There has been alot of debate on Cobbs knives here and on other artifact forums as to their true use. I'm not arguing or debating this for the sake of arguing, just looking for answers. Here's a Cobbs knife that imo strongly supports their use as a preform for beveled archaic types. Notice the location and angles of the two longest thinning strikes that come up from the base. At the base of these strikes you can see where the notches were just started. If you picture those notches continuing along the thinning strikes you'd have a Dovetail or Lost Lake. I think Cobbs knives were a multidimensional platform for early archaic cultures that could have been used as a unhafted knife of its own but also easily and quickly notched into a hafted archaic point.
I can see you point on this (Pardon the pun ). They could have easily notched it out and finished it as a dove or lost lake. This is something that we may never know for sure. A lot of things are up for speculation, for example look at cones. No one really knows what their use was for sure. I would say things like this could be debated for a long time. It's hard to say, but you do bring up a good point on this. The only ones who knew for sure what the intended use was for were the original knappers.
Seems like I saw an example that was notched on one side somewhere? It makes sense to me.
I still like the Cobbs in its present form though. Nice artifact Thirty7. The one good example I have was worked hard on one edge more that the other giving the impression of it being used as a knife. Not saying though that type could have been notched. I would have to compare the upper flaking with a lost lake or something? Would that work?
Your piece is not a preform, it's been heavily utilized and resharpened in its current form. A true "Cobbs" is not a preform, they are a knife. However, the preforms for several point types (Dove being one) are VERY similar to Cobbs / Stanfield. I think you'd play hell differentiating between some of them if there isn't very visible signs of usage, or found in certain context. It can be confusing, I know.
Believe it or not, what you have there is usually referred to as a "Micro-Notch". They are basically an early archaic blade with very small (micro) notches in the base, similar to the San Sabas from TX. For the record, Micro-Notch blades are typically found in areas you do find Cobbs, they are probably just a variant thereof. We had a great example of one at the museum for a while, I may have pics of it around here somewhere if you want to see it.
Your piece is not a preform, it's been heavily utilized and resharpened in its current form. A true "Cobbs" is not a preform, they are a knife. However, the preforms for several point types (Dove being one) are VERY similar to Cobbs / Stanfield. I think you'd play hell differentiating between some of them if there isn't very visible signs of usage, or found in certain context. It can be confusing, I know.
Believe it or not, what you have there is usually referred to as a "Micro-Notch". They are basically an early archaic blade with very small (micro) notches in the base, similar to the San Sabas from TX. For the record, Micro-Notch blades are typically found in areas you do find Cobbs, they are probably just a variant thereof. We had a great example of one at the museum for a while, I may have pics of it around here somewhere if you want to see it.
I appreciate and respect your opinion but I have to disagree. This blade came from an early archaic site in Kentucky where many beveled types including dovetails were found. It's a dead ringer for Cobbs imo with opposing beveled edges. Got any pictures of beveled micronotch blades from Warren county Kentucky?
As I already stated, they are found in the same location / sites as Cobbs (Dovetails as well), and probably are a variant of the Cobbs. I don't recall where that one was found (either TN or KY).
Your piece is not a preform, it's been heavily utilized and resharpened in its current form. A true "Cobbs" is not a preform, they are a knife. However, the preforms for several point types (Dove being one) are VERY similar to Cobbs / Stanfield. I think you'd play hell differentiating between some of them if there isn't very visible signs of usage, or found in certain context. It can be confusing, I know.
Believe it or not, what you have there is usually referred to as a "Micro-Notch". They are basically an early archaic blade with very small (micro) notches in the base, similar to the San Sabas from TX. For the record, Micro-Notch blades are typically found in areas you do find Cobbs, they are probably just a variant thereof. We had a great example of one at the museum for a while, I may have pics of it around here somewhere if you want to see it.
The problem with the Cobbs and Stanfield blades being preforms is that they nearly always show use wear and exhibit bevel resharpening. If I was a prehistoric person I certainly wouldn't make a blade, use it many times, resharpen down to a smaller piece, then put notches on it. I would start out putting notches in it to ease hafting.
It's not all that unusual to see a Cobbs like yours with similar dimpling and thinning to aid in hafting. There is usually evidence that these pieces were hafted because the bases are ground and the resharpening only extends to a given length.
In comparison, early archaic preforms usually exhibit large percussion flaking scars to thin the piece with only minor secondary retouch. The finishing retouch was usually done after the notches and progressively resharpened after that. Even unresharpened Cobbs blades show a higher degree of edge retouch than a normal early archaic preform.
Appreciate the opinions and comments. I guess I need to just accept that all we can really do is best guess, and speculate on many of these prehistoric relics. Which isn't a bad thing because the mystery itself is very interesting. A few more Cobbs knives on my way out.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
). They could have easily notched it out and finished it as a dove or lost lake. This is something that we may never know for sure. A lot of things are up for speculation, for example look at cones. No one really knows what their use was for sure. I would say things like this could be debated for a long time. It's hard to say, but you do bring up a good point on this. The only ones who knew for sure what the intended use was for were the original knappers. 
Originally Posted by Neanderthal
