Need an expert

[relic nut]

Hey guys, found this while detecting this weekend and I think it's something good. It's clearly been worked and we suspect it was a scrapper. I don't know much about these kinds of finds and would appreciate being educated. It's about four inches long and two inches wide at the widest point. Thanks for looking.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Coosakid2]

I'm not an expert but both have definitely been worked... First one looks like a scraper and the second possibly a crude knife

 

[relic nut]

I'm not an expert but both have definitely been worked... First one looks like a scraper and the second possibly a crude knife

Thanks! They are one in the same, just took pictures of each side. It was on top of the ground so one side is much cleaner.

 

[smokeythecat]

Nice, yes, it's been worked and it's most probably a knife.

 

[Coosakid2]

I'd say it's one or the other.... Somebody else will chime in soon

 

[Quartzite Keith]

I don't know that I am the "expert" you are looking for. I have spent quite a few years knapping that Virginia quartzite, at times with an an obsession bordering on mental illness, and based on that: It is absolutely worked and an artifact. The most likely explanation is that it is a failed preform. Based on size and material it is a textbook reject for a Savannah River (Late Archaic) work site. Rejection was due to material defects. That ridge shown on the face in the first picture is inherent to the material and problematic, but not necessarily fatal to finishing the piece. The fatal flaws are seen on the opposite face in the second photo. Those two large lumps in the material are what I call "knots". They are harder areas inside the rock which flakes do not want to pass through. Super common in east coast quartzites and the number one cause of biface failures. That broken area on the end may be a blowout from the knapper hitting the edge really hard to try to cut through the "knot" adjacent to it. I am going to guess thickness at those "knots" is something like 14-16 mm. The knapper probably wanted the biface thinner than 12.5 mm (half an inch), so dumped it when he could see that wasn't going to happen. After making 1,000 plus quartzite Savannah Rivers, my success rate is only 50%, so this is not an uncommon outcome.

It could be a tool, though. Ideally you would have a clearly modified edge or use wear to make that call, but both can be hard to see on quartzite. The simpler way to go is by context. If truly just a reject it should be within a couple hundred yards of the stone source. If you can't find a good stone source close by, it probably was rejected by the original maker, then picked up later by someone else to use as a tool. Imagine, for example you find that the day before you plan to go to the cane patch to cut shafts. Might as well pick it up and take it along as a saw.

 

[relic nut]

I don't know that I am the "expert" you are looking for. I have spent quite a few years knapping that Virginia quartzite, at times with an an obsession bordering on mental illness, and based on that: It is absolutely worked and an artifact. The most likely explanation is that it is a failed preform. Based on size and material it is a textbook reject for a Savannah River (Late Archaic) work site. Rejection was due to material defects. That ridge shown on the face in the first picture is inherent to the material and problematic, but not necessarily fatal to finishing the piece. The fatal flaws are seen on the opposite face in the second photo. Those two large lumps in the material are what I call "knots". They are harder areas inside the rock which flakes do not want to pass through. Super common in east coast quartzites and the number one cause of biface failures. That broken area on the end may be a blowout from the knapper hitting the edge really hard to try to cut through the "knot" adjacent to it. I am going to guess thickness at those "knots" is something like 14-16 mm. The knapper probably wanted the biface thinner than 12.5 mm (half an inch), so dumped it when he could see that wasn't going to happen. After making 1,000 plus quartzite Savannah Rivers, my success rate is only 50%, so this is not an uncommon outcome.

It could be a tool, though. Ideally you would have a clearly modified edge or use wear to make that call, but both can be hard to see on quartzite. The simpler way to go is by context. If truly just a reject it should be within a couple hundred yards of the stone source. If you can't find a good stone source close by, it probably was rejected by the original maker, then picked up later by someone else to use as a tool. Imagine, for example you find that the day before you plan to go to the cane patch to cut shafts. Might as well pick it up and take it along as a saw.

Great info, thanks a bunch!

 

[arrow86]

Nice find ... makes you wonder if when finished it would have looked very close to an Adena point

 

[rock]

Nice find ... makes you wonder if when finished it would have looked very close to an Adena point

I thought Adena also with the stem the way it is but probably never finished

 

[Mattb]

I’d say it’s probably a blank that was ready to be finished when the time was needed... if you make the tool first then it may break or might not be what you need...imo

 

[Huzzah!]

My vote is preform/blank as well

 

[uniface]

Too thick to be a preform.

IMHO.

 

[redbeardrelics]

Nice find you have there. It looks very familiar to me, and would seem right at home on any of the late archaic sites I hunt here in the middle of the Delmarva peninsula. From the photos the material looks to be a ferruginous quartzite, aka. "Ironstone". Some of our local archaeologists' point to the source of the material as layered deposits being exposed along the shorelines up the upper Chesapeake Bay, particularly around Herring Island. When I find artifacts of that material around here, they are usually large bifaces, preforms, rejects or tools, like yours. The finished or refined products are usually large constricting stem points/blades (Piney & Poplar Island types). squared stem points (Bare Island types), or occasionally a large, thick, crude side notched type. I have seen very few (if any) finished points less than 2" in length from this material. It appears to me this material was reserved or preferred for heavy duty tools. When I find them broken they are usually old breaks, and broken pretty much in half, which I think would take considerable force.
I hope you check out that spot again, and find many more.

 

[Robot]

Is This Knife...Flaky

Appears to be an early Native Flakeknife or Scraper.

Check these similar items found in Virginia.

EVIDENCE OF EARLY INDIAN OCCUPANCY NEAR THE PEAKS OF OTTER, BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA (WITH FIVE PLATES) BY - Google Search

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS
I
VOLUME 99, NUMBER 15
EVIDENCE OF EARLY INDIAN OCCUPANCY
NEAR THE PEAKS OF OTTER,
BEDFORD COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
(WITH FIVE PLATES)
BY
DAVID I. BUSHNELL, JR.
Collaborator in Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution
(PUBLICATION 3601)
CITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
DECEMBER 23, 1940





FIG. 2.-Sketches of six specimens of flakeknives and scrapers illustrated in
plate 2, showing the thickness and curvature of the flakes. 1 natural size.

Plate 2.-The occurrence of a large number of flakeknives and
small scrapers is the more interesting and important inasmuch as
similar objects are seldom found in Virginia. The flakeknives range
in size from those less than an inch in length to others somewhat
longer than the four specimens shown in the top row. All are thin
flakes struck from a mass and do not reveal any secondary chipping.
The one on the left, top row, is made of yellow or brownish mottled
jasper; the next two, dark chert; and the larger specimen on the
right, moss-agate. Others found with these were made of quartz
and quartzite. The sketch of a, in figure 2, shows the curvature of
the flake and the bulb of percussion at the bottom. The edges of alJ
are slightly roughened or serrated, the result of use.
A few specimens, represented by b and c, suggest a composite knife
and scraper, having two edges well defined and both showing the
effect of use. Other specimens, obviously scrapers and not knives,
are short and broad at the worked edge. Examples of this type are
shown in d, e, and f.
All were probably employed for various purposes, although certain
forms were undoubtedly better suited for some particular use than
were others.