Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brewerton

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

  • Brewerton

    Brewerton
    Posted by [Hoss]:



    I do not remember if I put this one up before Brewerton Eared Triangle, Litchfield Co CT

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_10799.jpg
Views:	237
Size:	75.5 KB
ID:	201641




    Posted by [rmartin]:
    I don't remember if you posted it or not either but who cares? Never get tired of seeing quality pieces.

    Posted by [chase]:
    +1 agreed nice thanks Hoss!

    Posted by [gregszybala]:
    We must be getting old, because I don't remember it either and it would be hard to forget a Brewerton like that. Thanks Hoss!

    Posted by [G10]:
    beauty

    Posted by [CMD]:
    What a sweet, sweet Brewerton, Hoss. Love that grade of quartz. Permit me an observation. In looking at both Ritchie's and Boudreau's typology, the eared triangles are distinguished by having almost no notches at all, just 2 ears projecting off the base. Here are Ritchie's examples:

    http://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/pr...gle-plate.html

    Sometimes I have a heck of a time seperating the various points in the Brewerton series. Narrow-based Vosburg varients(notched, but with relatively short hafting areas), e.g., can easily look like a Bewerton Eared-Notched. In any event, it's JMHO and not intended to be too picky, but I would lean toward Brewerton Eared-Notched in this case. Again, typology is tough (for me!), it's JMO, and a Brewerton like that by any other name is a killer example!

    Posted by [farmerwayne]:
    Hoss don't forget us that was not around the first time! Please! We don't have material like that in our neck of the woods. Thank for the look.

    Posted by [Hoss]:
    Charlie glad you brought it up. I know a few professional Archaeologists and have seen them disagree on stuff. It's cool with me brother. I appreciate the input.
    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

  • #2
    Posted by [gregszybala]:
    I think Brewertons are one of the toughest to type.


    Posted by [CMD]:
    gregszybala wrote:
    I think Brewertons are one of the toughest to type.

    I agree. Single-eared varients of Brewerton Eared-Triangles are also common, just to confuse the issue a bit more. And, as Hoss noted, even the pros struggle among themselves typing points. And that's as it should be, since imposing a typology on projectile points is, at least in part, an artificial exercise. Oh sure, typology is based on empirical observation and measurement, and nobody is going to confuse an Orient Fishtail with a Clovis. But in some cases points are probably just resharpened examples of other points.

    And consider a Jack's Reef Pentagonal. It's listed as a distinct point type, but could just as easily be interpreted as an un-notched stage of a Jack's Reef Corner-Notch. Add the fract that types weren't made from a cookie cutter, every point is unique, and I don't feel too bad that I'm always going to struggle with typing points at times.

    BTW, Hoss, I don't believe Helen or I have ever found a Brewerton made of quartz. Quartzite and argillite are the most common lithics used here. Wonder why, since quartz is so common here.

    Posted by [Hoss]:
    Maybe felsite was preferred. We did not have the felsites here in western CT as you do over in RI. It was present but quartz was much more abundant


    Posted by [CMD]:
    Hoss wrote:
    Maybe felsite was preferred. We did not have the felsites here in western CT as you do over in RI. It was present but quartz was much more abundant

    Yeah, just off the top of my head, quartzite, argillite, felsite and rarely flint show up here as lithics in the Brewerton series. Tan colored quartzite I would put first, and it starts showing up in abundance with Middle Archaic Nevilles and Starks. A knowledgable New England collector told me years ago that the source of that quartzite was far eastern Ct., don't know for certain though. We tend to get tired of finding quartz points, the stuff is the most common lithic in general for points, but I could never grow tired of finding quartz points as fine as this Brewerton.


    Posted by [spanky]:
    I like I like Hoss, is that thing wet or what ?


    Posted by [gregszybala]:
    CMD wrote:
    gregszybala wrote:
    >>I think Brewertons are one of the toughest to type.<
    I agree. Single-eared varients of Brewerton Eared-Triangles are also common, just to confuse the issue a bit more. And, as Hoss noted, even the pros struggle among themselves typing points. And that's as it should be, since imposing a typology on projectile points is, at least in part, an artificial exercise. Oh sure, typology is based on empirical observation and measurement, and nobody is going to confuse an Orient Fishtail with a Clovis. But in some cases points are probably just resharpened examples of other points.
    And consider a Jack's Reef Pentagonal. It's listed as a distinct point type, but could just as easily be interpreted as an un-notched stage of a Jack's Reef Corner-Notch. Add the fract that types weren't made from a cookie cutter, every point is unique, and I don't feel too bad that I'm always going to struggle with typing points at times.<<

    X2
    I have a lot more points that are not identifiable than are, alot!



    Posted by [rmartin]:
    Well spoken Greg. Typology is, for me, is difficult at best. Most times I am content to lump into cultures when it comes to my collection. Face it, Natives didn't have a book or guide to go by.

    Posted by [Dallred]:
    Gorgeous point! I would give my left pinky for one like that! Thanks!
    D

    Posted by [G10]:
    Greg, Ray well said.


    Posted by [Hoss]:
    spanky wrote:
    I like I like Hoss, is that thing wet or what ?

    Thanks Spanky no it isn't wet quartz just has a nice luster.
    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

    Comment


    • #3
      Posted by [CMD]:
      rmartin wrote:
      Well spoken Greg. Typology is, for me, is difficult at best. Most times I am content to lump into cultures when it comes to my collection. Face it, Natives didn't have a book or guide to go by.

      No, the natives didn't call em Brewertons. In addition to my observations quoted by Greg, I'd like to add the following, since I think it goes to the heart of the matter and is worth reminding oneself of now and then. These passages were included in Wm. Fowler's original 1976 New England point typology.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	image_10800.jpg
Views:	209
Size:	178.8 KB
ID:	201644

      Click image for larger version

Name:	image_10801.jpg
Views:	177
Size:	173.5 KB
ID:	201645



      Posted by [Hoss]:
      Charlie that page from Fowler is exactly why I am open to listening to anyone's feedback about point typology.

      This is what we are up against. have a look at this page?
      I am not trying to be critical of the author but come on does that top point look like an eared notched Brewerton to you?

      http://anthropology.umn.edu/labs/wln...edNotched.html


      Posted by [gregszybala]:
      Thanks for Fowler's consideration of classification. Hits the nail right on the head and despite the fact that all of us "collectors" know this to be true, many of us still feel the need to know what we think we have in hand, without a doubt.

      And agreed Hoss, despite what I just said above, I would not consider that a Brewerton. But then again, who am I?
      I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

      Comment

      Working...
      X