Help identifying?

[Bruce2000]

Hi,

Just signed up on this forum tonight to get help identifying the first arrowhead I’ve ever found (already learned that the correct term is “projectile point.”)

I think it was good Karma: the only reason I accidentally saw it was because I was on my hands and knees picking up trash and broken glass from a walking path in the woods...

Found in Winchester, Mass.

If anyone can give me information about dating and classifying it, I’d appreciate that.

Thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[MAMucker]

Welp, this has gone sideways.

A wise man once asked, “How do you make friends? Answer: show yourself to be friendly.”

Charlie has a lot of wisdom in what he has said. We only have a voice if we keep ourselves in the conversation.

And, moving on,...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[MAMucker]

I’ll add one more example of a Brewerton Eared-Notched Triangle variety that I have posted once before. This is for comparison for Bruce2000.

 

[Tdog]

Welp, this has gone sideways.

A wise man once asked, “How do you make friends? Answer: show yourself to be friendly.”

Charlie has a lot of wisdom in what he has said. We only have a voice if we keep ourselves in the conversation.

And, moving on,...

Yes... I can see it being a Brewerton Eared-Notched Triangle! I guess I missed it going sideways.

 

[uniface]

Welp, this has gone sideways.

A wise man once asked, “How do you make friends? Answer: show yourself to be friendly.”

Charlie has a lot of wisdom in what he has said. We only have a voice if we keep ourselves in the conversation.

And, moving on,...

Holding your end up only works when your counterparty does the same. Not that many years ago I encountered (on the inter-nut) a millitant snowflake archeologist who wears his wokeness on his sleeve. Ordinarily, that would have provoked an automatic, reflex action click out. But he was doing a study on geographic variation of [a certain point type] and lamenting that he had none from the northeast. So I gave him the little collection of them I had formed over the years, including similar types. All with detailed
provinence (a virtual Who's Who of notable collectors, going back in one case to the 19th century) and find locations.

While I wasn't looking for a "thank you," common courtesy would have all but compelled one. No dice with Snowflake though.

I know whereof I speak from 23.5 years working in state prisons. People who are not regarded as fully human (as inmates are by many employees) are not treated as human beings. And, happy thought though it's not, that is the way the SAA mentality regards us, regarding this as evidence of their moral suoeriority.

 

[redbeardrelics]

For sure, exact location of registered sites are not going to be shared by the state of Ma. Nor would I expect it, or encourage it. There are good reasons for this, since some collectors will damage protected, unexcavated sites. I recall years ago a site in one of our state parks in RI was looted during the off-season. Archaeologists returned in the Spring to find the site destroyed.

At the same time, it’s understandable if any collector would be reluctant to share where they find things at sites they are themselves still actively hunting, or plan to hunt in the future. We would not share that info with another collector competitor, nor would most of us share that info with a pro. There are exceptions, and it has to do with building trust between collector and pro.

Recently, a field my wife and I had to ourselves for 30 years, and in which we found hundreds of artifacts, was sold for development. I was very pleased to work with the archaeological survey team doing their thing walking and digging test pits. In no time, I filled them in on what was present at the site, and where they should concentrate their test pits. After walking it for 30 years, I was glad to help properly record and register the site.

The relation of pros to amateurs, and to collectors is often strained, and trust is lacking. It’s likely this pro only wants the info for the very reasons he stated, and the OP will not somehow find himself banned from the site. But caution is very, very understandable. I would get to know this guy well first. It’s not like Brewerton Eared Triangles are at all rare, and it’s not as if Late Archaic sites are rare. The pros know full well that we collectors are out there finding and hunting sitrs far more than they are, and of course if they can learn from us, by asking these questions, they will. I imagine if you had found a fluted point, he would be chomping at the bit to know where you found it.

If archaeology and knowledge of the past is more important to a hunter/collector than finding and keeping the material artifacts of the past, this type of sharing comes far easier. I walk in both camps, and do believe knowledge of the past is more important. But that does not mean I just share all my locations. I usually do not if I am still actively walking them, and, in any event, I learn who to trust, or I give up info when a site is slated for development and the pros have no time to learn everything I learned in 30 years, so I will gladly share my knowledge of such sites, in the interest of advancing knowledge of the prehistory of such a site.

To add needed context to my previous post; my suggestion to have the Director of Archaeology, City of Boston give the original poster (OP) the location of site(s), as he had requested of him, was partly in jest on my part. In jest because I had zero expectation that the taxpayer funded paid professional would share such information. Not that he necessarily couldn’t or shouldn’t share the info, but just because that he most likely wouldn’t, as Charl has confirmed. I was not jesting though that the OP could have, and should have asked for the info from the pro, as I see no detriments, and only benefits from suggesting people see and feel “how the shoe fits on the other foot”, so to speak. This is usually a quick and easy way to start getting to know the person who requested the site info, and to see their attitude, and if they can be trusted or not, which is another area where I think Charl and I are in agreement. We are also in agreement that trust and collaboration between paid professionals and unpaid amateurs is a good thing that could and should be improved.
Like many of us on this forum, I have met, spoken with, and gotten to know professional archaeologists and anthropologists’ who can be trusted with sensitive info, and those who can not. I have rarely given any of “my” site locations to either the trustworthy or untrustworthy pros, but this was mainly because it was not my “right” to give out the info, as I usually hunt on private property with the property owners permission, and as such I believe it is the private property owners right to let it be “known’ if there is a site there or not, and nearly all of the property owners I have dealt with do not want that info to be “known” to the public or the pros. I would not want or expect anyone, pro or amateur to give out a site location on private property without the property owners permission.
When a site is on “public” property, such as a tidal shoreline or plowed field, where the surface find artifacts are considered out of context, and thus of limited informational value to the pros’, I see no legitimate reason why this information could not, or should not be freely given out and known to the public. Surface collecting in such sites could and should be allowed to the public. Perhaps with a requirement that the finder report the finds before leaving and allow photographs and measurements etc. be taken for the public record. This is the only informational value to the pros for out of context artifacts, and since they preach that the artifacts have only informational value, let the pros have the info, and the public have the artifact. I do not really buy into the fear that making such sites “known” will lead to unauthorized digging etc. at the sites. I feel this portrays a guilty before being proved innocent approach, and is pretty much the equivalent of saying we should not publish information about location of museum sites, for fear that then someone someday might steal the artworks. For sure some bad eggs might try to dig on a known site, it has happened, just as some bad eggs have also stolen museum items. I know that I personally would be much less inclined to consider digging on a publicly listed and known site, than I would on a site I happened upon and thought was “unknown”, and I feel just about everyone reading this would also have similar inclinations. When publicly owned archaeological sites are known, listed, publicized, and properly posted and protected, they are less likely to be illegally messed with than when they are not.