Shell and bone points

[Airborne80]

In my previous posy (the one with the very small bird point) I responded to a comment and spoke about the absence of visible flaking and other marks. I will copy and paste those comments here below, as they pertain to these points that were found yesterday at the exact same spot where the bird point was found. I have many shell (and a few bone) points that were found in the exact same spot that are exact duplicates of these, in terms of size, shape and material. here is the copy of my previous reply on the subject of unorthodox points from my area.

No flaking whatsoever. I am glad you brought that up because while i realize that many folks truly believe that the absence of flaking or other common crafting (knapping) marks translates to an item being a geofact. I honestly (and I stress this in light of what some felt was me disputing them with a negative attitude) honestly honestly understand where that comes from and am not offended or disappointed at all. In fact, the more that I study the archeology of my area, the more interesting this dilemma becomes. I am reading college courses and other material that deals specifically with the very first humans to arrive and live in my area and up to the Historic age of the indigenous people. I have learned that the people who lived, fished and hunted in my neighborhood covered a stretch of time that spanned thousands (maybe as much as 15 to 20) of years, and the artifacts and specifically, projectile points, have not been identified and classified as of yet.

So, items like this one while clearly manmade (I will explain in a second) were not crafted in the way that most of the common and identifiable points were. That mostly has to do with the material that is native to the area. In this case, I am convinced that the stone was not flaked at all but rather ground and shaped against another stone until the desired shape and size was achieved.

The reader must understand the context of the find itself. these items (and I find many of them) are uncovered by the tidal motion of the water at the river's edge. When they emerge, much as the photo depicts, they are never surrounded by other stones of like material, or other material for that matter. They are just as you see this one. A lone perfectly formed triangle made of the exact material that the others are and they are on the banks of the most active fishing site of the particular Indians of my area. In otherwords.... if these were found on a beach that was sprinkled with other rocks and was in a questionable Indian site..... i would (like many) be inclined to label it as a geofact.

Someday soon, I will scan all of the similar points into one photo and it will be clearer to those with an open mind, that the odds of nature placing so many identical items in an area that happens to be a known site.... beyond comprehension. bear in mind, that in other areas that are close to this site, one does not find these items. I will post a point that was made of a clam shell in a moment. I found it yesterday at the same site. I have a number of them and to many, they will not be points at all.... because of the lack of visible flaking,


I hope that this topic is at the least interesting and at the best..... thought provoking in the sense that perhaps we have not discovered all that there is or was on the subject. Happy hunting to all

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cannonman17]

IMO One of two things is going on here

1) These are all geofacts

2) You have made the largest arcaheological discovery of the century by finding so many projectile points made with a completely new technology that leaves no trace of being touched by a human and has gone unknown until now.

Seriously man, every rock shaped like a diamond or triangle is not an artifact. You must learn to start identifying artifacts by all the parts, not just the shape. It doesn't matter how artifacts are made, even with this new "discovery", they would still need to be made, and anytime you make something out of another rock you're going to leave signs of it other than perhaps just smashing some together and utilizing without retouching the flakes... I take that back, even then micro chips and striations would occurr along the edge...

Again I would urge you to go back and compare these beach pebbles to your known artifacts, look them over, compare them...

 

[Airborne80]

IMO One of two things is going on here

1) These are all geofacts

2) You have made the largest arcaheological discovery of the century by finding so many projectile points made with a completely new technology that leaves no trace of being touched by a human and has gone unknown until now.

Seriously man, every rock shaped like a diamond or triangle is not an artifact. You must learn to start identifying artifacts by all the parts, not just the shape. It doesn't matter how artifacts are made, even with this new "discovery", they would still need to be made, and anytime you make something out of another rock you're going to leave signs of it other than perhaps just smashing some together and utilizing without retouching the flakes... I take that back, even then micro chips and striations would occur along the edge...

Again I would urge you to go back and compare these beach pebbles to your known artifacts, look them over, compare them...

Well..... I think that I will go with option 2 I always knew tat I would amount to something

I hear you Lima Charlie cannon..... and while i acknowledge that the evidence mostly supports your view..... let's just consider a couple of thoughts that I have. Its these thoughts that have me strongly wondering if there may be more this idea of mine. Its late and I am tired, so I will make it real quick.

First... there are three of my confirmed arrowheads that show absolutely no evidence of flaking. If you do not recall them, I will post them later. again, its late (almost midnight) and my wife is going to kill me if I do not log off of this thing soon. The point being..... even some of the points that you have complimented..... that came from the same site... have zero evidence of flaking. Why is that? Who knows? Perhaps being in the water for hundreds or thousands of years has worn them away. Put rough rocks in a tumbler for a week and see if you can detect any marks at all. Or, perhaps the material does not hold the flaking marks well or long?

Now.... with this particular item.... its made from clam shells. Is it impossible to imagine cutting and scraping clam shells into points? I happen to think that it makes great sense. First.... there are plenty of clam shells to use. Second, they would make great fishing points. they are sharp and easy to work with. Also.... at the site I find them at, I seem to keep finding clam shells with the exact shape and in the same size more or less. I ask you..... do you find that strange at all? You know more than most about this subject and so I ask you this. Did Indians use shells for arrowheads or not? If not.... then I must admit that you are more than likely correct, and its a fluke that nature keeps breaking clam shells into the same shapes, but only at this one site. If they did use shells....... do the shells always have flaking marks?

I appreciate your remarks and opinions and find this a worthy and interesting topic to discuss. I may be hard headed to some... but please do not misunderstand me. I am trying to learn and to present new ideas as well. I never forget that the world really was flat.... until it was prov-en to be round. I know that things are always the way that we believe them to be..... until they are prov en wrong. Now, I suppose that if you believe that we know everything that there is to know on the subject of archeology...... then I am a dreamer and am nowhere near reality. Galileo was in that boat as well. I am just saying..... is it slightly possible that the natives at this site did in fact use clam shells and small rocks to fashion projectile points for fishing and hunting?

Anyway... thanks again and i look forward to your response. Would you believe that after work today, I dropped by the site and found this (photo) "Item" in the same spot as the other. Do you see any resemblance at all to the many others that I find there? You must admit..... if they were not man made.... it is a strange coincidence.

lastly..... I hope that you comment on the spear tip thing that I found. I am wondering what your thoughts

 

[riverhunter]

Hmm. Airborne, you need to keep reading and looking at pictures of known artifacts. I know things can be discovered which dispute formerly accepted theories about points/artifacts, but I don't think you're quite ready to be listed among folks like Galileo...

I live in an area similar (and yet different) to yours. It's tidal, and sometimes the surf can be quite rough. I frequently find points which I call- for lack of a better term, 'seapoints'. Like seaglass, they're well erroded by sand and surf. Some are made of a grey, matte (grainy rather than shiny like flint or chert) stone which errodes pretty easily compared to most other stones. I found one just the other day. The shape- a 'typical' Adena shape w/ tapering base, perhaps to fit an atlatl. There are no flake marks left, but the edges do taper. I've also found a LOT of quartz points. They too are well eroded (more than you'd think what w/ quartz being so hard to work). Again, they're smooth and obviously water and sand-erroded, BUT you CAN tell that they were worked or flaked once, and the shape is without question, a point/blade shape. Sometimes you have to look through a microscope (that's what the pros do when evaluating artifacts. The flake patterns can determine (sometimes, maybe more often than I know) age/culture, i.e. Clovis, Cumberland, Plainview, etc.) What's more, I, too, have found triangular and diamond-shaped rocks-- little square ones too. Quite a few. I wondered whether they were game pieces of some sort. I've seen marble-shaped pieces on this site(TNET). I've seen 'discoidals' which folks think is part of a game, perhaps. So I've thought that maybe they were for a game of one variety or another.

I look at those clamshell bits and think, woo- that would be just about impossible to mount to an arrow! There are no 'ears' to wrap hasping material to- just jagged edges. I have a ton of oyster shells- in various forms- mostly broken, though some erroded. Great scrapers, I'm sure. But then again, I find a lot of 'tools of convenience' -- or 'coincidental tools'- things that worked as a tool, but were not altered from their origional state to be that tool. Scrapers, hammers, engravers. Lots of things would do. But I'd fill my yard and my neighbors' yard if I brought them all home. They do indicate a site. They are evidence of human activity. But they can stay where they are. I figure someone will need to find them to understand this area hundreds of years from now. When artifacts get too crude- like your triangular 'points' and 'shell points' -- crude to the point where there doesn't seem to be any working whatsoever, I figure they MAY have been used for something, but as such, they're not really a worthy collectable because mother nature made them. Not humans.

Since 99.9% of my finds come from the water, I understand your concern about errotion and what its effects can be on artifacts. But I have to say, with the exception of that grey stone I was writing about earlier, each and every point I've found has had naked-eye signs of working. And flint, by the way, hardly suffers at all- even from pounding waves and sand. Each one. Should I send you one, so you can see for yourself?

Happy hunting, pal-- and be careful of those snakes. Water snakes around here are not friendly. Be careful of that pup!
Riverhunter

 

[mikez]

I hope nobody minds if a total newbie chimes in here...
I'm not qualified to tell artifacts from geofacts, but I can offer an observation pertaining to clam shells.
In my area, New England, in some places on the coast people have crushed shell walkways or driveways. The clam locally called "quahog" is the shell usually used. Just by coincidence, last fall I was walking back from the beach and thought I spotted an arrowhead right in the road. Closer examination revealed a triangular piece of quahog shell. I noticed I was standing in front of a cottage with crushed shell driveway. I walked over for a closer look and found a huge number of the broken shell pieces were the exact same shape and size. No kidding, it looked like the driveway was made of arrowheads!
My thought at the time, which this thread reminded me of, was that something in the structure of the clam shell caused it to break into the triangular shape naturally.
Just my $00.02

 

[Airborne80]

Hmm. Airborne, you need to keep reading and looking at pictures of known artifacts. I know things can be discovered which dispute formerly accepted theories about points/artifacts, but I don't think you're quite ready to be listed among folks like Galileo...

I live in an area similar (and yet different) to yours. It's tidal, and sometimes the surf can be quite rough. I frequently find points which I call- for lack of a better term, 'seapoints'. Like seaglass, they're well erroded by sand and surf. Some are made of a grey, matte (grainy rather than shiny like flint or chert) stone which errodes pretty easily compared to most other stones. I found one just the other day. The shape- a 'typical' Adena shape w/ tapering base, perhaps to fit an atlatl. There are no flake marks left, but the edges do taper. I've also found a LOT of quartz points. They too are well eroded (more than you'd think what w/ quartz being so hard to work). Again, they're smooth and obviously water and sand-erroded, BUT you CAN tell that they were worked or flaked once, and the shape is without question, a point/blade shape. Sometimes you have to look through a microscope (that's what the pros do when evaluating artifacts. The flake patterns can determine (sometimes, maybe more often than I know) age/culture, i.e. Clovis, Cumberland, Plainview, etc.) What's more, I, too, have found triangular and diamond-shaped rocks-- little square ones too. Quite a few. I wondered whether they were game pieces of some sort. I've seen marble-shaped pieces on this site(TNET). I've seen 'discoidals' which folks think is part of a game, perhaps. So I've thought that maybe they were for a game of one variety or another.

I look at those clamshell bits and think, woo- that would be just about impossible to mount to an arrow! There are no 'ears' to wrap hasping material to- just jagged edges. I have a ton of oyster shells- in various forms- mostly broken, though some erroded. Great scrapers, I'm sure. But then again, I find a lot of 'tools of convenience' -- or 'coincidental tools'- things that worked as a tool, but were not altered from their origional state to be that tool. Scrapers, hammers, engravers. Lots of things would do. But I'd fill my yard and my neighbors' yard if I brought them all home. They do indicate a site. They are evidence of human activity. But they can stay where they are. I figure someone will need to find them to understand this area hundreds of years from now. When artifacts get too crude- like your triangular 'points' and 'shell points' -- crude to the point where there doesn't seem to be any working whatsoever, I figure they MAY have been used for something, but as such, they're not really a worthy collectable because mother nature made them. Not humans.

Since 99.9% of my finds come from the water, I understand your concern about errotion and what its effects can be on artifacts. But I have to say, with the exception of that grey stone I was writing about earlier, each and every point I've found has had naked-eye signs of working. And flint, by the way, hardly suffers at all- even from pounding waves and sand. Each one. Should I send you one, so you can see for yourself?

Happy hunting, pal-- and be careful of those snakes. Water snakes around here are not friendly. Be careful of that pup!
Riverhunter

Thanks Riverhunter. You make excellent points and as always they are greatly appreciated. While I am not 100% sure about the importance of the lack of flaking on a point.... i fully agree with your thoughts on the lack of an area to tie onto in terms of placing a point onto a shaft. That's an important observation and I am happy that you brought that to light. I will probably stop picking up shells from now on.... because of the perfect sense in your response. Thank you for taking the time to explain your views on this. Again...... while I will stop with the shell collection, I am going to have to have the idea that all points must show flaking marks..... pounded into my head before I accept that idea. Great response friend! That's what i expected of this site and the folks on it..... no anger, no irritation...... just information and idea exchanges so that each of us might learn from the other. I love it!

 

[Airborne80]

I hope nobody minds if a total newbie chimes in here...
I'm not qualified to tell artifacts from geofacts, but I can offer an observation pertaining to clam shells.
In my area, New England, in some places on the coast people have crushed shell walkways or driveways. The clam locally called "quahog" is the shell usually used. Just by coincidence, last fall I was walking back from the beach and thought I spotted an arrowhead right in the road. Closer examination revealed a triangular piece of quahog shell. I noticed I was standing in front of a cottage with crushed shell driveway. I walked over for a closer look and found a huge number of the broken shell pieces were the exact same shape and size. No kidding, it looked like the driveway was made of arrowheads!
My thought at the time, which this thread reminded me of, was that something in the structure of the clam shell caused it to break into the triangular shape naturally.
Just my $00.02

Your ideas are always welcome here. Like you, I am new at this and the exchange f information is the main reason that I log on. Your experience with the shells is interesting and probably explains why I keep finding the same shape. Thank you for that information. I probably have the biggest collection of shells, pebbles, rocks and oh yea... a few arrowheads... of anyone in Virginia hahaha. Thanks again for the post.

 

[creekhunter]

Geofacts

 

[Airborne80]

Geofacts

Your late man See above

 

[creekhunter]

I know, but not too late!

 

[Airborne80]

I know, but not too late!

Hahahah! Very cool graphic!!!

 

[Rich in Houston]

Well, I have seen an awl made from a turtle shell..

 

[pickaway]

Those are killa G-10...