Help identifying?

[Bruce2000]

Hi,

Just signed up on this forum tonight to get help identifying the first arrowhead I’ve ever found (already learned that the correct term is “projectile point.”)

I think it was good Karma: the only reason I accidentally saw it was because I was on my hands and knees picking up trash and broken glass from a walking path in the woods...

Found in Winchester, Mass.

If anyone can give me information about dating and classifying it, I’d appreciate that.

Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tdog]

Welcome Bruce (2k). We have some New Englanders here that are well equipped to give you an ID and time-frame. Congrats on your 1st find.

 

[antmike915]

Welcome from Georgia Bruce, a excellent 1st find. I'm not familiar with artifacts from Mass. Some one will be along soon to help.

 

[Bruce2000]

Thanks!

 

[Older The Better]

Ha, this forum is a great place to learn, I check nearly every day, Levanna popped into my head, i guess From previous posts here. I checked and it looks right to me, but I’m no ne guy so I’ll defer to the experts

 

[Relicgrubber]

Congrats on your first find Bruce. It is a nice one for a first find. May you find many more!

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Nice point, looks like it was found on the beach...all wet sticking in the sand.

The wet look does show off the flaking, but it’s good you included a dry picture. The lithic (characteristic or type of stone material) helps identify the point. Many times it’s good to see a profile picture of the base looking along the axis as well.

That’s about all I know.

 

[Bruce2000]

Thanks for that info. I wet it because it seemed to highlight the marks, and put it on the sand to take a better picture, but I actually found it in the dirt on the embankment above the edge of the lake.

 

[Bruce2000]

Thank you. I’ll look at the info you included.

 

[Tdog]

Hopefully MaMucker and Charl will chime in with their opinions.

Edit: I must agree that Levanna looks like a pretty good match.

https://www.projectilepoints.net/Points/Levanna.html

 

[MAMucker]

Delicate Narrow and Thin:
I only have a few MADDISON Projectile Point examples. (All surface finds for me.)
According to Boudreau (A New England Typology of Native American Projectile Points) these “are not at all common in southeastern New England”

The features; thinness, straight sides, L:W ratio (2:1), width: 3/4” (remarkably consistent) all point to a true arrowhead type: MADISON: Late Woodland (1000 BP [years before present] into Contact Period 400 BP)

 

[Bruce2000]

This is a reply to me from the Director of Archaeology, City of Boston:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for sending these! Looks like it is what we would call a "brewerton eared triangle" point, which dates to the Late Archaic, c. 3500-5000 years old. As your friend suggested, it is made out of rhyolite, and appears to be Blue Hills Rhyolite, which is found as a natural outcrop just south of Boston.

Would you mind sharing as precise as possible the location where it was found on the Upper Mystic Lake? Map with a dot would be great! There are a few sites recorded around its shores, and I want to make sure that this is either added to the current information on a known site, or recorded as a brand new site.

 

[Tdog]

Would you mind sharing as precise as possible the location where it was found on the Upper Mystic Lake? Map with a dot would be great! There are a few sites recorded around its shores, and I want to make sure that this is either added to the current information on a known site, or recorded as a brand new site.

Not sure I'd get too specific! Thanks for the update.

 

[Garscale]

I would tell them I found it under the big tree with moss on the north side. Close enough.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

This is a reply to me from the Director of Archaeology, City of Boston:

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for sending these! Looks like it is what we would call a "brewerton eared triangle" point, which dates to the Late Archaic, c. 3500-5000 years old. As your friend suggested, it is made out of rhyolite, and appears to be Blue Hills Rhyolite, which is found as a natural outcrop just south of Boston.

Would you mind sharing as precise as possible the location where it was found on the Upper Mystic Lake? Map with a dot would be great! There are a few sites recorded around its shores, and I want to make sure that this is either added to the current information on a known site, or recorded as a brand new site.

Wow, what an ask.
I’m sure they have some empty drawers down in the basement.

 

[redbeardrelics]

Nice point you found !
I would suggest that Madison is a better attribution than Brewerton Eared Triangle.
I would also suggest that rather than send the Director of Archaeology, City of Boston the exact location that you found your artifact, you request that it would be better that he send you the exact location of the "known" sites, and you can then determine if it is from a known site or a brand new one?

 

[Charl]

My first guess was also Brewerton Eared Triangle. It likely had some style of ear at lower left base where it is dinged. The ears on these points are created two ways: continuous retouch of the blade edge, leaving a tiny projecting ear at the base, and by very tiny side notches at the base. Also very common are single ear variants. Most of mine only display a single ear. Also not uncommon to see both types of ears on the same specimen. In any case, here are some typical examples from Ritchie’s New York typology, which can be used in identifying New England points:

https://collections.nysm.nysed.gov/projectilepoints/types/brewerton_eared_triangle-plate.html

 

[Charl]

Nice point you found !
I would suggest that Madison is a better attribution than Brewerton Eared Triangle.
I would also suggest that rather than send the Director of Archaeology, City of Boston the exact location that you found your artifact, you request that it would be better that he send you the exact location of the "known" sites, and you can then determine if it is from a known site or a brand new one?

For sure, exact location of registered sites are not going to be shared by the state of Ma. Nor would I expect it, or encourage it. There are good reasons for this, since some collectors will damage protected, unexcavated sites. I recall years ago a site in one of our state parks in RI was looted during the off-season. Archaeologists returned in the Spring to find the site destroyed.

At the same time, it’s understandable if any collector would be reluctant to share where they find things at sites they are themselves still actively hunting, or plan to hunt in the future. We would not share that info with another collector competitor, nor would most of us share that info with a pro. There are exceptions, and it has to do with building trust between collector and pro.

Recently, a field my wife and I had to ourselves for 30 years, and in which we found hundreds of artifacts, was sold for development. I was very pleased to work with the archaeological survey team doing their thing walking and digging test pits. In no time, I filled them in on what was present at the site, and where they should concentrate their test pits. After walking it for 30 years, I was glad to help properly record and register the site.

The relation of pros to amateurs, and to collectors is often strained, and trust is lacking. It’s likely this pro only wants the info for the very reasons he stated, and the OP will not somehow find himself banned from the site. But caution is very, very understandable. I would get to know this guy well first. It’s not like Brewerton Eared Triangles are at all rare, and it’s not as if Late Archaic sites are rare. The pros know full well that we collectors are out there finding and hunting sitrs far more than they are, and of course if they can learn from us, by asking these questions, they will. I imagine if you had found a fluted point, he would be chomping at the bit to know where you found it.

If archaeology and knowledge of the past is more important to a hunter/collector than finding and keeping the material artifacts of the past, this type of sharing comes far easier. I walk in both camps, and do believe knowledge of the past is more important. But that does not mean I just share all my locations. I usually do not if I am still actively walking them, and, in any event, I learn who to trust, or I give up info when a site is slated for development and the pros have no time to learn everything I learned in 30 years, so I will gladly share my knowledge of such sites, in the interest of advancing knowledge of the prehistory of such a site.

 

[MAMucker]

Y’all are probably right on with Brewerton Eared Triangle. The rework really Jack’s-up some of the bases on these points.
I had thought the narrowness on the OPs Point is at the absolute margin for the type. Although, we never got the actual width did we?

 

[uniface]

For sure, exact location of registered sites are not going to be shared by the state of Ma. Nor would I expect it, or encourage it. There are good reasons for this, since some collectors will damage protected, unexcavated sites. I recall years ago a site in one of our state parks in RI was looted during the off-season. Archaeologists returned in the Spring to find the site destroyed.

At the same time, it’s understandable if any collector would be reluctant to share where they find things at sites they are themselves still actively hunting, or plan to hunt in the future. We would not share that info with another collector competitor, nor would most of us share that info with a pro. There are exceptions, and it has to do with building trust between collector and pro.

Recently, a field my wife and I had to ourselves for 30 years, and in which we found hundreds of artifacts, was sold for development. I was very pleased to work with the archaeological survey team doing their thing walking and digging test pits. In no time, I filled them in on what was present at the site, and where they should concentrate their test pits. After walking it for 30 years, I was glad to help properly record and register the site.

The relation of pros to amateurs, and to collectors is often strained, and trust is lacking. It’s likely this pro only wants the info for the very reasons he stated, and the OP will not somehow find himself banned from the site. But caution is very, very understandable. I would get to know this guy well first. It’s not like Brewerton Eared Triangles are at all rare, and it’s not as if Late Archaic sites are rare. The pros know full well that we collectors are out there finding and hunting sitrs far more than they are, and of course if they can learn from us, by asking these questions, they will. I imagine if you had found a fluted point, he would be chomping at the bit to know where you found it.

If archaeology and knowledge of the past is more important to a hunter/collector than finding and keeping the material artifacts of the past, this type of sharing comes far easier. I walk in both camps, and do believe knowledge of the past is more important. But that does not mean I just share all my locations. I usually do not if I am still actively walking them, and, in any event, I learn who to trust, or I give up info when a site is slated for development and the pros have no time to learn everything I learned in 30 years, so I will gladly share my knowledge of such sites, in the interest of advancing knowledge of the prehistory of such a site.

Bear in mind, however, that this sharing has proven to be a one-way street in repeated, and bitter, experience. Given that you are -- officially -- regarded as "looters" and "vandals" by the profession as a whole, this shabby treatment should occasion no real surprise. For when a class of people is regarded as less than fully human, the norms of common decency evaporate.

FWIW.