3 x 1 1/2 Kaolin Folsom. Pretty nice when your friends drop gifts on ya like this! Thanks Dave!
Upvote
0
FOLSOM (Kaolin)
- Thread starter mogi
- Start date
3 x 1 1/2 Kaolin Folsom. Pretty nice when your friends drop gifts on ya like this! Thanks Dave!
11KBP
Hero Member
- Thread starter
- #4
World record. Let's see your Folsom's guys! Google Images for authentic and very large Folsoms and you will see more very similar to mine.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #6
Wow, that is so awesome jamey!!!
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
Sorry, that is not a Folsom Point. I think you really need to do some intense research before you buy any more of those. That may be Paleo, but definitely not Folsom.
- Thread starter
- #8
Grim, in your expert opinion - Which of these 2 is closer to mine? Show me yours so i can get a better understanding of what to look for. Meanwhile, i will let both authenticators know that they made a mistake. I know your idea of a Folsom is small and thin and fluted all the way to the end. But keep in mind that sometimes they made a spearpoint to get the job done, not pass the Grim Reaper approval. Oh, and b.t.w. - this is not a purchased point.
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
It's not my idea of a Folsom. it is the accepted idea by archaeological scholars everywhere that Folsoms are made a certain way and that one doesn't even come close to one. We are only trying to help you out. Did you find it?
Oh, and b.t.w., I don't have a Folsom Point because for one, I can't afford an actual true Folsom and two, I wouldn't trust buying one unless I saw it found.
Also, yours doesn't look anything like a Folsom. Clovis, maybe.
trevmma
Bronze Member
- May 23, 2006
- 1,117
- 664
- Detector(s) used
- whites 1000
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #12
If you have looked at everything I have posted on this forum,then thank you. As far as your comment, I have posted many artifacts that I have personally pulled out of the ground,so that just shows me that you are not an expert either. I was a machinist for 35 years and b.t.w.- I can make bird stones very similar to what you post. That proves nothing towards your expertise in knowing true artifacts.
Last edited:
monsterrack
Silver Member
- Apr 15, 2013
- 4,419
- 5,815
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett, and Whites
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I picked this one up myself from the sands of Nm. just west of Andrews Tx. and north of the Monahan sand dunes. It is 2in long and 15/16 wide and the very outstanding ears and a double flute to the tip makes it very rare. It's been in a frame for over 30 years and there it will stay till I'm gone and I have been offered some big money for it. Most Folsom's have straight ears some have a flare, I have always been torn between calling it a Clovis or a Folsom. The bottom says Clovis, the top says Folsom. The stone is a Alibates (spelling may be off)- Thread starter
- #14
Hey sir - As i have stated in my posts before, i am a native from Texas. I lived in Odessa and have been to the Monahans sandhills many,many times. I have just put a frame of points together from there. They are shutting that down to the public. Did you know that? Sir, what we all should know is that the native americans often times did not get their points exactly right. For example - Folsoms and Clovis for the most part,and i say for the most part had a medial ridge and were a little thicker at start of fabrication to allow for the strike to allow for the flutes. If they struck a piece and it did not come out exactly perfect then they had a choice of striking again and chance completely destroying the point or use it anyways as what it was intended for or as a tool. This is a proven fact as i have multiple pieces of the same type arrowhead and the workmanship on some is incredible while the other point looks very crude. I have arrowheads that i have found that you would swear were made by a child practicing the art - And you know what - IT PROBABLY WAS! A real expert in this field thinks outside the box. I once again have artifacts i have personally found that you would swear that an indian was sitting around just doodling. Similar to us playing tick tack toe. I am not referring this message to you by any means monsterrack. I am just trying to get across that every artifact you find is not going to be a perfect facsimile to ones that you see in a book. And last but not least - There are some very rare and unusual pieces that were made. When people see these then it wouldn't matter if it fit all the criteria of being authentic, they would discount it because they dont have one or have never seen one. Did you know that most authenticators will not authenticate effigy's or fish hooks. TRUE FACT. Your piece looks absolutely incredible and very authentic. And like you said - That is a very,very rare type. I would hold on to that bad boy. One thing that is usually true for those style points is that the width is usually half the length. Yours fits that as well as the one i posted, be it as crude as it is. Once again - BEAUTIFUL PIECE!!!
Last edited:
11KBP
Hero Member
I would love to read any professional publication concerning Folsom points where the author states this as being "true":
“One thing that is usually true for those style points is that the width is usually half the length”.
Could you please provide us a reference from any professional publication to back this statement up?
- Thread starter
- #17
You sir are the expert. My comments are all wrong and yours is all right. My artifacts are all fake and yours are all real. Wow wait, If i say this then of course you are going to disagree, so then all my artifacts and comments were true all along! Woohoo!
11KBP
Hero Member
Buckleberry
Hero Member
- Sep 4, 2010
- 639
- 795
.......................................................
Last edited:
joshuaream
Silver Member
Mogi,
You seem to be a decent fellow (as much as one can tell from these posts: usually polite, respond/encourage members, solid foundation, etc.) so I'm not sure if you are just clueless on relics/replicas/authenticators/fakes or if this is just some odd game you have chosen to play on this forum. If it is the first case, I truly hope you seek out some additional knowledge and attend some relic shows to meet real experts vs those out for profit. If it's the second case, then there really isn't much more to discuss.
I am not a Folsom expert, but I know many of the recognized experts personally, I am friends with collectors who have world class collections of authentic Folsom material and I have had the chance to handle hundreds of authentic points, preforms and bifaces. I've had the good fortune to spend hours and hours in their homes looking at and talking about relics. Your point looks like something an average knapper made to resemble an outline of a Folsom (stubby tip compared to Clovis and nipple on the base.)
You have mentioned that Ancient people did not follow our modern guidebooks, or something to that effect, and fully I agree. There can be tremendous variety between points, but the underlying technology is amazingly consistent. But between this point and the Cumberland you posted a couple of days ago, you are apparently saying that an ancient knapper decided to reinvent their traditional technology on the fly because he was in a hurry? Starting off with the biface those two points deviate from almost every known authentic example and the deviation continues in the proportions, the reduction, the edge treatment, and the fluting. I'd agree that an ancient person wasn't going to starve because they had to discard a piece that didn't fit the mold, but they usually didn't forget the basics of knapping that were handed down through generations...
The dovetails, the birdstones, one of the banners follow the same pattern. Completely outside the norm for authentic examples. The Clovis is a great example made by a well known knapper, he intentionally makes his points easy to recognize. I'm sure you've posted some authentic relics along the way as well. Spend more time with your scope on those examples, and the differences will become clear.
Respectfully,
Joshua
You seem to be a decent fellow (as much as one can tell from these posts: usually polite, respond/encourage members, solid foundation, etc.) so I'm not sure if you are just clueless on relics/replicas/authenticators/fakes or if this is just some odd game you have chosen to play on this forum. If it is the first case, I truly hope you seek out some additional knowledge and attend some relic shows to meet real experts vs those out for profit. If it's the second case, then there really isn't much more to discuss.
I am not a Folsom expert, but I know many of the recognized experts personally, I am friends with collectors who have world class collections of authentic Folsom material and I have had the chance to handle hundreds of authentic points, preforms and bifaces. I've had the good fortune to spend hours and hours in their homes looking at and talking about relics. Your point looks like something an average knapper made to resemble an outline of a Folsom (stubby tip compared to Clovis and nipple on the base.)
You have mentioned that Ancient people did not follow our modern guidebooks, or something to that effect, and fully I agree. There can be tremendous variety between points, but the underlying technology is amazingly consistent. But between this point and the Cumberland you posted a couple of days ago, you are apparently saying that an ancient knapper decided to reinvent their traditional technology on the fly because he was in a hurry? Starting off with the biface those two points deviate from almost every known authentic example and the deviation continues in the proportions, the reduction, the edge treatment, and the fluting. I'd agree that an ancient person wasn't going to starve because they had to discard a piece that didn't fit the mold, but they usually didn't forget the basics of knapping that were handed down through generations...
The dovetails, the birdstones, one of the banners follow the same pattern. Completely outside the norm for authentic examples. The Clovis is a great example made by a well known knapper, he intentionally makes his points easy to recognize. I'm sure you've posted some authentic relics along the way as well. Spend more time with your scope on those examples, and the differences will become clear.
Respectfully,
Joshua
Last edited:
