New record clovis

[shorelinesearcher]

Saw this yesterday in the Murray Ledger & Times. Thought you guys would like to see this if you haven't already.

http://www.murrayledger.com/articles/2010/06/20/top_story/news01.txt

Any thoughts about authenticity?

mike

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[uniface]

Update from Bob Patten

It is possible that pressure flaking was seldom used to finish Clovis points, but I am not convinced that Clovis people were so obstinate as to avoid pressure at all costs. Pressure flaking does tend to leave slight steps at the end of a flake scar and Clovis points lack those steps for the most part. On the other hand, I can use pressure to leave flake scars you would swear were made by percussion. BTW; I've been experimenting with a rocker system of indirect percussion that straddles the boundary between direct percussion and pressure. The bulb of force tends to be very slight and flakes can be long and narrow.Bottom line: it's still a mystery.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hippy]

This is one great thread ! Assumptions that aren't questioned remain unexamined -- on that basis, I'm learning already. Thank You All !



Varieties of Clovis : this seems to have become an active topic over time, judging by references to it I've encountered here and there.

Here in the East, even leaving outliers like Crowfield and Cumberland out of the picture, there seems to be a consensus agreement that Vail, Gainy and Barnes are individual enough to deserve separate listings, rather than being lumped in with Clovis (or, Eastern Clovis). The same is probably true with Ross County points, St. Louis points, and maybe others as well. It's not unlike all spaniels being dogs, but not all dogs being spaniels -- all Clovis points are fluted Paleo lanceolates, but not all fluted Paleo lanceolates are "Clovis" points.

For what it's worth, an Archie friend of mine is doing the Illinois and Wisconsin FLuted Point Survey. Via personal communications I've asked him essentially the question about different clovis types. He says there are two types of clovis researchers, lumpers and subdividers. He, based on single compenent site evidence, is a lumper because he has found most clovis sub-types on the same site. Meaning, on one site he's found Hazel style, Gainy, St. Louis style, etc. etc. etc. This has lead him to believe that there really aren't sub-types and they are all made by the same people but he didn't really have an explanation for why the different shapes.

Hippy

 

[uniface]

If it were a single component site, it would have one type. Examples : Debert, Vail, et al.

On the other hand, if the site had been occupied (off and on) for several hundreds of years -- especially where different ranges overlapped -- you would expect to see several types there. The same as if you excavated part of New York. You'd find newer stuff above older stuff.

No ?

 

[Hippy]

If it were a single component site, it would have one type. Examples : Debert, Vail, et al.

On the other hand, if the site had been occupied (off and on) for several hundreds of years -- especially where different ranges overlapped -- you would expect to see several types there. The same as if you excavated part of New York. You'd find newer stuff above older stuff.

No ?

Not in his findings. All the particular point fluted point types seem to be intermixed in the same levels. Remember that carbon dating isn't quite an exact science and to split hairs to a few hundred years @ 11,000 years ago is challenging. Maybe their point styles changed throughout a few hundred years but they were likely the same family groups and lineage making the same points. Especially if they were returning to the same camps year after year.

I suppose there is no good answer to any of this but it's fun to have a debate.

Hippy

 

[uniface]

It sure is.

A similarly awkward reality is that, on some sites, Paleo and Early Archaic stuff is there on the same level.

They weren't supposed to do stuff like that

 

[ShowmeMoflint]

I will refrain from commenting on this subject anymore except to say that I wouldn't want it in my collection.

If it was in your collection I would suggest putting it in a case all by itself because it would probably put every other artifact to shame. Two highly respected authenticators called it good. I am no authenticator but, I respect their opinions and think it is real until someone can prove to me it is fake. Just kills me people can look at a photo and give there opinion and basically call it fake. There has been a lot of suspicion about the artifact. It doesn't matter to me but someone needs to determine if the authenticity is real or fake for sure. If it takes collaboration from several authenticators then so be it.

 

[Miami-valley-artifacts]

I guess I have to respond now since I have been quoted. SO, as far as this clovis putting anything in my frames to shame is not the case, but rather I would ALWAYS doubt the piece no matter who told me it was good. In my opinion, I just don't like the point, be it good or bad. Sure I may have to sell off my house and boat, then start living in my truck to afford it. Oh, and my wife would divorce me too. But I don't like the point even if I could afford it. Great thread too!! Interesting to see the many small debates it starts. my 2 cents for now, Scott

 

[shorelinesearcher]

I will refrain from commenting on this subject anymore except to say that I wouldn't want it in my collection.

If it was in your collection I would suggest putting it in a case all by itself because it would probably put every other artifact to shame. Two highly respected authenticators called it good. I am no authenticator but, I respect their opinions and think it is real until someone can prove to me it is fake. Just kills me people can look at a photo and give there opinion and basically call it fake. There has been a lot of suspicion about the artifact. It doesn't matter to me but someone needs to determine if the authenticity is real or fake for sure. If it takes collaboration from several authenticators then so be it.

Just curious. do authenticators collaborate on these things often, or at all? Never thought of this until you mentioned it r-t, but I would think that it would mean more to the collector to have one COA done as a collaboration of ten authenticators than to have ten separate COA's. Call it "authenticated by committee".

mike

 

[uniface]

http://wbreckinridge.com/EisntItFunny.html

Amen.

 

[mootsman]

Call it "authenticated by committee."

Know what a camel is? A horse designed by a committee.

 

[WishfulThinker]

Most of the information about what happened at Temple, TX is correct, but I do have good information on filling in some of the details. I will not comment on my thoughts on the piece, just fill in the gaps of the story.
The piece was reported as found in early April. At that time, I (recieved) received the picture of the piece that I have posted in this thread. Shortly after this, I was told that Tom Davis of Stanton, KY papered the piece as authentic. In between these events and the Temple, TX show there was an attempt by the finder and his dealer network to set up viewings at the show. Several big players planned on viewing it at the show. Before the show began, the point was given a once over and approval by Dwain Rogers of Texas. The asking price was $250,000, and there was apparently some interest. However, a huge pile of well known collectors and some top flight knappers killed the piece. I will refrain from using names, but I spoke directly to one of them, and he said that the point was summarily dismissed as a reproduction. Any hope of selling at the Temple, TX to a legitimate buyer was killed.
I want to be clear about a few things:
1) If the piece is bad, the authenticators who approved it are entitled to mistakes, and no judgment is made against them. If anything, the piece being bad should be a further indictment that buying points b/c of a COA(from anyone) is an extremely poor means of collecting anything.
2) If the piece is bad, the finder is not automatically a liar/thief. There is a rumor floating around, that a well known knapper made a handful of these pieces and salted a few of the "hot" creeks. Rumor only, cannot be confirmed.
3) If the piece is good, I have not seen anything made like it before.

There is a rumor floating around, that a well known knapper made a handful of these pieces and salted a few of the "hot" creeks. Rumor only, cannot be confirmed.


Check out "Time Team America" shows on PBS or website for one. It is not unlikely that someone would put on paid or for hire demonstration showing how to make items; and even the rejects thrown away, and bits and pieces can turn up later as "found items", completely by accident. As the tourist industry becomes a mainstay, you are going to see more of this "authentic reproduction techniques" used items available for the general public, just look for the made in Tiawan or China sticker on the back. By the way, for the silver and gold coin hunters, was segment on news about China making massive numbers of reproduction items to the point where it was becoming a business line.

 

[latrans]

That point has my B.S. detector pegged in the red. I think that everyone would like for it so be real (authentic) but come on ...............

 

[Twitch]

I'm not an authenticator - I'll save the trouble of anyone pointing that out. I'd like to discuss an area that has been alluded to in this string but not necessarily addressed. A point is either authentic or it is not, regardless of whether it's authenticated or not. No person can decide if a point is authentic or not. Our individual view of the points origin is opinion and conjecture only, the actual truth is the only fact. Every authenticator in the world could agree that a modern point was old and it still wouldn't be the case. Likewise they could all agree an old point was modern and it would still be old and authentic. A CofA does not make a point authentic any more than an atypical flaking pattern makes a point a fake. There are certainly lots of fake points with CofA's and I'm sure there are lots of authentic points that got rejected.

Unless someone can prove they made the point the facts will likely continue to be debated alongside and intermixed with opinion. Regardless of my personal opinion of this point, I think people would do well to put less stock into a CofA and more value into what they know and what is to be learned.

A C of A provides little comfort to me in determining authenticity. Once a hobby becomes a business it's wise to acknowledge the rules as changed.

Not even sure that worth two cents.....

 

[Hippy]

Unless someone can prove they made the point the facts will likely continue to be debated alongside and intermixed with opinion. Regardless of my personal opinion of this point, I think people would do well to put less stock into a CofA and more value into what they know and what is to be learned.

A C of A provides little comfort to me in determining authenticity. Once a hobby becomes a business it's wise to acknowledge the rules as changed.

Not even sure that worth two cents.....

The only reason it really matters if this point is real or fake is because of two reasons. One, it's for sale and, if real, has tremendous value. Two, if it's real it has a tremendous scientific value. Those are the only reason we would even debate the topic. Otherwise it's just a rock.

My $0.01

Hippy

 

[uniface]

A posting on this point from [edit for clarification : a guy on] another (public) board, passed along for it's relevance to the discussion of it here :

At the Bowie show this weekend, my table was across from that of Winston Ellison, a longtime Texas collector who knows a thing or two about Clovis (for awhile, he owned the largest Clovis on record for Texas). I knew that he had examined this piece at Temple and asked what he thought. This is his reply, as close to word for word as I can remember:

"Good as gold. It has a triple layer of calcification - there's not a faker alive that could do that."

[/quote]

 

[Th3rty7]

A posting on this point from [edit for clarification : a guy on] another (public) board, passed along for it's relevance to the discussion of it here :

At the Bowie show this weekend, my table was across from that of Winston Ellison, a longtime Texas collector who knows a thing or two about Clovis (for awhile, he owned the largest Clovis on record for Texas). I knew that he had examined this piece at Temple and asked what he thought. This is his reply, as close to word for word as I can remember:

"Good as gold. It has a triple layer of calcification - there's not a faker alive that could do that."

[/quote]


Calcification is actually pretty easy to produce. Faking a patina is unfortunately easy to do. I threw a repro dalton point into my backyard pond and checked it after a month and it had a convincing patina, after six months I think it would fool most authenticators out there. It had a dark crusty stain that looked like years of mineralization build up. Not to make the point look good but to educate myself and experiment with patina. Even hard water calcification in your bathroom or sink produces a weathered patina and stain after a couple weeks.

 

[Th3rty7]

I'm not an authenticator - I'll save the trouble of anyone pointing that out. I'd like to discuss an area that has been alluded to in this string but not necessarily addressed. A point is either authentic or it is not, regardless of whether it's authenticated or not. No person can decide if a point is authentic or not. Our individual view of the points origin is opinion and conjecture only, the actual truth is the only fact. Every authenticator in the world could agree that a modern point was old and it still wouldn't be the case. Likewise they could all agree an old point was modern and it would still be old and authentic. A CofA does not make a point authentic any more than an atypical flaking pattern makes a point a fake. There are certainly lots of fake points with CofA's and I'm sure there are lots of authentic points that got rejected.

Unless someone can prove they made the point the facts will likely continue to be debated alongside and intermixed with opinion. Regardless of my personal opinion of this point, I think people would do well to put less stock into a CofA and more value into what they know and what is to be learned.

A C of A provides little comfort to me in determining authenticity. Once a hobby becomes a business it's wise to acknowledge the rules as changed.

Not even sure that worth two cents.....

Well said, I agree 100%, COAs are nothing more than an opinion. It's really up to the buyer to do the necessary research and educate themselves to make informed decisions.

 

[joshuaream]

The thread that won't die...

I was bored and looking at Prehistoric Implements by Warren K. Moorehead, published in 1900, and I came across this picture/sketch of an 8 inch Kentucky Paleo from the B.H. Young collection.

 

[shorelinesearcher]

The thread that won't die...

I was bored and looking at Prehistoric Implements by Warren K. Moorehead, published in 1900, and I came across this picture/sketch of an 8 inch Kentucky Paleo from the B.H. Young collection.

Neat find, do you have a link, or did you post this from a pic from your own resource material?

mike

 

[joshuaream]

I got it from my favorite source for old books, google books. One of these two links should work.


<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=Uw...c implements moorehead&pg=PA171&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Uw...PA171&ci=47,362,860,358&source=bookclip"><img src="http://books.google.com/books?id=Uw...kFA7aVyzjZVtQ&ci=47,362,860,358&edge=0"/></a>