New record clovis

The Clovis from Mooreheads book is the Bennett Young Clovis. It was in Earl Townsends collection and fell off the shelf and was broke in two pieces. It then went to the Caldwell Collection. It is pictured on the front Cover of a Prehistoric American back in the 80's early 90's
 

Mooch said:
The Clovis from Mooreheads book is the Bennett Young Clovis. It was in Earl Townsends collection and fell off the shelf and was broke in two pieces. It then went to the Caldwell Collection. It is pictured on the front Cover of a Prehistoric American back in the 80's early 90's
Click to expand...

Mooch, thanks for the additional history on the piece, I figured it ended up in the Townsend Collection but didn't know where it went from there. That is some serious pedigree: documented back to at least 1900 and in three of the best collections ever assembled.

Young was a really neat guy, when I lived in Louisville I went to a discussion they had about him at the historical society. He and his troops captured the northern most town taken by the confederates during the Civil War (somewhere in Vermont) and took over $200,000 from the banks in town to buy supplies for the south before escaping to Canada. It was a huge embarassment for the Union and he was specifically excluded from the general amnesty after the war and was exiled to Europe 10 years or so. He achieved the rank of General during the war but always went by Col. Being part of the south, the historical society also went out of their way to point out that unlike Sherman, Young was a gentlman and did not allow his soldiers to abuse local women or loot private houses.
 

Joshua,
I wasn't going to bring up the Young Clovis, but it is a key reason why the top end informed buyers will never touch the recent alleged big Clovis. I'm sure Mooch knows, but he didn't add that the Young Clovis currently resides in Cincinnati. I have handled and studied it on multiple occassions. There are others on this forum that have also studied it, and they may chime in now.
To just cut to the chase, the Young Clovis and the recent Clovis are so completely different that the only features they share are size and a flute. I first learned about the recent Clovis from the owner of the Young Clovis. He sent out a 2 word email that described the recent piece perfectly.
I have read through this post several times, and there are a million issues brought up in it. 10 years ago, I would have commented on all of them. Today, I mostly just keep my mouth shut.
Regards,
Jon Dickinson.
 

I should probably leave this alone, but it's just too flagrant.

That guy has such an impressive encyclopedic grasp of Clovis lithic strategy & technology that he can make definitive pronouncements on what they would and would never have done. (And from a picture even ?)

So Tom Davis, Dwane Rogers and a bunch of other heavy hitters are all wrong.

It's "wrong" because it's not like the one he has.

Right. :tongue3:
 

The Young/Townsend clovis looks absolutly nothing like the clovis we have been discussing. As far as Uniface's comment about Davis and Rogers being wrong I would like to add that I would be willing to bet that neither of them have handeled more than 1 or 2 big clovis points that were authentic, the number may be less than 1 or 2 even it may be 0. As far as I have seen the Young clovis is the largest eastern US clovis I have seen, I have had the privilige to handle it on more than a few occasions. It really is the most stunning piece of paleo work I have ever seen! I can sum up the difference between them. 1 - the material 2. the blade edges are straight in the Young clovis not flosom-like on the one here 3. the Young clovis is very thin for its size maybe a 1/4" max, the clovis here looks to be much thicker 4. The flaking. Honestly you can't really compare the two, they are totally different. I have pics but I need to be sure it is ok to post them.
 

There is good info, responses, and opinions in this thread, alot can be learned about the hobby in this topic if you can think outside the box. Hey Scott, sent you a p.m.
 

uniface said:
I should probably leave this alone, but it's just too flagrant.

That guy has such an impressive encyclopedic grasp of Clovis lithic strategy & technology that he can make definitive pronouncements on what they would and would never have done. (And from a picture even ?)

So Tom Davis, Dwane Rogers and a bunch of other heavy hitters are all wrong.

It's "wrong" because it's not like the one he has.

Right. :tongue3:

This is an interesting hobby and the more you get involved in the buying of points and get into certain circles the more you find out. I can tell you without a doubt that some of the most well known people in this hobby are also the same people that like to pull shenanigans. I'm not naming anyone specifically but things are not always what they seem. That's why it's very important to start forming your own opinions about pieces and learn what's correct from what's wrong with artifacts. If you start trusting everyone that's out there to make an opinion for you it's only a matter of time before you get burned. I'm not trying to sound an ass and hopefully you don't take it that way. I'm just saying that if you spend enough time in the relic world you start to get an idea of what's going on within the business of artifacts. I've been hunting/collecting for 24+ years and I'm still learning every day. However, the more time I spend the more I get to know about both the people and the artifacts. I can tell you that knoweldge about the people is every bit as important.

There's also another large clovis that is from the area where this one is reported to be found called the Robinson Clovis. It was found early in the 1900s and I have several pics of it from different books. It too is quite a bit different than the one pictured. You might be able to find pictures of it if you google Robinson Clovis. It's currently owned by Bill Wheless who resides in Texas and owns some of the best and largest clovis (and other) points ever found.

http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/may2000rogersclovis.htm

Hippy
Click to expand...
 

As far as . . . Davis and Rogers being wrong I would like to add that I would be willing to bet that neither of them have handeled more than 1 or 2 big clovis points that were authentic, the number may be less than 1 or 2 even it may be 0.
Click to expand...
Not argued. But Rogers' tipping point was that the multiple patinazation on it would have been impossible for a faker to replicate. Not on its similarity to another point.

I can tell you without a doubt that some of the most well known people in this hobby are also the same people that like to pull shenanigans.
Click to expand...
True. And unfortunately, always has been true.

FWIW : That equally large points are currently all but unknown to collectors at large does not necessarily mean that equally large points are not known to archaeologists. Who do not need the distraction and demands on their time that publicity entails. And who have found that identifying a site only creates additional problems (like midnight visitors with shovels and screens) they are better off without. A word to the wise for what it's worth from a friend on the inside.
 

Uniface, as for patination I have seen pieces that are just plain scary to me, and have what I would say is very good patination but they lack other necessary features. I guess what I'm getting at is that what I have seen is that patination can be reproduced with amazing results. Anyway, here are pics of the Young / Townsend clovis. don't drool too much on your computer!! The pics were taken at the collectors house and the clovis is in my hand believe it or not! Enjoy. Scott - www.miamivalleyartifacts.com

DSC00642.JPG
DSC00641.JPG
DSC00644.JPG
 

THOSE things are freaking AWESOME !!!!!!

UnBeLuckingFeaveable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the peek !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(PS : agreed that patinazation isn't the/an end-all. Too many potential variables).
 

I wonder why finds like this can't be authenticated by people who know their stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure the top dog authenticators know their artifacts and fakes. But seriously, who has seen more authentic artifacts, archaeologists or authenticators? And where is the most advanced equipment available, authenticators garages or Universities?
 

The big guy is just a bit over 8", but what I feel in amazing is how the big one dwarfs the two others in the frame which are easily 5" each!! the other two clovis points could stand alone in anyones frame as the best piece they own, but then you see them paired up with the monster and it's almost like a great white shark being compared with a megalodon shark. Scott
 

coteau said:
But seriously, who has seen more authentic artifacts, archaeologists or authenticators?

And where is the most advanced equipment available, authenticators garages or Universities?
Click to expand...

Coteau,

The difference to me comes down to how an Archaeologist and how an Authenticator look at artifacts: An authenticator generally assumes the relic is fake, and an archaeologist generally assumes the relic is ancient. Archaeologists simply aren't trained to look at authenticity, they are trained to look at other things.

If you knock out a million or so little pot sherds and debitage flakes, I'd say without exception any of the main authenticators (and a multitude of collectors) have handled/examined/studied far more artifacts than almost any archaeologist. This probably changes a bit when you get into Mississippian era excavated relics because they are drawing from huge collections dug years ago, and perhaps some really focused professionals like Tom Hester, Jack Hofman, and a few others that like to get & keep their hands dirty.

As far as equipment, clearly Universities have more equipment (obsidian hydration, thermolumi testing for ceramics, c-14 dating, etc.) but for authenticity a decent scope and experience looking at fake and authentic relics is what is needed. Obsidian Hydration measurements can be thrown off by a myriad of factors (not the least of which would be taking the sample from an older portion of the blade in the case of a rechip.) Themolumi testing has been fooled by europeans for years (using everything from old shards in the restoration to grinding up old pottery for complete fakes and using very low firing temps to not reset the clock.) C-14 testing of wood artifacts has to be adjusted to the age of the tree. In normal archaeological contexts ancient peoples would have burned branches and small trees, which wouldn't introduce a greater +/- in the dates than what is already there, but if you make an artifact out of wood at the center of a 1000 year old tree, it'll test out at around 1000 years old. The same with bone or ivory, if you make the artifact out of ancient fossil, it'll test out at as ancient.

The ideal scenario is when you get technical proficiency and use wear analysis from the professional side, experience in handing authentic relics/fake relics that comes from being a dealer, and the knowledge and skills of a knapper to recognize how the relic was made.

Joshua
 

Hey pointdlr... on the young / townsend clovis, those small "nicks or dings"
on the edges. According to the big picture... do they appear to have only been
hit from the other side? I have a paleo with the same dings. It seems to have
happened from things hitting it from above and that it was only laying on one
side for thousands of years?
 

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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top