Biface Platters

[PaleIO]

I had someone ask me recently to send some photos of a personal find from several years ago and decided to share here also. Some of you may remember it from AO. I am looking forward to the input I get on this one. I have had professional archaeologists look at them and most have agreed that they are real old...but recently I had a career archeologist tell me he would only date them at 1000-2000 yrs. I am very confident in my belief that they are of Clovis origin but always open to input from others. Two of the biface's were found stacked together sticking out of an eroded creek bank with the additional piece of flint. The third was covered in a thin layer of soil directly below the others. The white one caught my eye, if you look closely you can see the soil line. I have searched the area around and downstream many times since with no additional pieces recovered. I believe the darker material is Spanish Digging's. IMHO the more oval platter is nearly identical to one found near Boulder, CO in the Mahaffy Cache. As always found on private land with full landowners permission.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[PaleIO]

To me that is just about the coolest thing to find. I wonder what would be of equivalent value in today’s world. Were those easy to come by or high value items?

I am sure they were very important to a hunter. Many areas are flint poor and lack quality workable material. It was necessary to carry your own. Depending on how far you are from a good source the more valuable they become!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jon Stewart]

OK, just wondering. I come on here to view and see things called names that I never heard of which don't mean much I guess. Been flint knapping for 15 years and never heard of a knapper making discs and platters is all.

 

[PaleIO]

OK, just wondering. I come on here to view and see things called names that I never heard of which don't mean much I guess. Been flint knapping for 15 years and never heard of a knapper making discs and platters is all.

I had never heard on it either until I uncovered these and started researching. I would love to see a knapper reproduce one of these. I have always wondered how big the original rock might have been.

 

[PaleIO]

I've got one found in Macoupin Co. IL. From an old collection. Gary

View attachment 1851346View attachment 1851347

I really like that material. Has a glassy look to it.

 

[joshuaream]

OK, just wondering. I come on here to view and see things called names that I never heard of which don't mean much I guess. Been flint knapping for 15 years and never heard of a knapper making discs and platters is all.

Fair point.

I think it had to do with the objective. Most modern knappers have a "destination" in mind when they knap. They make a point. But if as a knapper you wanted to maximize large relatively flat percussion flakes, how would you go about it? (My guess is you'd make a big biface and work it carefully like these were.)

 

[old digger]

I guess that I need to find one of those. I know that they found a large one at the Anzick site several years back.

 

[Fred250]

I have heard that as well but I think that's a wild guess. Ovid shape is the most wasteful possible for that purpose.

It makes more sense if they are a form of currency, which even today needs to be visually appealing for people to have faith in its implied value.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

So they didn’t leave the source without knowing the chunk they were taking could be fully utilized.
That explains the lack of larger discarded chunks of workable material. If you could form a large nicely flaked platter, that proves a lot of surface area as being workable material.

Makes sense for a nomadic culture.

One larger piece would be easier to secure with leather straps than many smaller pieces.

 

[Garscale]

I hear what Joshuaream and Uniface are saying and that's a possibility but I just don't think its right. Clovis made and traveled with cores from which prysmic blades were struck. They look nothing like a platter when exhausted. A turtle backed core would have functioned as described but all the platters are pretty much flat with work on both sides. Also a core would likely have been pretty round If the goal was to maximize flakes. To me the platters is a mystery yet to be explained and understood.

 

[Jon Stewart]

I agree because in the end only the maker knew what he was going to make out of bi-faces, preforms and platters. He may be heading towards a clovis, snap the blade and make a little side notch out of it.

 

[Quartzite Keith]

I do favor the idea of them being flakes cores. The Australian Aborigines also used bifacial flake cores. In the case of Clovis platters the idea was to continue to drive flakes off it until the width to thickness ratio was so high the material could no longer handle the stress and would snap, creating two or more pieces that could then be made into Clovis points or other such bifacial tools.

I've only ever tried to do it once. I don't like to contaminate artifact posts with pictures of modern work, so I started a thread in the modern flintknapping forum above.

 

[uniface]

Clovis made and traveled with cores from which prysmic blades were struck.

I know there are people who believe this, and even base their claims on having found them in what they believe were "paleo" contexts.

While remaining open to information that would alter my opionion, I disagree.

For one thing, a fair number of paleo (Clovis) caches have been found and published by now. While the information I'm operating on is necessarily incomplete, I've never seen a blade core in any of them, nor encountered the inclusion of one in site inventory lists. Perhaps someone else has, and can cite the article for confirmation ?

For another, as Gault shows, the failure rate of blade cores was high, resulting in their being abandoned in large numbers. I.e., that making blades was a low success-percentage endeavor at best. At a quarry/lithic resource site, where raw material was abundant, this was not a problem -- wreck one core, start another. But hundreds of miles from the nearest re-stocking locale, it would have been a critical one.

In conjunction with this, it is well established that finished blades were transported over long distances in the paleo era, as proven by the wear on their arises (high points) which resulted from them grinding and rubbing against each other in bags during transport.

A semantic issue also potentially exists. Core-&-blade technology definitely extended into the Early Archaic era -- a lot of which is fondly believed to be "Paleo" -- especially by collectors West of the Mississippi.

[Clovis = Paleo. Folsom/Midland straddles the Paleo/EA line of demarcation. Everything later --i.e., San Patrice, Dalton, Scottsbluff, Jimmy Allen et al. -- is not. Paleo lifestyle (herd hunting), arguably. But not paleo (an era in time)].

I know that the platter core technological strategy (another Clovis earmark) was still in use by the makers of Golondrina points (post-paleo) in Texas because an Arrowheadology member (whose name I've unfortunately forgotten) sent me a number of them he'd found, years ago. And in the East, at least, occasional blades can be found in Dalton (post-paleo) assemblages, although they usually found that making long (non-blade) flakes was easier.

What these people may or may not have done re. core transport in the West is something I know nothing about.

FWIW

 

[saucerhead]

Awesome and interesting find! Thanks for the chance to see them.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I know there are people who believe this, and even base their claims on having found them in what they believe were "paleo" contexts.

While remaining open to information that would alter my opionion, I disagree.

For one thing, a fair number of paleo (Clovis) caches have been found and published by now. While the information I'm operating on is necessarily incomplete, I've never seen a blade core in any of them, nor encountered the inclusion of one in site inventory lists. Perhaps someone else has, and can cite the article for confirmation ?

For another, as Gault shows, the failure rate of blade cores was high, resulting in their being abandoned in large numbers. I.e., that making blades was a low success-percentage endeavor at best. At a quarry/lithic resource site, where raw material was abundant, this was not a problem -- wreck one core, start another. But hundreds of miles from the nearest re-stocking locale, it would have been a critical one.

In conjunction with this, it is well established that finished blades were transported over long distances in the paleo era, as proven by the wear on their arises (high points) which resulted from them grinding and rubbing against each other in bags during transport.

A semantic issue also potentially exists. Core-&-blade technology definitely extended into the Early Archaic era -- a lot of which is fondly believed to be "Paleo" -- especially by collectors West of the Mississippi.

[Clovis = Paleo. Folsom/Midland straddles the Paleo/EA line of demarcation. Everything later --i.e., San Patrice, Dalton, Scottsbluff, Jimmy Allen et al. -- is not. Paleo lifestyle (herd hunting), arguably. But not paleo (an era in time)].

I know that the platter core technological strategy (another Clovis earmark) was still in use by the makers of Golondrina points (post-paleo) in Texas because an Arrowheadology member (whose name I've unfortunately forgotten) sent me a number of them he'd found, years ago. And in the East, at least, occasional blades can be found in Dalton (post-paleo) assemblages, although they usually found that making long (non-blade) flakes was easier.

What these people may or may not have done re. core transport in the West is something I know nothing about.

FWIW

Thank you for backing up your reasoning!!

 

[sandchip]

Platter cores were the preferred design for transportation. They started out thicker and got thinner as long, transverse flakes (some of them overshots) were removed. Oval shapes made it fairly easy for removals to reach, or pass, the center line (no stacks wanted).

The ones found (like those) are generally last stage (thinnest) before being split in two (diagonally) for point production (if that's what was intended). At that point, they were cached for later use far from the lithic source.

The thin, spreading flakes removed were excellent tools as-is, and served as tool stock for making purposefully shaped tools like endscrapers.

Actually, near-complete thinning flakes from them are even scarcer than the platters themselves. First picture shows reduction sequence involved. All three are overshots.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/n...facts/137700-some-paleo-tools-joshuareem.html

FWIW

I never gave much thought to this piece other than it possibly being a flake knife and for some reason, continued to hang onto it for nearly 30 years. Now, I'm wondering having read this and following the link. So what would be everyone's feelings on it?

 

[Garscale]

I never gave much thought to this piece other than it possibly being a flake knife and for some reason, continued to hang onto it for nearly 30 years. Now, I'm wondering having read this and following the link. So what would be everyone's feelings on it?

It is a classic core struck blade. It would be very much at home in the gault Clovis assemblage. Did other cultures make them? Very likely.

 

[PaleIO]

I am no expert on lithics and not able to contribute much to the conversation. I really do enjoy and appreciate all the input and conversations from everyone. No better way to learn for me.

 

[Tdog]

I have a beat up bladelet/flake knife from my area made from quartz. Never knew the age since I think most cultures made these.

 

[uniface]

I can't see from the pictures ; if the flakes on top run north-south, it's a blade (or microblade) (< 2 "). If not, a blade-like flake.

FWIW.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I can't see from the pictures ; if the flakes on top run north-south, it's a blade (or microblade) (< 2 "). If not, a blade-like flake.

FWIW.

Missed the arrow..which way is north?