure:

[CoachG]

That is a great point. Thanks for sharing.

[CMD]

cgode wrote:

Very interesting Charlie! As another New Englander, I have to agree that it certainly doesn't fit the typical Madison or Levanna. The base as you have said, has a concavity to it that is much more pronounced, dramatically so! I don't see a lot of Argillite here but on my visits out your way, I can't say that I've seen that degree of patination either. Very interesting to say the least!
Might I also inquire, on side "A" of your point, what do you make of the basal thinning? Is that a "thinning" strike.......or dare I say the "F" word??? makes me go hmmmmmm?!?!?!? :unsure:

  Good question. It seems to terminate at a hinge fracture. But I guess I just call it thinning. I've seen some of this early series described as having "flute-like thinning", maybe that 's the term to use. But sure, it looks the part, and nice thinning on the other side as well.

[CMD]

kayakaddict wrote:

This is a great post and thread and great photos.  What baffles me is the condition of the point.  Any archaic  argillite I find even in a field is so worn the flaking is about gone.  But there it is.  How was this preserved?  Was this from a dig?
Evan

  Where you hunt, Evan, it's usually the type of argillite called argillaceous shale. This point is the type of argillite called argillaceous slate. And yes, the flaking is often gone on water worn argillite points. Very much so; water is not kind. This is not only more finely flaked then most argillite points, I almost want to say the material must be otherwise, and not New England argillite at at all. But if so, it sure fools me. It may have actually been protected from water wear at this site because of how the erosion took place specifically where it turned up. But I can also find plenty of argillite points that show flaking. Even those found on the shore. And certainly those not found in a tidal zone, but in a field perhaps.
I cannot claim to be overly baffled by the condition of the point at all. Think terrace that is washed by incoming/ outgoing every day, exposing layers as finely as a trowel a cm at a time. This may have seen air for the first time in ages. It was not dug, but the water was a methodical excavator here. Also, don't forget, your argillite is very different then the argillite up here. I know the argillaceous shale we do see now and then weathers as poorly as any material I know.
Here's a 7000-8000 year old argillite Neville, from a field, still shows flaking. But I just think in the case of the triangle, it simply was not eroded by water as many were. Many younger argillite points from here are indeed almost what I call "erased points".
So, below a Neville from a field and an argillite point from the same site as this triangle.

These two are from the site, one much more worn then the other:


What has always struck me with this triangle is the finer flaking seldom seen at all on argillite points. It really has always looked like a much finer lithic then "normal" argillite. It looks like a nicer lithic. That puzzles me some, and so I keep open the possibility that it is not argillite at all. Maybe a rhyolite of some sort(?).
It's a good observation. It is curious the difference between this triangle and the argillite triangle seen immediately above in this comment. I did not take notes or draw site plans. It was not an excavation. But somehow this point has to have been protected well. From within deoxygenated muck that was washed by tidal currents every day. Since it is not simply much younger then the other argillite from here, it is a bit of a mystery. It has always struck me as a "high grade" argillite for this reason, but maybe I've misidentified the material entirely.  I'm not used to seeing "finer" flaking on argillite, so  I understand the puzzlement here, even though we are likely comparing argillaceous slate in my case with argillaceous shale in your case.
Well, look at the difference in water wear here. This argillite triangle. Well, who knows, I'll go with Late Archaic Squibnocket triangle(??) , but  :dunno: and from the same site. It's an exercise in possibilities, and I will make mistakes with ID's as I try to separate out the earliest stuff from the later:

[CMD]

Folks should understand that with the Early Archaic being all but a blank slate in southern New England, comparison with possible antecedents to Early Archaic points found in the Southeast is simply an exercise, not proof of anything at all. In the case of Bill's monster, maybe Alamance is a good comparison, I certainly can't really say. But these are just thought exercises, not gospel from an avocational collector!



On the other hand, I can appreciate looking at the above point on the left side, and seeing perhaps hints of a point somewhat similar to the eared triangle in this thread :dunno:

[Hoss]

great information Charlie thanks for sharing. I bought   this  RI triangle many moons ago. What do you think?


concave base and lateral edges are ground

[CMD]

Hoss wrote:

great information Charlie thanks for sharing. I bought   this  RI triangle many moons ago. What do you think?


concave base and lateral edges are ground

  Sure seems possibly an older one, Hoss. I am going to send you a file from Boudreau's upcoming 2nd edition that will show you something similar. I like that one, Hoss. That's killer and I think it's older. Check your email. I think several of our early styles show affinities with a certain southeastern family of points. I just prefer not to use Jeff's suggested type names here, as it too often causes some confusion.
Man, I love that thing, Hoss. Reminds me of some fluted points from Bull Brook and Deerfield in Ma.....
Page of such points illustrated here. Seems many New England fluted points are eared....

http://library.bridgew.edu/exhibits/BMAS/pdf/MAS-v16n01.pdf

[Hoss]

Thanks Great information I appreciate that