I won't begin to tell you that I do much documentation and it is certainly not my forte. I am a firm believer in the merits of something Charles C. Abbott stressed in his 1911 publication "Ten Years a Diggin" which was simply that no amount of two-dimensional documentation including photos of three-dimensional objects could ever relay what only the retinas could ascertain in short order. That being said you can find in one of his publications, likely the same one, his documentation of what he assessed as a knife which is nearly identical to the one I have pictured here, minus the facial embellishment. I do collect from three different sites, all of which share nearly identical commonalities despite being spread over a fifty-mile treck (as the crow flies) of a particular drainage being the most common route of east and west migrations of Native Americans through the central U.S. Each of these locations not only share similar geographical advantages such as being on and near the highest hilltops overlooking the river and or it's tributaries but also they share another very notable similarity. Each has a very evident concentration of similar useable stone types most being no larger than the hand, which are nearly non-existent for miles surrounding each. How am I aware of this? This is farm and ranch land, for the most part, cordoned off in mile square grids known as dirt/gravel roadways. I have found many tools at each none of the bifacial projectile point variety although one area produced a short fibrous wrapped split wooden shaft segment which rarely survived on the plains. All, however, have produced a few tools of the unifacially retouched knife variety. I believe the closest matches have been referred to as Marion Knives locally. The particular area which the pictured artifact comes from is one of my favorites. Located near some of the highest elevation points in the state in a Cretaceous sandstone region amongst rolling hills dotted with small sandstone caves. I have what I would consider one of the best understandings of the ancient stone tools which are more common than most anyone could fathom. These are those tools commonly rejected and only collected due to context and lithic source. The best archaeological explanation being "some were likely used in the processing of game" description. The truth would likely blow one's mind who actually believes man arrived here with anything more advanced than Oldowan technology. Likely the single most important tool in prehistory has absolutely no understanding and only the forced recognition of context and lithic source. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to share what I know of the tools and the reasons that my understanding is so much more than what you will ever find in archaeological textbooks. Not that I haven't learned an incredible amount from archaeology and archaeologists but most of the really useful stuff comes from older sources and foreign sources alike. Knowledge of middle and lower paleolithic tools could prove to be an invaluable addition to North American archaeology in the very near future. Of course, the one thing I would most recommend to anyone in the field, instead of taking up flint knapping as merely an art form, try creating your idea of what constitutes cutting tools and then apply them to the same daily tasks as those performed by ancient people. You'll derive a much better understanding than most ever will and likely in damn short order. I much appreciate your interest, time and consideration Doc. If I can provide something further please let me know. thanks
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Aug-18 19:21 by KsFisher.