Triple notched net weight?

[Wandermore91]

Do these exist? Because I believe I found one today. I returned to my known fishing site in search of points but stumbled upon this instead. It appears to be ground smooth and notched in three places. I have never seen a weight notched more than twice. The three notches are quite evenly spaced. I believe I might see evidence of pecking and grinding as well. If this is a weight it is very water worn due to location so please keep that in mind. What does everyone think? If this is what my suspicion tells me, can anyone date it for me? Thank you!








Hard to photograph it in a way where all notches are visible at once, but I tried my best. Also tried to show the notches individually.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[choo]

Sorry I'm just seeing a rock nothing about it makes me think Indian artifact!

 

[newnan man]

Rock on!

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I have to agree with choo. I see nothing on that stone that says it was altered or utilized by man.

 

[Wandermore91]

Sorry I'm just seeing a rock nothing about it makes me think Indian artifact!

Some artifacts are subtle. Especially here in New England, it’s a good defense mechanism.. it’s the reason they are still on the ground waiting for me all these years later..!

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Here is a link to some pictures of Notched Net Weights.

https://www.google.com/search?q=not...L8oXaAhUG0FMKHd5nB_AQ_AUIEigC&biw=768&bih=928

 

[Wandermore91]

So you guys don’t think I’m crazy, net weights can look very crude and much like nothing, especially when they’ve been on the shoreline for so long. I have found different styles of weights in this area which was a strong clue in leading me to believe this is another one. I am not saying I’m definitely right, I just have a strong feeling and would like to get as many opinions as I can.
Examples of notched weights, there are a couple that have 4 notches:

 

[Wandermore91]

Here is a link to some pictures of Notched Net Weights.

https://www.google.com/search?q=not...L8oXaAhUG0FMKHd5nB_AQ_AUIEigC&biw=768&bih=928

Yes I understand that this one doesn’t have very deep and obvious notches, but not all of them did.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Yes I understand that this one doesn’t have very deep and obvious notches, but not all of them did.

I understand, but I'm just not seeing one in your stone. You know your local pieces better that we do though.

 

[Wandermore91]

Next to another subtly notched weight I found nearby

 

[Charl]

Yeah, notched weights can definitely be rudimentary, especially since the notches don't have to be super defined or deep to get the job done, but just change the texture to hold the lashing. I'm not sure if your's is or isn't. But where there's one, there's almost always many, so I know what you're saying. It's hard to tell on your's because of what seems like water wear of the possible notches, but I would have picked it up, to decide later.

I guess I'm saying I can understand where the finder is coming from here, and why they would pocket this rock, and I can also understand those who see only a rock.

I have found many rudimentary notched weights in one field, located on a terrace above a bay, but only one that had three notches. I did not recognize that fact at first. In the first photo here, I noticed the bottom notch, and the one top left. But, that's only two, and they would be in the wrong arrangement. So, I thought "huh?". Made no sense. Until I realized there was a notch, sort of, at the top right as well. Or maybe that third one was only started, not finished. Although it would probably work as is. Dunno. But I knew that bottom notch in particular was not an accident.

This is actually the most recent notched weight I found in that field, couple of months ago. And I can appreciate it if folks did not think this was an artifact either, lol. It's just the way it is with these things sometimes. The finder does know the site better then anyone, and sometimes the finder has to act on a hunch based on what is already found at that site...







And an illustration from Louis Brennan's Artifacts of Prehistoric America(1975), one of the better books for illustrating crude artifacts in general, the kind I, and other collectors, often find...

 

[Charl]

Here is a link to some pictures of Notched Net Weights.

https://www.google.com/search?q=not...L8oXaAhUG0FMKHd5nB_AQ_AUIEigC&biw=768&bih=928

Several of the artifacts shown there, including a plummet, are mine, lol! I thought they looked familiar, lol....

 

[BearCreek]

Yeah, notched weights can definitely be rudimentary, especially since the notches don't have to be super defined or deep to get the job done, but just change the texture to hold the lashing. I'm not sure if your's is or isn't. But where there's one, there's almost always many, so I know what you're saying. It's hard to tell on your's because of what seems like water wear of the possible notches, but I would have picked it up, to decide later.

I guess I'm saying I can understand where the finder is coming from here, and why they would pocket this rock, and I can also understand those who see only a rock.

I have found many rudimentary notched weights in one field, located on a terrace above a bay, but only one that had three notches. I did not recognize that fact at first. In the first photo here, I noticed the bottom notch, and the one top left. But, that's only two, and they would be in the wrong arrangement. So, I thought "huh?". Made no sense. Until I realized there was a notch, sort of, at the top right as well. Or maybe that third one was only started, not finished. Although it would probably work as is. Dunno. But I knew that bottom notch in particular was not an accident.

This is actually the most recent notched weight I found in that field, couple of months ago. And I can appreciate it if folks did not think this was an artifact either, lol. It's just the way it is with these things sometimes. The finder does know the site better then anyone, and sometimes the finder has to act on a hunch based on what is already found at that site...

View attachment 1568588

View attachment 1568589

View attachment 1568590

And an illustration from Louis Brennan's Artifacts of Prehistoric America(1975), one of the better books for illustrating crude artifacts in general, the kind I, and other collectors, often find...

View attachment 1568593

Thanks Charl! That was really helpful in learning more about weights. I haven’t ever found one, just a small plummet, but I’ll have a better idea what to look for.

 

[Wandermore91]

Yeah, notched weights can definitely be rudimentary, especially since the notches don't have to be super defined or deep to get the job done, but just change the texture to hold the lashing. I'm not sure if your's is or isn't. But where there's one, there's almost always many, so I know what you're saying. It's hard to tell on your's because of what seems like water wear of the possible notches, but I would have picked it up, to decide later.

I guess I'm saying I can understand where the finder is coming from here, and why they would pocket this rock, and I can also understand those who see only a rock.

I have found many rudimentary notched weights in one field, located on a terrace above a bay, but only one that had three notches. I did not recognize that fact at first. In the first photo here, I noticed the bottom notch, and the one top left. But, that's only two, and they would be in the wrong arrangement. So, I thought "huh?". Made no sense. Until I realized there was a notch, sort of, at the top right as well. Or maybe that third one was only started, not finished. Although it would probably work as is. Dunno. But I knew that bottom notch in particular was not an accident.

This is actually the most recent notched weight I found in that field, couple of months ago. And I can appreciate it if folks did not think this was an artifact either, lol. It's just the way it is with these things sometimes. The finder does know the site better then anyone, and sometimes the finder has to act on a hunch based on what is already found at that site...

View attachment 1568588

View attachment 1568589

View attachment 1568590

And an illustration from Louis Brennan's Artifacts of Prehistoric America(1975), one of the better books for illustrating crude artifacts in general, the kind I, and other collectors, often find...

View attachment 1568593

Yeah, notched weights can definitely be rudimentary, especially since the notches don't have to be super defined or deep to get the job done, but just change the texture to hold the lashing. I'm not sure if your's is or isn't. But where there's one, there's almost always many, so I know what you're saying. It's hard to tell on your's because of what seems like water wear of the possible notches, but I would have picked it up, to decide later.

I guess I'm saying I can understand where the finder is coming from here, and why they would pocket this rock, and I can also understand those who see only a rock.

I have found many rudimentary notched weights in one field, located on a terrace above a bay, but only one that had three notches. I did not recognize that fact at first. In the first photo here, I noticed the bottom notch, and the one top left. But, that's only two, and they would be in the wrong arrangement. So, I thought "huh?". Made no sense. Until I realized there was a notch, sort of, at the top right as well. Or maybe that third one was only started, not finished. Although it would probably work as is. Dunno. But I knew that bottom notch in particular was not an accident.

This is actually the most recent notched weight I found in that field, couple of months ago. And I can appreciate it if folks did not think this was an artifact either, lol. It's just the way it is with these things sometimes. The finder does know the site better then anyone, and sometimes the finder has to act on a hunch based on what is already found at that site...

View attachment 1568588

View attachment 1568589

View attachment 1568590

And an illustration from Louis Brennan's Artifacts of Prehistoric America(1975), one of the better books for illustrating crude artifacts in general, the kind I, and other collectors, often find...

View attachment 1568593

WOW Charl [emoji51][emoji51][emoji51] !!!

When I posted this I was really hoping that you would chime in, as you usually do, but I was definitely not expecting you to show me almost the exact thing...!

In my eyes your find bears an uncanny resemblance to the stone I have. I notice that even unworn the notches in yours are still very shallow, as they are on mine. Upon picking it up I wondered how much deeper the notches originally were but comparing it to yours they don’t appear to have changed so much as the texture did. I believe my piece just lost the finer details that are still preserved on yours. I think the prolonged water exposure smoothed the telltale strike markings inside the notches. I could imagine your stone eroding to look very similar to mine. Looking at your picture, I have to believe I have another weight now!

Do you have any idea what time period this particular style would’ve been created in? I really would have loved to see how they tied this weight.

You are absolutely right- I did not expect anyone to see anything in my post but a rock, and it hurt a little that I couldn’t blame them, but I think you stunned us all. I think we can both be excited about this one. As always, thank you!

 

[Charl]

The illustration shows the type of weights recognized by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society(MAS). As many collectors recognize, the actual use of finely made plummets is a long standing debate, since many have a problem seeing examples, such as super well made California charmstones for instance, as something that the maker would go through the trouble of making, only to risk losing easily in the water. So many theories have been advanced for how finely made plummets were used, but the MAS guide has always listed them with weights, and associates them with fishing gear, as line or net weights. That may not be the case elsewhere in North America.

As far as age, MAS lists classic plummets as Middle Archaic, clumsy plummets( a pejorative term, but just indicating not as well made) as Late-Transitional Archaic, grooved weights as Early Archaic-Late Woodland, and notched weights as Early-Late Woodland. I assume these dates are assigned on the basis of where all these artifacts have been encountered in controlled excavations in New England. Otherwise, I don't know why notched weights could not be older then Woodland in time, but Woodland is what the MAS artifact guide indicates.

 

[Wandermore91]

The illustration shows the type of weights recognized by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society(MAS). As many collectors recognize, the actual use of finely made plummets is a long standing debate, since many have a problem seeing examples, such as super well made California charmstones for instance, as something that the maker would go through the trouble of making, only to risk losing easily in the water. So many theories have been advanced for how finely made plummets were used, but the MAS guide has always listed them with weights, and associates them with fishing gear, as line or net weights. That may not be the case elsewhere in North America.

As far as age, MAS lists classic plummets as Middle Archaic, clumsy plummets( a pejorative term, but just indicating not as well made) as Late-Transitional Archaic, grooved weights as Early Archaic-Late Woodland, and notched weights as Early-Late Woodland. I assume these dates are assigned on the basis of where all these artifacts have been encountered in controlled excavations in New England. Otherwise, I don't know why notched weights could not be older then Woodland in time, but Woodland is what the MAS artifact guide indicates.

View attachment 1568921

Very cool. I would really like to find a plummet style weight but perhaps my site will not give one up. I really admire the craftsmanship in those styles. The oldest artifacts I have found so far are the Neville point piece and the grooved weight but my site is mostly woodland. Do you think there could be classic or clumsy plummets under my nose among the others I’ve found?

Is it possible to request close-up pictures of the notches in your triple notched weight? I’d like to get a better look at what they look like with considerably less wear.

I have a couple more stones set aside that I now believe could be larger notched weights (a few pounds each). I haven’t been sure but I am going to grab them today and I will let you take a look. I’ll post the pictures later today.

Thanks Charl!

 

[Charl]

The one I posted earlier is packed away at the moment, so those photos I took, at the time I found the piece, will have to do at the moment. But the best notch is clearly visible. I am up in the air with the one you showed, as stated earlier. Sometimes they remain in the "just not certain" category, especially when potential modification is minimal and water worn.

Here is one from the same field as the triple notched one I showed. So, no water wear on this one, and it's obvious enough...







And here is an interesting water worn one. Found right next to a full groove weight my wife spotted on one of our bays. As soon as she picked it up, I said "well, here's another one!", and I picked this up. The two weights found together made it tempting to wonder if they were from the same net. But this one, with a partial groove on one side, and a notch on the other side, and the appearance of "wings" makes me also wonder if it might not actually be a tie on atlatl weight, which I have also found at that site.











As for finding plummets at your site, well, I don't know your site, but even if I did, that's something that I would not be able to predict.

 

[Wandermore91]

Those are amazing. Unfortunately I don’t think I’m going to find anything as well preserved as those in this location, so I will just have to deal with a bit of uncertainty if I continue to search there I guess. I took pictures of the others that I told you about. I think they will bother you just the same in that there’s no way of knowing with any certainty but maybe it’s worth showing. These three caught my eye. I do apologize for the rough quality of these but in the case that they might have actually been weights I definitely want to keep them. Also sorry for the number of pictures but I figure it can’t hurt since these are not a given, they really have to be looked at closely.

Front

Back
The larger one has two notches and also looks like it has an area between the two notches on the back of the stone where a few layers were chipped away- to improve grip? Rest of that stone is uniform in texture.

 

[goldog]

Oh net weight. I thought you meant net weight. Now I’m up to speed.

 

[Charl]

Those are amazing. Unfortunately I don’t think I’m going to find anything as well preserved as those in this location, so I will just have to deal with a bit of uncertainty if I continue to search there I guess. I took pictures of the others that I told you about. I think they will bother you just the same in that there’s no way of knowing with any certainty but maybe it’s worth showing. These three caught my eye. I do apologize for the rough quality of these but in the case that they might have actually been weights I definitely want to keep them. Also sorry for the number of pictures but I figure it can’t hurt since these are not a given, they really have to be looked at closely.
View attachment 1569136
Front
View attachment 1569138
Back
The larger one has two notches and also looks like it has an area between the two notches on the back of the stone where a few layers were chipped away- to improve grip? Rest of that stone is uniform in texture.
View attachment 1569151
View attachment 1569152
View attachment 1569153
View attachment 1569139
View attachment 1569148
View attachment 1569150
View attachment 1569155
View attachment 1569154
View attachment 1569156
View attachment 1569140

No, generally speaking, they're going to be a lot more obvious then that. You posted a notched weight earlier in this thread, shown next to your triple notch candidate. I honestly don't see any in this group that I would consider possibilities. I know, in my own case, decades of examining rocks that may or may not display human modification has made me attuned to even the slightest indication that such modification occurred. And that helps, because in the case of such things as notched weights, sometimes the alteration really is minimal. And sometimes you're just left with a "maybe".