Some might call this a core fragment (and any flake is a core fragment) but they'd be missing a lot of diagnostic information. The makers couldn't deal with that thick anomaly on the middle of the top of their core, and eventually they just knock the whole top off and keep going with their alternating flaking (up and down) off the peripheral platform. It's on this basis that I suspect it is a rejuvenation flake from a discoidal core. This is a pretty organized reduction strategy. See how the flake scars enter radially and terminate towards the centre? See the little "squarish bump" in the middle of the dorsal surface? This looks like it is caused by hinge fractures from flakes being driven in radially towards the centre from a peripheral, "equatorial" platform. There's no real obvious bulb of percussion but it' probably at the 'tang" and the notch has made that more apparent. In the early 1800s he looted hundreds of ancient Egyptian tombs, candidly admitting: The purpose of my researches was to rob the Egyptians of their papyri. I agree, if you look at the very last picture, it clearly has a distinct dorsal and ventral face. The problem with asking online for help is that without actually looking at the object itself we're trying to make a three-dimensional decision with a two-dimension image. However, it could be that this spot was the platform used to remove this piece. It doesn't look water-worn to me, but appearances can be deceiving, especially in photos. Healincoming-twisting-nether October 16, 2021, 8:39am 1. I'd suggest checking for water-wearing (are the edges rounded? Do they look smoothed uniformly?) and if not take a good look at that edge under a microscope for use-wear. That said, photos 7 and 8 have what looks like some use-wear on that edge. Secondary because work was done to reduce the core to useable material before this larger flake was removed. Were I classifying this piece, I'd check to see if there was any use-wear along the edge and if not, I'd call it a secondary decortification flake. I'm from Manitoba, and Knife River Flint is a fairly common material, and it gets a thick cortex relatively quickly. I'm saying this because the outer rind or cortex of the chert/flint/chalcedony usually needs to be removed (unless one face was exposed to sunlight for a long time) because it is relatively crumbly compared to the unexposed stone. I am sorry to disagree with the others who posted here, but I don't think it's a core.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |