"Just a Flake"

[uniface]

A lot of times it's impossible to change someone's mind once he's got an idea fixed in it. But for those who are capable of revising once-held opinions on the basis of new and better information:

Insistng that a flake must show purposeful edge modification before it can be called an "artifact" doesn't square with reality.

Edge modification on a flake that was utilized as a tool shows that it continued to be used after the original edge dulled. But a great many flakes were used as-is and discarded. Since these were intentionally made and intentionally used, they were artifacts​ by any reasonable definition of the term.

So how do you know they were used ? Edge wear. A couple cases in point:

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[uniface]

From what was obviously edge wear from use up to full-scale re-shaping/re-sharpening is a continuum with no fixed cut-off point.

 

[uniface]

One of my all-time favorites: a tiny flake of blue Coshocton found on a Paleo site several hundreds of miles from the source -- obviously highly valued stuff there, since even flakes this small were being saved and re-cycled.

Food for thought: How many here would even pick this up ?

 

[uniface]

Spend enough time being up-close-and-personal with this stuff and you notice something: the edges that were thick enough to be re-edged were (when they were); the thinner edges were used as cutting tools as-is. A bit hard to see on this one due to the material, but visible:

 

[Garscale]

An artifact is a stone altered by man. Flakes sure fit that definition. However not all flakes are tools. Many could be used to cut and some certainly were. Some cultures certainly struck blades just for the purpose of a cutting edge . On the Brazos site we just finished, there was and still us an abundance of fine material. Running 400yds of dirt per day literally produced a dump truck load of flakes a day. While some show usage... most were just a flake.

 

[uniface]

It depends, Gar. If your mental picture of the Folsom culture is Folsom points, extinct bison, endscrapers and ultrathins (trophy pieces) that's fine. But that leaves an awful lot of the big picture out. That's pretty much what previous generations did. And while their generalization is accurate enough up to a point, you need everything recocoverable -- down to and including not only the dirt they're found in but even the solar energy in the buried grains of silica in it -- for a more complete picture.

Folsom points got used how often in an average month ? And ultrathins, and even scrapers ? Probably 90% of their daily activity isn't reflected in them. The rest of the picture is in the not-sexy but indispensible other stuff.

 

[smokeythecat]

I pick them up. I consider these tools.

 

[joshuaream]

Nice stuff Uni! Last picture in the second post is one of my favorites of your pieces.

The definition of an artifact isn't really subjective- an object made/modified by human culture. Works of art down to waste flakes and garbage. Each of us has created tens of thousands of artifacts so far during our trips around the sun, and probably many more. (The only grey area is potentially identifying geofacts from human activity, and maybe "intent" in some cases.)

Is an artifact worth collecting? That is a question of value, and that is highly subjective and personal. I've collected flakes that not many people would collect on some sites, and I've left some stuff behind some stuff that many people would collect simply because I already have too much stuff. (If Gar collected every flake, he'd need Norfolk & Southern to build a rail spur and send him a freight train to haul away every technical artifact on his sites.)

 

[Almy]

I think you guys are way too flakey. When I lived in an Iroquois area many years ago, I found a few points and flakes. But since I have moved to a Algonquin area, I have found only 2 or 3 and those are questionable as indigenous people's artifacts because they could also have been from flintlock flint making. Mine flakes are very valuable because of their rarity (to me, anyway). And you guys talk about truckloads of them!

 

[Up-North]

Just a flake
I leave nothing behind
Lol

 

[H.P.]

I understand what’s being said However if I kept every really nice un modified flakes I would have thousands so as a matter of practicality I only keep modified ones..if I lived in a flake poor area I probably would keep all of em..There’s no dispute concerning weather they used a fresh flake to cut, actually I used one today to cut a wad of tape off the end of my Ishi stick..

 

[Tdog]

I think you guys are way too flakey. When I lived in an Iroquois area many years ago, I found a few points and flakes. But since I have moved to a Algonquin area, I have found only 2 or 3 and those are questionable as indigenous people's artifacts because they could also have been from flintlock flint making. Mine flakes are very valuable because of their rarity (to me, anyway). And you guys talk about truckloads of them!

You are referring to debitage that are only a few hundred years old. The truckloads of material et. al. are way older than that and when they were created precedes any known tribe names.

 

[uniface]

As more and more sites get completely cleaned out (the ones i hunted were nearly 100%), the more flakes are going to be more of, if not all that, people can find. Moving the goalposts, as it were, of what people find valuable/interesting enough to take home and study.

Then, when the questions become why the flakes were created the way they are, it gets really interesting.

 

[ToddsPoint]

I experimented with flakes several times to dismember animals. I produced the flakes on the spot and used them. What surprised me was how fast they got dull. About 5 min. or less and the razor edge was finished. It was still very sharp, but not razor sharp. Many unmodified flakes you find were used, made dull, and tossed in a short period of time. The average person examining them would think they are new and unused. Gary

 

[MAMucker]

"Just a Flake"

Of course, this discussion is regarding artifacts of NA origin. Im learning about the nuances of flake science. Some are bonifide types, and are well documented. Others are generalized.
But not every flake can be associated. It is well known but little discussed that early Europeans were still using flint during the contact period.

 

[Tnmountains]

A flake can be an artifact but may only be debitage. Anyhow the pieces that you are showing almost all show secondary edge work and usage wear before being discarded. I think were material is very abundant you find less secondary work and sites where material was scarce you find much more secondary edge work. What was it we uses to say? An expedient expendable tool that quickly served its purpose.
Nice pieces good post.

 

[uniface]

The problem with Flakes posts is always that what can be true in the context of a single occupation & set of geographic constraints becomes irrelevant/meaningless when the context is expanded to cover a wider area and longer time frame. Very little is true across the board​ except that they were made and used but don't necessarily have much significance -- which is where it always ends up.

 

[Garscale]

The problem with Flakes posts is always that what can be true in the context of a single occupation & set of geographic constraints becomes irrelevant/meaningless when the context is expanded to cover a wider area and longer time frame. Very little is true across the board​ except that they were made and used but don't necessarily have much significance -- which is where it always ends up.

Your last line sums it up. They do have significance though. They indicate a prehistoric culture was there. In many case, flakes tell me pretty precisely which cultures through a pattern of platforms, materials,etc.

 

[uniface]

If you'd expand that last part to three pages, I'd read them all and take notes. Texas paleo & pre-/post-paleo can be like a different planet.

 

[tomclark]