New record clovis

Most of the information about what happened at Temple, TX is correct, but I do have good information on filling in some of the details. I will not comment on my thoughts on the piece, just fill in the gaps of the story.
The piece was reported as found in early April. At that time, I recieved the picture of the piece that I have posted in this thread. Shortly after this, I was told that Tom Davis of Stanton, KY papered the piece as authentic. In between these events and the Temple, TX show there was an attempt by the finder and his dealer network to set up viewings at the show. Several big players planned on viewing it at the show. Before the show began, the point was given a once over and approval by Dwain Rogers of Texas. The asking price was $250,000, and there was apparently some interest. However, a huge pile of well known collectors and some top flight knappers killed the piece. I will refrain from using names, but I spoke directly to one of them, and he said that the point was summarily dismissed as a reproduction. Any hope of selling at the Temple, TX to a legitimate buyer was killed.
I want to be clear about a few things:
1) If the piece is bad, the authenticators who approved it are entitled to mistakes, and no judgment is made against them. If anything, the piece being bad should be a further indictment that buying points b/c of a COA(from anyone) is an extremely poor means of collecting anything.
2) If the piece is bad, the finder is not automatically a liar/thief. There is a rumor floating around, that a well known knapper made a handful of these pieces and salted a few of the "hot" creeks. Rumor only, cannot be confirmed.
3) If the piece is good, I have not seen anything made like it before.
 

Attachments

  • giantfakeclovis.jpg
    giantfakeclovis.jpg
    23.7 KB · Views: 4,364
uniface said:
So authenticity is established by an election.

Interesting procedure.
Click to expand...

I think some large old collectors may be more qualified to authenticate then say a Davis COA. Big collectors are not interested in that little niche. That is what COA is a niche. There Will always be the ones to agree and disagree when a record artifact of that caliber comes to light. If it had been excavated and documented by Archaeologist it would have been better for the artifact community being that it is the largest to date. Of course we would not be talking about someone wanting a 1/4 mil either. Anytime you stand upon a pedestal be prepared for people to want to knock you off.
 

Out of curiosity, is the piece in post #22 being held by the finder, or the alleged knapper? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the thought process that goes into intentional deception of any kind. I realize that it is naive of me to think this does not go on (especially with the dollar amounts being talked about), but what is accomplished by salting these points in the "wild" anyway. Does the original knapper ever realize any benefit from this point being found? If he has others that he claims he found and tries to cash in on them it seems to me (if he is a known knapper in the collector community) that skepticism would be even more widespread.

mike
 

uniface said:
So authenticity is established by an election.

Interesting procedure.
Click to expand...

Not really......Authenticity will be established by anyone willing to put up $250K for it. Most people aren't willing to pop on that kind of loot for a point that has a "stigma" about it.

Hippy
 

pointdlr said:
Most of the information about what happened at Temple, TX is correct, but I do have good information on filling in some of the details. I will not comment on my thoughts on the piece, just fill in the gaps of the story.
The piece was reported as found in early April. At that time, I recieved the picture of the piece that I have posted in this thread. Shortly after this, I was told that Tom Davis of Stanton, KY papered the piece as authentic. In between these events and the Temple, TX show there was an attempt by the finder and his dealer network to set up viewings at the show. Several big players planned on viewing it at the show. Before the show began, the point was given a once over and approval by Dwain Rogers of Texas. The asking price was $250,000, and there was apparently some interest. However, a huge pile of well known collectors and some top flight knappers killed the piece. I will refrain from using names, but I spoke directly to one of them, and he said that the point was summarily dismissed as a reproduction. Any hope of selling at the Temple, TX to a legitimate buyer was killed.
I want to be clear about a few things:
1) If the piece is bad, the authenticators who approved it are entitled to mistakes, and no judgment is made against them. If anything, the piece being bad should be a further indictment that buying points b/c of a COA(from anyone) is an extremely poor means of collecting anything.
2) If the piece is bad, the finder is not automatically a liar/thief. There is a rumor floating around, that a well known knapper made a handful of these pieces and salted a few of the "hot" creeks. Rumor only, cannot be confirmed.
3) If the piece is good, I have not seen anything made like it before.
Click to expand...

I agree with 2...
 

A complete (including laser) exam & COA from Bill Breckinridge would be, at this point in time, as close to a definitive answer as it is possible to come.

Short of that, Dwayne Rogers saying it's good and Joe Schmoe saying it's not does not create a crisis of confidence -- at least on this end.

Multiplying JS's opinion by a hundred does not change the outcome.

Historically, the motivation of many of the best art fakers has been the satisfaction of "putting one over" on people -- especially for the opportunity to go around bragging about it after their work has been accepted as genuine.

My two cents' worth, plain.
 

I was fortunate enough to spend two years at Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory studying Clovis reduction strategies. I also worked two years at the Gault Site and gained some insight into the making of these fine tools. My task was to measure 7 different landmarks on nearly 2000 Clovis points and create a database hoping statistics might group the artifacts into subtypes. It was the "monsters" that would always blow the curve. On a tool this large you should see overshot flakes, several, and little to no sign of resharpening. All Clovis type projectiles were made by the same process of reduction, strike the tool edge, removing a large flake that traverses the face AND removes a small portion of the opposite edge. This cuts into the opposite edge leaving a large flake scar on that edge. As they tool edge was exhausted it was then resharpened and because of the substantial loss of cross sectional mass, this process of resharpening was less wasteful. Have a look at the East Wenatchee Clovis points, aka the Richey Clovis Cache. At 232.5mm the two should be similar. Look at the size of the flake scars on the faces, I just don't see them on the tool in question. "Clovis Blade Technology" by Collins and "Clovis Reduction Strategies Revisited" by Collins are two must have books if your going to speculate. And that's all any of us can do. Unless you send it off for AMS and find blood under the tabs, like the Richey Clovis Cache. Going to be kind of hard to match the blood proteins from a Mammoth today!
 

Looks like the work of the same person who knapped the Fenn cache. Through personal conversation Ken Tankersley, an archaelogist at my alma mater (recognized author) http://www.amazon.com/Search-Ice-Ag...3209359?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277269965&sr=1-2, believed the idea of a real 6" clovis was a spurious development of contemporary man. I showed Mr. Tankersley the clovis I found (my avatar) and he commented "it's not art work, they were tools, this is a correct example."
 

That very well may be. The problem is that exceptional behavior, as rocdoc points out, skews the curve.

The Cooper Site Folsom point casting Tony Baker illustrates beside the Clovis point
http://www.ele.net/Carl/intro.htm
auguably illustrates this.

There are people (if I recall, Dr. F. is one, but don't shoot me if I'm wrong) who suspect that such exceptionally large and fine points were sometimes left at kill sites as offerings to the spirit of the animal(s) taken -- gestures of respect and appreciation. They are definitely not average, workaday examples of what they are.
 

I'm not going to argue that the piece is good or bad because I haven't had a chance to hold it, but I do think it's a mistake to kill the piece based solely on the fact it is too large or because of workmanship. If it were on eBay I'd pass it by with out a second glance, but in this case Davis and Rogers have said it's good. COA's from two different guys, who've both held a lot of clovis points, isn't enough to make me raid my 401k and buy it, but I think it does get it by the photo-authenticate crowd (of which I'm frequently a guilty member.)

On the possibility of it being real, I'll say based on size and workmanship it is at least possibly authentic.

Size- There are many confirmed and documented examples of 7 & 8 inch clovis points, and even a couple of other 9 inch points. Actually, very large bifaces work well with most early point strategies (pioneer peoples) because they didn't always know where they would find resources, were more nomadic, and carried everything they needed. Most of the time this resulted in large platter bifaces, but occasionally they made large hand held points. They might have been cached for ceremonial reasons, but at least three of the caches (Simpson, Drake & Wenatchee) show signs of use and even blood residue. If you are a fan of the Solutrean connection, then size really shouldn't scare you as the average solutrean point is 6 inches or so long. Examples in the 13 inch range are known, 9 & 10 inch points have been found on several sites and appear to be a relatively normal part of their lithic tradition.

Workmanship- This looks like a well made St. Louis variety clovis point. The only real question about the style of this piece that I've so far read is whether it should have grinding on the base or not. As usual Pete Bostrom has some great pictures on his website with other St. Louis variety points, I think you'll see that the flaking, the base, the shape, relative size and even the thinness are par for the course for this type.
 

Another factor that seems well to consider is that resources determine (limit) what can be done (and therefore, what is done).

In parts of Northern Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky, Paleo tools on blades can not infrequently exceed four inches in length. This, as it seems on this end, reflects the widespread availability of the good quality toolstones they preferred in sizes large enough to allow such pieces to be made. Gault would be another example of superior resources enabling large size tools to be made.

A couple hundred miles North, in Pennsylvania and upstate New York, artifacts this size would be atypical, giant freaks. Even true blades here are scarce enough that people argue over whether making them was even a deliberate part of the Paleo lithic repertoire. But when you look at how few sources of premium tool stone there were, and how far afield they were traveling from them (using up what they carried as they went), this makes sense. When you're depending on glacial cobbles from rivers, you are limited to what you can make from them.

For what it's worth (assuming anything).
 

joshuaream said:
I'm not going to argue that the piece is good or bad because I haven't had a chance to hold it, but I do think it's a mistake to kill the piece based solely on the fact it is too large or because of workmanship. If it were on eBay I'd pass it by with out a second glance, but in this case Davis and Rogers have said it's good. COA's from two different guys, who've both held a lot of clovis points, isn't enough to make me raid my 401k and buy it, but I think it does get it by the photo-authenticate crowd (of which I'm frequently a guilty member.)

On the possibility of it being real, I'll say based on size and workmanship it is at least possibly authentic.

Size- There are many confirmed and documented examples of 7 & 8 inch clovis points, and even a couple of other 9 inch points. Actually, very large bifaces work well with most early point strategies (pioneer peoples) because they didn't always know where they would find resources, were more nomadic, and carried everything they needed. Most of the time this resulted in large platter bifaces, but occasionally they made large hand held points. They might have been cached for ceremonial reasons, but at least three of the caches (Simpson, Drake & Wenatchee) show signs of use and even blood residue. If you are a fan of the Solutrean connection, then size really shouldn't scare you as the average solutrean point is 6 inches or so long. Examples in the 13 inch range are known, 9 & 10 inch points have been found on several sites and appear to be a relatively normal part of their lithic tradition.

Workmanship- This looks like a well made St. Louis variety clovis point. The only real question about the style of this piece that I've so far read is whether it should have grinding on the base or not. As usual Pete Bostrom has some great pictures on his website with other St. Louis variety points, I think you'll see that the flaking, the base, the shape, relative size and even the thinness are par for the course for this type.
Click to expand...
If you would ask one particular Archy who wrote about and later investigated the Fenn cache he would tell you the vast majority are modern (speaking of the huge examples). As someone mentioned above, authentic clovis point don't have secondary flaking like this example shows.
 

authentic clovis point don't have secondary flaking like this example shows.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, big, sweeping generalisations like this are dangerous. They're dangerous because they give people the notion that they have all the answers, disguising awareness that they aren't even on top of all the questions yet.

This commentary (the link takes you to the illustrations of it, at the bottom half of the page) immediately comes to mind :
This interesting point is made of a high grade Permian Chert. Like many authentic points, it shows a blending of types. The basal thinning is Clovis, as is the cross section. The pressure flaking and blade are Plainveiw. It's alternately sharpened, like some Plainveiws and most Daltons.
Click to expand...
http://wbreckinridge.com/Recentfinds7.html

This, in turn, leads to the problem of nearly every fluted point being called "Clovis," generically. Under the "Clovis" umbrella are a lot of sub type points that are very definitely finished with pressure flaking.

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/2001febuaryvailclovis.htm

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/vailtwonewpointsfoundpage1.htm
 

shorelinesearcher said:
Out of curiosity, is the piece in post #22 being held by the finder, or the alleged knapper? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the thought process that goes into intentional deception of any kind. I realize that it is naive of me to think this does not go on (especially with the dollar amounts being talked about), but what is accomplished by salting these points in the "wild" anyway. Does the original knapper ever realize any benefit from this point being found? If he has others that he claims he found and tries to cash in on them it seems to me (if he is a known knapper in the collector community) that skepticism would be even more widespread.

mike
Click to expand...

a good but sad example of this would be the Woody Blackwell paleos he made and sold to Forrest Fenn as authentic back in 98 or 99 for around $100k
 

uniface said:
authentic clovis point don't have secondary flaking like this example shows.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, big, sweeping generalisations like this are dangerous. They're dangerous because they give people the notion that they have all the answers, disguising awareness that they aren't even on top of all the questions yet.

This commentary (the link takes you to the illustrations of it, at the bottom half of the page) immediately comes to mind :
This interesting point is made of a high grade Permian Chert. Like many authentic points, it shows a blending of types. The basal thinning is Clovis, as is the cross section. The pressure flaking and blade are Plainveiw. It's alternately sharpened, like some Plainveiws and most Daltons.
Click to expand...
http://wbreckinridge.com/Recentfinds7.html

This, in turn, leads to the problem of nearly every fluted point being called "Clovis," generically. Under the "Clovis" umbrella are a lot of sub type points that are very definitely finished with pressure flaking.

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/cast-page/2001febuaryvailclovis.htm

http://www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/vailtwonewpointsfoundpage1.htm
Click to expand...

How are generalizations dangerous? What sub-types are you referring to? I am not aware of any clovis sub-types, maybe the un-fluted variety. Believe me, I don't have all the answers, but I thought everyone understood that authentic clovis points lack secondary flaking. My bad.
 

How are generalizations dangerous? What sub-types are you referring to? I am not aware of any clovis sub-types, maybe the un-fluted variety. Believe me, I don't have all the answers, but I thought everyone understood that authentic clovis points lack secondary flaking. My bad.
[/quote]

Lostlake,

I'm not following you on secondary flaking. In archaeological parlance a Primary or Cortical flake is a flake that has cortex/rind on the dorsal surface. A secondary flake is a flake over a flake that has some cortex on it (the dorsal side has flake scars from a previous flake and some cortex.) A tertiary flake is a flake over a flake that has no cortex. In that context I can't think of authentic Clovis that doesn't have Secondary and Tertiary flakes.

Maybe you are referring to parallel flaking or one of the other exotic types of flaking?
 

This is one great thread ! Assumptions that aren't questioned remain unexamined -- on that basis, I'm learning already. Thank You All !

A generalisation that's dangerous : any one that runs along these lines :
"the ______ people NEVER did ________."

To my mind, the Clovis point in the Breckinridge link, and the broken base (in particular) of the Debert point in the second Lithic Casting Lab link I posted are adequate evidence that pressure flaking pretty obviously was used by Clovis in finishing/re-sharpening points (just as it was in edging scrapers and other uniface tools).

Rather than go on about it, I've sent the question (by e-mail) to Bob Patten, and will pass his answer along when re replies.

Varieties of Clovis : this seems to have become an active topic over time, judging by references to it I've encountered here and there.

Here in the East, even leaving outliers like Crowfield and Cumberland out of the picture, there seems to be a consensus agreement that Vail, Gainy and Barnes are individual enough to deserve separate listings, rather than being lumped in with Clovis (or, Eastern Clovis). The same is probably true with Ross County points, St. Louis points, and maybe others as well. It's not unlike all spaniels being dogs, but not all dogs being spaniels -- all Clovis points are fluted Paleo lanceolates, but not all fluted Paleo lanceolates are "Clovis" points.

Cross the Mississippi, and it really gets interesting. Tony Baker's "Old Clovis" (no preform end-planing) and New Clovis (end-planed) are different enough that many accomplished Western replicators just throw up their hands and concentrate on the Western form(s) they're used to, and there are probably as many identifiable, fairly consistent Western forms as there are Eastern ones. (I've requested info. on these at a board that has a lot of western collectors of considerable experience, and will relay what they say).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

what do u think??

⬅️ Previous Thread

Ohio celt

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top