Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Dalton was in this area plenty. I have found many brifacated bases but never one that was a whole piece. It is in a frame rite now by the way. Its probably one of the oldest points I have found whole. Thanks for everyones help, rock
They say Buzzard Roost falls under Benton's. Overstreet is a good guide to start with. Many people get in a tissy because a few points are mis named and they acknowledge a snapped base Kirk. Funny how that drives people crazy. Then it;s a price guide too.Hothem and others never came close to what Bob Overstreet did in trying to ID and publishing. If you want specific stick to your local dig reports. Hothem shows a similar one as a St. Albans but mostly only gives examples from Va and N.C for the South East and no other clues.Nothing n Ga
The pottery around here is even named after bridges and roads and Islands. Here our time frames are called the Dallas Period in late Mississipian times.Local yocal knowledge. These things makes no sense if you are a googler.
A local show will be a good bet Rock. Even then from table to table you might get different views,lol.
I think Hippy is pretty good at point I.D and can usually say why. I can not do that. It is easy to click in and type "geofact" It is harder to try and nail something down and very easy to be wrong…
Lol, I found a 4" long, Snapped Base Kirk once. You know what many collectors I showed it to said about the flaking? They said, "looks like Paleo flaking to me." Heck, when I found it I really didn't have a clue what it was. I thought it was a preform. So when I saw a broken base and a long, worked blade, I thought it was unfinished or it was a pre-form of some arrowhead type. That thought has always stuck with me. I have no resource to prove it but I believe a Snapped Base Kirk can be a preform (esp. a large example). All the knapper had to do is notch the sides and grind the base for hafting. Seems simple to me for a survival situation but I'm not sure if it's true?Many people get in a tissy because a few points are mis named and they acknowledge a snapped base Kirk. Funny how that drives people crazy.
..( broken base)..Has anyone ever been able to explain one good reason why anyone would go through the trouble of forming a base on a point just to snap it off?
I know we've gone over this a thousand times but it seems like an awful big coincidence that the person who coined the term "snap base".. (Overstreet)....Found alot of them ... Talked to the right people... and got the name.. . .. Just happened to benefit monetarily by considering broken Kirks a complete piece when adding them to his price guide and selling them.
Sure everyone has their opinions.. But I've never heard a credible one for why someone would knap a base onto a point then break it off... Its just broken as far as I'm concerned
I enjoyed trying help. I think it was a great find really! It reminds me of what I like to call that "Gucci" material here. If I find that, you better believe it will put a smile on my face. Then, if I find some more quartz crystal, I like to call that material "Victoria's Secret." Oh, I can just imagine it now.
Nice read bossReading all this... I understand the desire to give an artifact a 'name', and I also understand that from region to region, names change. And that there are slight variations to 'standard' types- which change the name from one to another. I get that. But isn't it possible- just possible that the piece doesn't really have a name? Isn't it possible that it's a piece w/ origins in the bifurcated realm, but it didn't behave as the knapper wanted, so it ended up being a knife w/ hard to distinguish origins because of it's difficult manufacture? Isn't it possible that a decent-looking chunk of rock proves to be a gnarly mess, and having gone as far as the knapper already had, he/she decided to use the remains as best as they could? I mean, I get that people want to know- for sure (or as sure as they can be) the age or technical relevance of the style of knapping- to best gage the age, but how far does one go? How far do you bend over backward to give a piece a name? Or is the real intent to understand the precedent for the see-able-- the flaking technique, the material, the base. It seems to me, sometimes the best you can really do, in all honesty, is say that it's paleo, archaic, woodland, etc.(and the sub-categories within those eras). Given that it's not a 'fine' specimen, with tell-tale base or flaking, isn't it okay to just say it's a tool from the '____' era? It seems that so often we (all) get caught up in naming something- as though the name alone will give it credence. Justify it's existence in a collection. Is it not equally important to take a piece, keep it in a location box, and see what else might be found in the same place- for comparison- to build a decent argument for such-and-such an age/era/technology? I do understand the problem w/ erosion finds. That's all I find. So artifacts are out of context from well before I find them. But, that said, I do find similar items over time, and can draw conclusions from the group- rather than the singular item. Maybe I'm way out in left field here. And again, I'm not trying to be abrasive or a wet blanket, but I get a bit frustrated with the name-game. And although Overstreet is an excellent starter book- and as comprehensive as an all-purpose guide can be, it does not address specific locations, regions with the detail necessary to draw realistic 'absolutes' about anything beyond the more broadly understood typologies. It was the first book I bought with regards to this 'hobby/obsession', and I use it very rarely- and only when trying to get a broad understanding of artifacts found in locations other than the one I live and hunt in. For my location, there are books written specifically concerning my area/region. Those are gold. When I first started, I kept thinking my finds had similarities to pieces found hundreds of miles away, and thus had the same name. Big oops. Using only Overstreet was problematic. Adding to my research library helped enormously, as I found pieces more similar to mine- and with different names. But names are only part of the equation. If a person from a different area sees a piece named ___, and they have a piece like it, they might assume it has the same name. Especially if they don't have years and years of research study in various regions. These region-specific books are not necessarily on line. More are small publications- often for use in universities and colleges. In my business, we speak of 'food ways'-- the routes various foods traveled to various parts of the globe over time. Maybe the study of how technology flowed from one region to another over what period of time would be more helpful than trying to give a specific, imperfect tool a name. All that said, I too would have picked it up and been happy with it. Congrats on your find- especially considering the short hunt! Yakker
Real learning experience here sounds like you're into crossdressing or something... Don't talk about going over my head with anything..
I keep trying trying to read your long post and I keep getting interrupted. I just can't muster that one yet. LolI tend to agree w/ Old Digger on this one. And thanks Painterx7 (I really need to self-edit...that's too much). Yak