Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome! Arrowheadology.com is the #1 arrowhead and Indian artifact community on the web. Join us now!

Likes Likes:  18
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Senior Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    It looks like Paoli/Carter Cave. If Tom Davis put a paper on it I would say 98% chance it is authentic, he paid attention to his work. IMO

  2. Likes Al-N-Dale, uniface liked this post
  3. #22
    Elite Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like Mike Gramly, and always enjoy his talks, feel I learn something, and enjoy being treated as a colleague rather then a collector who's doing things wrong by surface collecting.

    At the same time, his position on Cumberland is a minority position. That does not mean he's mistaken. At all. But, at the same time, there does not exist a theorem that says: If a theory goes against the grain of consensus opinion, therefore the theory is right. Things just don't work that way. Out of the box ideas are not right simply by virtue of being outside the box. Gramly may be right that Cumberland preceded Clovis. Or not. Maybe the issue will become clearer as time passes. He certainly has my respect, and his thoughts are not to be dismissed just because they differ from opinions that see Cumberland as younger then Clovis. But because an idea differs from what most believe is the case, which is that Cumberland is younger then Clovis, does not mean that idea that it is older is correct, does not prove that is the case. Being outside the box does not mean the idea has greater value then other ideas, simply by virtue of being outside the box.

  4. Likes Al-N-Dale, Dennis liked this post
  5. #23
    Relic Hunter
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Southern Illinois
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks everyone for the opinions and information! I might move forward with this point and will let everyone know if I do. If I snag it, I'll send it to DR, and post the results here.

  6. #24
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    5,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    The issue is not going with/against the grain. It is that the pre-Clovis dating is founded on substantial evidence and tightly reasoned, while the "lack of consensus = nobody knows" position mostly reflects peoples' disinclination to consider evidence that contradicts them.

    Clovis and the “Clovis First” hypothesis dominated Palaeo-American studies during the 1980s and 1990s primarily because reports about discoveries and site investigations were quickly and efficiently disseminated. New fieldwork was well-grounded temporally, stratigraphically, and geologically (Haynes 1980). Further, at regular intervals accumulating evidence about Clovis lifestyle was reviewed by communities of researchers (for example, Shutler 1983). These overviews were aimed at academicians, amateur archaeologists, and artifact collectors; their collective impact was impressive. Alternate hypotheses about Palaeo-American origins were almost ignored.

    The general favor that the “Clovis model” for peopling the New World enjoyed during the
    1980s and 1990s resulted in attention being directed away from Cumberland. This distancing was
    easy as few open-air Cumberland Tradition sites had been reported until that time. The handful of
    data sets available to culture historians was easily ignored in Volume 3 (Environment, Origins
    and Population) of the Handbook of North American Indians (Ubelaker 2006). Nowhere within
    this landmark study of human origins in the New World, which had been in the hands of editors
    since the 1970s, is the problem of Cumberland addressed. In fact, the word Cumberland is not
    even mentioned! Likewise, the Dutchess Quarry Caves – among the oldest absolutely-dated sites
    in the North America – received scant attention despite the availability of Funk and Steadman’s
    1994 report with its long list of AMS dates for extinct or extirpated fauna at Dutchess Quarry
    Caves.

    The moribund state of research into Cumberland and the lack of secure dating evidence in the
    Southeast – the very region where Cumberland remains abound – began to draw attention (Peck
    2003). Despite its poor foundation in knowledge, scholars were adamant that
    Cumberland’s place within temporal sequences lay with “Late Paleoindian” (Anderson 2004), a
    “Middle Palaeoindian Stage” (Haynes 2002: 45), “the millenium after Clovis” (Meltzer 2009:
    285), or a “Middle Period” (Broster et al. 2013: 201 and Table 12.1).

    A shortcoming of all these attributions is the assumption, never questioned, that Cumberland
    lasted for only a short period – at most 300-400 years.
    Anyone wishing to consider the evidence can review (2008)
    THE AMATEUR ARCHAEOLOGIST ONLINE JOURNAL - The Cumberland - Barnes Tradition - Its Character and Chronological Position within a Greater Fluted Point Tradition

    and
    A REVIEW OF THE CUMBERLAND FLUTED POINT TRADITION IN RELATION
    TO THE DUTCHESS QUARRY CAVES (NY) AND THE PHIL STRATTON SITE (KY) (2015)
    http://asaa-persimmonpress.com/doc/n...cumberland.pdf

    Conclusive geological dating of middle-phase Cumberland at Phil Stratton within the Peorian Loess (pre-Clovis) :

    The Late Pleistocene Archaeological Site in SW Kentucky: The Phil Stratton Site. (Developing International Geoarchaeology conference, Nashville Tennessee, Sept. 20-24, 2011).
    FWIW
    Last edited by uniface; 10-11-2018 at 11:19 AM.
    Premature certainty is the enemy of understanding.

  7. Likes Pastmeetspresent liked this post
  8. #25
    Graduate Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    central ky
    Posts
    836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by uniface View Post
    Suggestive value (if any) only :

    Gramley's big work on them notes that, in SE Kentucky, Cumberland used Ft. Payne; Sonora was easily available a few miles away but only Clovis used it. One illustrated point (cover) was ID'd as possibly Paoli ("Carter"/"Carter Caves").

    Elsewhere G has noted the discrepancy between the many purported Cumberlands of Hornstone offered for sale and the scarcity of such in his survey of them.

    My own step one, since you're asking for opinions, would be to send it to Brian (pastmeetspresent here) for a make-it-or-break-it diagnostic exam.

    Others might disagree. Which is about normal with opinions.
    So uniface, you are saying that Cumberland people never used Sonora flint?? I can go get pics of Sonora Cumberland’s if you need some. Gramly also knows of a Sonora Cumberland from a Clovis site he has personally worked on. I’m 100% positive he has never asked to use this point for laser analysis against Clovis points from the same site. Why?? Guess you should ask him.

  9. #26
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    5,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    You should read what he says himself rather than trying to use my increasingly spotty memory as a weapon to attack him.
    Premature certainty is the enemy of understanding.

  10. #27
    Graduate Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    central ky
    Posts
    836
    Post Thanks / Like
    I’m not attacking anyone, and I have no desire to read anything he has to say. I don’t even know the guy personally. I do know of Sonora Cumberlands, and so does he. I just don’t believe in the laser or Cumberland first theory.

  11. #28
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    5,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    RMG, Other Cumberland and Clovis Artifacts of Logan and Todd Counties, Kentucky, p. 13

    Necessarily, during our long involvement with the Phil Stratton site we focused upon artifacts of the Cumberland Tradition. Clovis remains, which are plentiful in this part of Kentucky, did not receive our attention with the notable exception of specimens from workshops at the Pleasant Grove lithic source. Along Pleasant Grove Creek, a small tributary of the Red River, high grade nodular chert was quarried from shallow occurrences during Clovis times and later in prehistory (Gramly and Shelton 2005). We were intrugued by the fact that no Cumberland points had ever been reported from this monumental (at least 30 acres) lithic source despite frequent, diligernt searching by our fieldcrew and neighbors. Clovis point preforms and exhausted points, Palaeo-American prismatic blade cores, and associated flaked stone artifacts of unknown antiquity, however, abounded. The only credible Cumberland specimen that has ever come to light at Pleasant Grove is an Archaic side-notched point, which appears to have been transformed from a fluted Cumberland point, perhaps belonging to the Middle Stage (Figure 6).
    Op. cit., p. 23

    A sampling of flaked stone artifacts that were collected during 2004 and 2005 at the Old Stratton Farm is shown in Figures 24-29. Nearly every item was fashioned of Upper Mississippian chert, likely derived from residual nodules of the Ste. Genevieve formation, which is well represented locally (Shawe 1966).
    Premature certainty is the enemy of understanding.

  12. #29
    Tribal Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Pennsylvachia
    Posts
    5,646
    Post Thanks / Like
    forum glitch double post
    Premature certainty is the enemy of understanding.

  13. #30
    Graduate Arrowheadologist
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    central ky
    Posts
    836
    Post Thanks / Like
    What does the pleasant grove lithic reference have to do with Sonora Cumberlands?
    Last edited by Tbob131; 10-16-2018 at 05:59 PM.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •