Trying to ID these items

[sc arrow]

New to this hobby only 6 months in. Have found several interesting pieces. Apparently there was much activity in my area. These are my largest and smallest finds to date. I live in South Carolina not far from the Topper dig site, Allendale county. The spear point is 4 inches. I do not think it is Clovis but seems like it is getting back toward that era. The smallest I think is a "bird point?" Not sure. Each point is almost the same length tip to tip; Pretty cool for stone work. Any thoughts or ideas. Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[CreekSide]

That’s a nice find for a newbie. I’d call it a year maker if I had found it. Have you looked at the possibility of it being a Guilford type? Good find

 

[CreekSide]

The triangle is probably a Yadkin many years apart from the other one

 

[sc arrow]

The triangle is probably a Yadkin many years apart from the other one

Thanks. it does match that look

 

[sc arrow]

That’s a nice find for a newbie. I’d call it a year maker if I had found it. Have you looked at the possibility of it being a Guilford type? Good find

thanks. possible but the concave on the base did not fit what I saw on line. I have another that looks closer with a flat base. see attached

 

[antmike915]

Those are nice, let's see a picture of the other side of the 1st one.

 

[plehbah2]

All of this stuff is very regional to a degree, and my personal experience is mostly with plains, mountain, and great basin stuff from out West. One also has to take into account the qualities of the tool stones available and utilized. If I encountered that first biface you posted I would call it an unfluted Clovis. There has always been a war of sorts between lumpers and splitters in projectile point naming and typology, and the archaeologists were some of the worst offenders. Sometimes I see the myriad names given to otherwise ubiquitous projectile point types and it makes my head spin.

Your first point there has the right concave base, and most importantly those biface thinning flakes which extend from the edge past the medial ridge. That is very telling. While purists might argue that fluting is the defining characteristic of a true Clovis point, I do not see yours as technologically or culturally distant enough to differentiate between the two. There are unfluted Clovis points, and unfluted Folsom points, especially when rough tool stone or expediency required it.

When I look at that biface, it screams Clovis at me. Considering the lumps and stacks on the piece, I don;t think that material would lend itself well to fluting, and the knapper certainly knew that. The only way to know for sure is to see some of the associated artifacts and debitage, and to see if any of that demonstrates Clovis technology. That may or may not be possible depending on where you found it. If you found it in a waterway then we will not have that option available. You could also contact the people at Topper and get their opinion. Lots of areas/institutions are conducting a census of fluted point discoveries. I can't vouch for the researchers at Topper so take that with a grain of salt. Some archaeologists are cool, many are real aholes.

Congrats on what is probably an outstanding find.

 

[ToddsPoint]

You have really nice flint source near you. Material is called Briar Cr. When heated it turns colors. Raspberry, emerald green and cream. Lots of crystal pockets and flaws but a clean piece is really something.

 

[sc arrow]

All of this stuff is very regional to a degree, and my personal experience is mostly with plains, mountain, and great basin stuff from out West. One also has to take into account the qualities of the tool stones available and utilized. If I encountered that first biface you posted I would call it an unfluted Clovis. There has always been a war of sorts between lumpers and splitters in projectile point naming and typology, and the archaeologists were some of the worst offenders. Sometimes I see the myriad names given to otherwise ubiquitous projectile point types and it makes my head spin.

Your first point there has the right concave base, and most importantly those biface thinning flakes which extend from the edge past the medial ridge. That is very telling. While purists might argue that fluting is the defining characteristic of a true Clovis point, I do not see yours as technologically or culturally distant enough to differentiate between the two. There are unfluted Clovis points, and unfluted Folsom points, especially when rough tool stone or expediency required it.

When I look at that biface, it screams Clovis at me. Considering the lumps and stacks on the piece, I don;t think that material would lend itself well to fluting, and the knapper certainly knew that. The only way to know for sure is to see some of the associated artifacts and debitage, and to see if any of that demonstrates Clovis technology. That may or may not be possible depending on where you found it. If you found it in a waterway then we will not have that option available. You could also contact the people at Topper and get their opinion. Lots of areas/institutions are conducting a census of fluted point discoveries. I can't vouch for the researchers at Topper so take that with a grain of salt. Some archaeologists are cool, many are real aholes.

Congrats on what is probably an outstanding find.

Thanks
Yes I would love it to be Clovis but I did the same and said no flute , can't be.
Will see what I can find out in the area but it was pretty much a loner find. Maybe 2 flakes about 200 yards away and that was it. Pure good luck I guess. Someone had dug a pit nearby about 10 foot deep and used some of the dirt to level what looks like a future parking lot. The point was just laying on top where I only saw the back top edge of the piece. I thought it was just tan sand on red dirt so I tapped it with my foot and it came loose. Don't know how it missed being broken as the lot had been leveled flat.

 

[sc arrow]

Those are nice, let's see a picture of the other side of the 1st one.

Hope these help. I saw one called a Plainview point that was very close but not listed for the Southeast area where I am. Either way i think safe to put this one in 8000+ year range

 

[sc arrow]

All of this stuff is very regional to a degree, and my personal experience is mostly with plains, mountain, and great basin stuff from out West. One also has to take into account the qualities of the tool stones available and utilized. If I encountered that first biface you posted I would call it an unfluted Clovis. There has always been a war of sorts between lumpers and splitters in projectile point naming and typology, and the archaeologists were some of the worst offenders. Sometimes I see the myriad names given to otherwise ubiquitous projectile point types and it makes my head spin.

Your first point there has the right concave base, and most importantly those biface thinning flakes which extend from the edge past the medial ridge. That is very telling. While purists might argue that fluting is the defining characteristic of a true Clovis point, I do not see yours as technologically or culturally distant enough to differentiate between the two. There are unfluted Clovis points, and unfluted Folsom points, especially when rough tool stone or expediency required it.

When I look at that biface, it screams Clovis at me. Considering the lumps and stacks on the piece, I don;t think that material would lend itself well to fluting, and the knapper certainly knew that. The only way to know for sure is to see some of the associated artifacts and debitage, and to see if any of that demonstrates Clovis technology. That may or may not be possible depending on where you found it. If you found it in a waterway then we will not have that option available. You could also contact the people at Topper and get their opinion. Lots of areas/institutions are conducting a census of fluted point discoveries. I can't vouch for the researchers at Topper so take that with a grain of salt. Some archaeologists are cool, many are real aholes.

Congrats on what is probably an outstanding find.

Hope these help. I saw one called a Plainview point that was very close but not listed for the Southeast area where I am. I think the imperfection on the one side would have prevented fluting as well. Either way I think safe to put this one in 8000+ year range

 

[newnan man]

You have an excellent artifact there whatever it may be.

 

[Blackfoot58]

Keep searching. You seem to have the right location. Congrats

 

[Tdog]

I'd say Yadkin for the small triangle and possible Guilford Yuma on the lanceolate.

Guilford Concave Base

 

[Older The Better]

Dalton Sloan? Another option, there’s some that are pretty close but many aren’t… just a guess though I’m not sure about types your area.