Typology?

[Emaner377]

Actually posted this point before wondering the typology..I finally picked up a copy of Jeff's expanded typology new england..I laid my point over a pic of one of his Hardaway daltons..could be the typology..what do you guys think?

[Tam]

I love to do that .. well you get my vote but I know Charlie is going to be a wealth of information here on this one .
get ready .
Its great you got that book just for your specific area .
And btw great find there . Those are such beautiful points and I notice the well made quartz ones do tolerate water wear from posts, books etc I have watched and read .

[Emaner377]

Thanks Tam..I love this point too..water worn and all!
hopefully we here from Charlie and a few local guys as well!

[Hunting_Dad]

I have nothing but the utmost respect for the work of Mr Boudreau. I am sure he forgot more about artifacts than I will ever know. His intimate understanding of how different artifacts were manufactured allowed him to open the eyes of local collectors/academics and in doing so, I believe fill in some voids to our local pre-history. That being said, I have seen a recent eagerness to attach early labels to a number of locally found triangles. While they certainly could be "old", I personally think we should arrive at that conclusion not from a similarity of outline, but from an understanding of the manufacturing process, and perhaps equally as importantly, context. If your triangle were found on a coastal site (as I suspect it was by the surf polish) along with a number of Fox Creek points, I might be inclined to call it a Levanna. Where as if I found it in proximity to some quartz stemmed points with rounded shoulders, I would almost certainly suspect Squibnocket triangle.... neither typing however, would keep me from leaving the door open to the possibility that it could in fact be an "older" Hardaway if additional evidence was discovered. Just my two cents, great find no matter what you want to call it!!

[SurfaceHunter]

Looks good and a match from what I can see, congrats

[Emaner377]

Huntingdad
great explanation! I've actually found a few levannas and a fox creek or 2..this one just seems different than the rest and that's why I started to compare it to some of the older hatdaways..sure would like to attach it to that criteria like you mentioned! I like the point regardless of typology..I'm so used to finding broken points I like anything fully intact!

[Hunting_Dad]

I revisit previously assigned typologies all the time. I often have to remind myself that sometimes things in the world dont fall into the nice neat categories

[CMD]

In a nutshell, what Hunting_Dad said. I have smaller "Hardaway-Dalton" points that I'm more comfortable with partly because of where I found them, and what other types occurred "with" them. Surface hunting makes assigning age extraordinarily difficult, at times. At times. We can only go so far when we are dealing with surface stuff. I keep qualifying because it's just the way it is. I am very familiar with some pretty small sites, and over the course of decades, they talk to me, and sometimes I understand what they're saying. Of course, it's always possible to type points in a second, no walking a site for decades required. And sometimes it's not possible. Sometimes other clues are needed. Some people understand and recognize every stage of resharpening, etc., of every named type. To me, it's much more of a struggle.

Enjoy Jeff's book....

[Emaner377]

Thank you for the reply Charlie..always educational..I'm loving the book!