Arrowhead?

[Llew Taranau]

When I lived in Austin, we found some worked stone in the yard. Took it to a UT archaeology professor, who said it looked like someone had been working on an axe head and discarded it when it chipped the wrong way (it was clearly unfinished). Asked him how old it was, the answer was "Anywhere from 50 to 5000 years." LOL

 

[GNP]

I am sorry that somebody misled you so badly. How refined the working is had nothing to do with age of the projectile. Older points are not necessarily finer finished and it isn't a rule that they were. In fact, a lot of the Archaic points look like crap. A lot of the more recent prehistoric projectile points made within the last 1000 years are amazingly exquisite. For example, an Archaic Period Kent dart point is often very crudely made https://www.projectilepoints.net/Points/Kent.html whereas Late Prehistoric Toyah arrow points are much more refined in their manufacture. http://www.projectilepoints.net/Points/Toyah.html

There's no question early PaleoIndian points are almost always made more carefully than points made later, say especially Middle Archaic on, but it's not like it's a linear progression downhill through time. Some of the arrow points are indeed very well made, but exception to a rule doesn't negate the rule, and as a general rule the earlier styles tend to be thinner and have neater flaking, and that's not even mentioning the problems associated with fluting.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Flint knapping is a skill that I have watched done at Mojam. It is an archery gathering that brings in primitive bow builders from all over and some of the best flint knappers around. Those guys have a pile of sharp flakes by the end of the weekend.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There's no question early PaleoIndian points are almost always made more carefully than points made later, say especially Middle Archaic on, but it's not like it's a linear progression downhill through time.

A linear progression downhill through time is exactly what calling it a RULE would be. Remember, the statement was that as a general rule, the older stone work was finer finished, more work went into the point.

So you have a broken trend where one must ignore the parts that don't fit. Interesting to call that some sort of rule. As you said, NOT a linear progression. You just have various points at both ends of the Paleoindian-Late Prehistoric spectrum which ignores part or much of the Archaic, but of course, being left out was the Pre-Clovis.

Put another way, with so many exceptions, it would be exceedingly selective to call it a 'rule.'

 

[WestKentucky]

There’s a rocky ledge at my grandpas farm where the natives essentially quarried stone (chert I think) there are so many pieces that were broken off laying around that it’s unbelievable. Plenty of pieces that look like they broke while being knapped. It would be a really good spot to hang out, small creek nearby, caves nearby for shelter if needed.

Your point does appear to be an older point based upon my understanding. As I was told, the tabs on the bases of more recent points were an advancement that helped to more securely tie the point onto a shaft.