Uniface

[Tesorodeoro]

Is this considered a “retouched” uniface tool, or was that small flaking on the edge part of the original flaking?

I have not visited this sub-forum much in 2023.

I noticed that a particular member that always donated much of his knowledge and time here has been vacant from this forum (uniface).

I remember he spent quite a bit of time taking photos of his lifetime of collecting and sharing them here along with some information.
Always willing to answer questions or provide an opinion based on decades of learning.

A little poking around here left a few clues as to his absence. I’ll skip past my opinions on that.

Has anybody heard from uniface on other forums?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[OntarioArch]

I asked similar questions on another forum about my 4.5 inch Hornstone piece. An experienced, respected voice there said in response, "Respectfully, every single definition offered on line is just like the description of a 'uniface' provided to me by two anthropologists and one archaeologist from CT. It's a stone tool that is only flaked on one side. If it has flaking on two sides ( ventral and dorsal) even if minimal its considered bifacially flaked."

I sent photos of my piece to a university archeologist who said it was "unifaced in spirit." I take that to mean it was created in a time when uniface was the predominant type/style; this blade was intended to be unifaced, but was retouched at some point in time; and the blade was never intended to be bifaced. But by the letter of the law, it is not now a unifaced artifact. But it could have been one - likely was one - before retouching.

Is this just splitting hairs, just semantics, or does it hold some other significance as to the origin / use of this piece? If so, I would love to be educated on this point. What's it matter if it is technically 'uniface' or not?

And how long was it used before being retouched? If I could get a good lesson on identifying 'use wear' on a blade edge, and an other lesson on how to recognize significant variations in the patina in those retouched flake scars...maybe I could shed some light here.

 

[AlabamaRelic]

He hasn’t been around here since the middle of last November.

 

[CreekSide]

I believe he is on FB

 

[Tesorodeoro]

He hasn’t been around here since the middle of last November.

Yes, I saw the aftermath thread.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

I asked similar questions on another forum about my 4.5 inch Hornstone piece. An experienced, respected voice there said in response, "Respectfully, every single definition offered on line is just like the description of a 'uniface' provided to me by two anthropologists and one archaeologist from CT. It's a stone tool that is only flaked on one side. If it has flaking on two sides ( ventral and dorsal) even if minimal its considered bifacially flaked."

I sent photos of my piece to a university archeologist who said it was "unifaced in spirit." I take that to mean it was created in a time when uniface was the predominant type/style; this blade was intended to be unifaced, but was retouched at some point in time; and the blade was never intended to be bifaced. But by the letter of the law, it is not now a unifaced artifact. But it could have been one - likely was one - before retouching.

Is this just splitting hairs, just semantics, or does it hold some other significance as to the origin / use of this piece? If so, I would love to be educated on this point. What's it matter if it is technically 'uniface' or not?

And how long was it used before being retouched? If I could get a good lesson on identifying 'use wear' on a blade edge, and an other lesson on how to recognize significant variations in the patina in those retouched flake scars...maybe I could shed some light here.

I know it’s a uniface tool..blade? But does that fine flaking on the edge (and backside) reflect a resharpening, thus being retouched (in formal terms)?

Nice find by the way and thanks for the info!

 

[newnan man]

Uniface had a lot of knowledge on the questions you asked. I think he may have gotten PO'd with some individuals on this site and left. Not for sure but that was my take.

 

[Older The Better]

He did have good insight on the fringe tools. Personally I’d consider a tool unifaced if it has a clearly shaped side and a mostly flat side… I don’t think a little work on the edges takes it closer to a biface than a perfect uniface, but I guess I see where they are coming from technically it is worked on more than one face…