A point and a question

[Older The Better]

I found this point the other day I have a new screen I built, and I want to test it and kind of challenging conditions more or less wet dirt and it did about what I expected it plugged up, so I ditched the screen and started wandering around just looking at the surface where it was exposed and just as I was starting to leave, I just kinda had a feeling that I should look one more time so I just took my trowel and punch a hole and I found a couple of broken tools a section of a core and this little flake point … this site has been difficult to ID because all of the artifacts I found of been kind of crude and ambiguous and I was hoping this flake point would be identifiable, but that brings me to my question… how do you guys feel about flaked tools fitting into identifiable types? I don’t know if you just don’t see examples because they aren’t pretty or if people don’t consider flake tools to fit into types. To me they blur the line between opportunistic shaping and intentional form

 

[releventchair]

looks better than my efforts at knapping.

Folks had /have to learn and get a feel for it and still expect to encounter material that wasn't easy to read at first. Let alone tolerate being worked.
Time exposed before being worked. Time over millennia a material might have been exposed and covered and frozen or fired.... Chert knapped, vs slate ground smooth , vs what type flint, vs an imported piece of obsidian causing interest.

Some youths learning and a pile of material ...
Formerly worked pieces being reworked when broken or worn.
A piece dropped, or lost from being shot.
A refuse pile getting scattered by flood or ice flow. Or?

 

[newnan man]

Flakes were utilized for cutting extensively. Many flakes could be driven off a large core and these had razor sharp edges. They were used until dull and then another one was struck off until the core was exhausted. Some flakes could have been notched for halting if needed.

 

[Older The Better]

That’s kind of what I’m asking… this point was clearly made from a flake. It’s been notched, edges shaped… are those kinds of tools given types? Could you look at the one I found and say that’s a spavinaw creek, or is typology more for bifacial tools… I feel like if you’re already working from a flake you may be less interested in following form and just trying to get something pointy and functional. just curious if a flake tool is diagnostic to put it another way

 

[newnan man]

I'm of the opinion it's just a flake that was notched to attach it to a handle. Most, not all, but the vast majority of types are birfacial. I've seen a Clovis point that had been found by a later culture, resharpened and notched. Pretty unique.