Tuesday, May 22, 2018
More spring arrowheads
I went for a drive on a pleasant evening after getting out of work early. I wanted to swing by some favorite spots, where I have found prehistoric stone artifacts. There didn't appear to be many areas with a fresh surface to explore. But one slope near the water looked from the car like it had some good exposure. I got out of the car and took ten steps. Ten seconds in.
The corner is damaged but it is a nicely made triangular quartz arrowhead. I have had a few good days that start by finding something almost immediately. A nice feeling. I spotted this at the bottom of the slope.
Closer... It's very small. It has been resharpened from something bigger. I believe this is a Squibnocket Triangle.
I spotted a couple of Small Stemmed or Squibnocket Stemmed bases sticking out of the ground. It's always tantalizing to spot them like this, you hope so much that they are whole but they usually aren't. These were both broken.
This was a great afternoon. I have been on a roll lately and it feels great. The little white glass button is a relic of a more recent man. I have a few jars full of these, from picking them up over the years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
12 comments :
Good Job. I would haved been so happy to see something white on the ground. I actually did find one damaged thing out of quartz. Trying to put in the hours but still to no avail.
Went for a drive up into Vermont and - I tell ya - there are a lot of rivers and creeks that look like the places midwestern arrowhead hunters explore. Also, all those farms along the rivers with plowed fields. Makes me believe there are plenty of places to look up in that area. I just don't see any around here.
Definitely don't waste you time looking at rock pile sites because despite all the debitage I don't find any points. Weird???
Mavor and Dix concluded that there was no need for arrows at a ceremonial site.
Every time I drive to NH or VT, or even the Connecticut River valley in western MA, I see so many great river and creek spots and I know there must be sites there loaded with artifacts to be found, no doubt. But for me, to drive more than an hour to knock on a door and be told "no" or to spend a whole day far from home searching areas that are void, to find the sites, is a daunting proposition. If I had a good lead, some place I knew had a better than average chance of being productive, I would be more inclined to try. Peter, I'm sorry you haven't had as much luck with arrowheads this spring, as you might have hoped.
What were they making then to produce all the chips I see?
Greg: you have to imagine there are 100s of flakes per arrowhead. The arrowheads are much more rare.
That's a fair "point" I just can't shake the feeling I have spent enough time looking at certain sites that if they were there now or ever there I'd have a bucketful. Certainly possible I'm way off or maybe just terrible at finding them but does anyone find points at
these places?
At rock pile sites? No, not in New England. Down in Georgia they find things in the larger mounds.
So the reality is we're taking the word of Mavor and Dix who noticed the same problem and had to explain it off as best they could to fit accepted theories and timelines.
Greg, are you sure that the broken rock you are finding is chipping debris made by a person? There are some natural processes that will break stone.
I know of one rock pile site where stone tools were found in a rock shelter overlooking the piles. I'm not certain the piles were related to the occupation of the shelter.
It is not unusual in archaeology for ceremonial sites to be void of utilitarian items.
If I remember right, Mavor and Dix speculated that native people might have broken up quartz in some ceremonial way because of the tiny sparks that are visible at night when doing this.
I think I could probably collect a couple of gallons of chips and flakes for every tool I find, at most of the sites I search.
Yes the quartz breaking is part of it I read of a recent discovery which led to the same theory over in England. What I am getting at is Is it more likely that all the recognizable artifacts were made there and taken off site or are artifacts still there just not easily recognizable. I know my opinion and think I have enough evidence to prove it.
I'm not sure of anything I claim just obsevatione
Post a Comment