Arrowhead or Nature?

Lee1968

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
1,144
Location
Worden, IL
I found this today in a creek while looking for bottles. It looks "worked" to me, but is not symmetrical. My wife found a spearhead in the same creek a year or so back, and it was very obvious. I keep changing my mind on this one.:?: Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

20190307_191636.jpg

20190307_191748.jpg
 
I would agree with everyone here, that looks worked by someone a very long time ago.
 
It looks like it is worked on one side. A better picture of the stone or flint would be better to tell, the tape measure shows more detail in the pictures then the stone.
 
Looks Paleo..and broken..nice find..not a point.. definitely worked but not an arrow point
 
Sorry, but I have to disagree......it's an act of nature. I used to collect arrowheads and tools, then started flint-knapping myself. There really isn't any patina on the "flaked" side of the stone, it looks too "fresh/clean". Plus, it doesn't look pressure knapped to me at all. I could possibly make something from it though, but it's not really a desirable piece of stone to work with. Just my opinion and I could be wrong.....

Just cuz you are a modern day knapper doesn't mean you know anything about Paleo tools
 
Just cuz you are a modern day knapper doesn't mean you know anything about Paleo tools

Read my entire post. I just offered my opinion and said I could be wrong. I prefer not to be judgemental of other people, as do the majority of people on THIS forum.
 
Last edited:
Read my entire post. I just offered my opinion and said I could be wrong. I prefer not to be judgemental of other people, as do the majority of people on THIS forum.

Ruffled your feathers I see.. I was no more judgemental than you..just my opinion that it's definitely not an act of nature because I see at least six places "nature" worked that stone..but I could be wrong...
 
This is a utilized flake. You can clearly see a striking platform on the proximal end. Joe dert is correct the dorsal surface shows intentional flake removal.
 
This is a utilized flake. You can clearly see a striking platform on the proximal end. Joe dert is correct the dorsal surface shows intentional flake removal.

I concur on the intentional flaking....the difference in the patina between the 2 sides is unusual....could have been reworked/sharpened or it's just the way it is. That said, I wish I found this early axe intact. They bring some good money. We live on Lake Dardanelle, which now covers the tail waters of the Illinois Bayou. I have found several artifacts on the 2 acres we have, which is on a hill next to the old bayou channel. I figure this may be from as early as the Archaic Period, but could be later. Arkansas does have Paleo history as well, but I don't think it's from that early. Who knows, I'm just a modern day knapper…..lol.;)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2406.jpg
    IMG_2406.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 271
  • IMG_2404.jpg
    IMG_2404.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 272
The staining looks like midden staining. If a artifact lies with one face or side in contact to dark midden this type of staining occurs. I have seen whole projectile points or knives darkened on the one side only from contact with middens. I have also seen concretions that only formed on one side of a artifact for what ever reason.
 
By the way full groove axes like the one you found are the oldest form of ground stone axe. Overtime the grooving shifted to 3/4 then half groove to eventually no groove ground into them at all during the late Woodland and Mississippian periods.
 
Back
Top Bottom