Unifaces (of course) I

[uniface]

I've annoyed people here by describing this relic and that one as being from the Paleo era. If the artifacts at issue had been fluted points, there'd be no impulse to dispute this assessment. But when they're uniface tools, since these aren't generally as familiar to people as points are (when they're familiar at all), the suspicion arises that ol' uniface here is just blowing smoke -- making it up as he goes along.

THIS IS OK ! IMHO, it's even a good thing. Because, ideally, doubts should provoke questions. And the questions, in turn, should provoke answers. (I've posted a slew of links to information sources, but it isn't reasonable to expect others to be so gonzo interested in this one narrow area that they've read, and all but memorized them, the way gun enthusiasts do ballistic tables).

So. Here's one fundamental one, because it covers a key point. From page 31 of Kentucky Archaeology.

By comparison with the preceeding period, the Middle Paleoindian tool kit exhibits a number of differences (fig. 2.8). For example, prismatic blades and polyhedral blade cores are absent. The core and blade technology was replaces by the technique called bipolar lithic reduction. This technological change occurred as toolmakers began to use poorer quality stone for their tools.

Now, this technology did re-appear in Hopewell. But (as concerns the Tennessee-Kentucky heartland) unless someone can show me some evidence of them making larger blades here in the east than the little ones they're well known for, and that they sometimes retouched the edges of them the way Early Paleo people did, acknowledging that the GIGO principle applies (attribution can only be as accurate as data is adequate), the blade below is from a Clovis toolkit. Both positively (this is the sort of thing they made) and negatively (nobody else did anything like this of this size).

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[bravowhiskey]

Is that type of flint common in your area? It looks like what might be referred to as "rootbeer flint" because of the color.
Here is some picked up from Brown County, Tx.

I am fascinated by the huge variety of same.

Love your academic pictorals/posts.

BW

 

[uniface]

Glad you can use the info

I think the material's heavily patinated Dover Chert.

 

[Th3rty7]

Oh well, someone got annoyed...many more here appreciate your research, and experienced opinion, I know I do. It does provoke questions, discussion, and debate. Always a good thing imo.

 

[Tnmountains]

That is one fine specimen and am glad you annoyed whoever it was. This is an internet forum so get over it. Like the guys said above I also appreciate the knowledge you bring to the table.
So we should go look at our collections and when hunting look for a similiar type item?

 

[uniface]

If you find one like it, you're into Clovis.

But, hopefully, the ones you find won't have encountered Mr. Plough so many times

 

[oldgoat]

I know from watching your posts that not all tools were bifaced...down here in Texas, alot of folks just throw away unifaces because they are looking for "points", unfortunately, for them, they are missing out on the learning that goes along with learning about the tools...I have been to some of the paydigs in this area and picked up drills and scrapers and kill site knives that others have just tossed because they are not points....

 

[uniface]

That's the same way I managed to assemble most of the examples of them I have -- inhabiting a niche hardly anybody else realised was even there.

Your interest in them / awareness of them gives you a leg up

 

[oldgoat]

I hope that I never stop learning...example, went to a dig over Labor Day, found some red ocher at this site...most of the folks there knew that it had been used as a paintbase,but none of them knew how...Because of all the trivia that is packed in my brain, I was able to show a little girl there how to make it and she wore some as a Warrior Princess all that day...made my day just to pass on the knowledge...Her mother told me she even wore it to bed that night...If you have the knowledge pass it on, it does no one any good if you just keep it locked away...

 

[RichPA]

Thanks for providing the Paleo info. I find it helpful and have a lot to learn. Right now I'm in information overload, but have learned a great deal of information in a short amount of time.

 

[uniface]

If you have the knowledge pass it on, it does no one any good if you just keep it locked away...

Like anything else, maybe. Here, we've got a community of decent folk, so sharing knowledge is the order of the day. Especially in cases like your little girl's.

In general though, make haste while the sun shines. You have a leg up -- what you do with it is up to you.

Being selective is not a bad thing. 50 years ago, it was called being "discriminating" and was highly valued.

For whatever it may be worth (assuming anything)

 

[abarnard]

You have helped out tremendously, heck, you even helped me identify my limace uniface blade that I found here in Central Texas on Lake Travis. In my opinion, I don't beleive you are blowing and smoke up anyones posterior end. I have learned alot from the info you have provided to this site. Keep posting the good stuff sir, it is educational and might make people realize that there's more to artifacts than just arrowheads in general. Keep it real Uni, you the man...

 

[ohioaxeman]

uniface...

 

[pickaway]

I've annoyed people here by describing this relic and that one as being from the Paleo era. If the artifacts at issue had been fluted points, there'd be no impulse to dispute this assessment. But when they're uniface tools, since these aren't generally as familiar to people as points are (when they're familiar at all), the suspicion arises that ol' uniface here is just blowing smoke -- making it up as he goes along.

THIS IS OK ! IMHO, it's even a good thing. Because, ideally, doubts should provoke questions. And the questions, in turn, should provoke answers. (I've posted a slew of links to information sources, but it isn't reasonable to expect others to be so gonzo interested in this one narrow area that they've read, and all but memorized them, the way gun enthusiasts do ballistic tables).

So. Here's one fundamental one, because it covers a key point. From page 31 of Kentucky Archaeology.

By comparison with the preceeding period, the Middle Paleoindian tool kit exhibits a number of differences (fig. 2.8). For example, prismatic blades and polyhedral blade cores are absent. The core and blade technology was replaces by the technique called bipolar lithic reduction. This technological change occurred as toolmakers began to use poorer quality stone for their tools.

Now, this technology did re-appear in Hopewell. But (as concerns the Tennessee-Kentucky heartland) unless someone can show me some evidence of them making larger blades here in the east than the little ones they're well known for, and that they sometimes retouched the edges of them the way Early Paleo people did, acknowledging that the GIGO principle applies (attribution can only be as accurate as data is adequate), the blade below is from a Clovis toolkit. Both positively (this is the sort of thing they made) and negatively (nobody else did anything like this of this size).

I agree, I love tools especially hafted scrapers, i like finding them more than a point...