Identity by association??

[archer66]

I was researching information on the drill I found last week and in my Overstreet book on page 724 (check the North Central section if you don't have a 10th edition book) there is a drill....not like the one I found....pictured with a small caption that states it was "made from a Sedalia point". Now turning to page 787 to look at Sedalia examples...they are a large lanceolate blade that exhibits random flaking. Seems to me that it would be next to impossible to look at that drill and say that it came from a point like a Sedalia, so to me that must mean that drills like the one pictured must have often been found in close proximity to Sedalia points? I understand that much of what is known about artifacts is based upon items the artifacts were found in association with...in particular when it comes to determining age. What isn't totally clear to me is how they can infer that the drill pictured was derived from a Sedalia point rather than some other point form or that it wasn't manufactured in that form without having ever been used as a Sedalia point. One way I can think of is that intermediates have been found....Sedalia points that had been used and retouched into various stages of exhaustion until they were basically "whittled" down to drill form. I know that there are examples of drills with Dalton bases and those examples are hard to argue with...to me it makes sense that a tool would be used for one purpose until it was no longer useful for that purpose after which it could be adapted to another use.

Would you say I have it about right or is there something I'm missing here?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tnmountains]

I think you are dead on. So many books including overstreets are assumptions although educated ones. Its like a story in stone. Some times its correct other times is a fairytale. It was not many years ago that they thought points were worked by heating them and dropping cold water on them to pop of a flake. But with excavations and finding whole knapping kits it became apparant how tools were made.
We tend to take everything we read to heart. The truth is with out context and examples through variuos stages showing the progression its all an educated guess in my humble opinion. I am sure though many items on a singular site have given this information though.
Good post Archer66. Look forward to what others say.
HH
TnMtns

 

[Th3rty7]

One of the most confusing things about Overstreets is that it's based on the opinions and assumptions of the people who submit their pieces for the publication. Alot of best guess identification in other words. It should come with a caveat.

 

[*Molly*]

I have seen the same point twice, id'd twice. Overstreet isn't reliable....

Molly.

 

[archer66]

It only stands to reason that no reference material is going to be perfect since the subject ancient. Every book I've looked at seems to agree pretty closely on the major point types although there is some variation in the names they are given. Is there a reference that you like better?