Hand-sized archaic "axe"; Little Grand Canyon...ID help?

[Eidolon]

I'm new here. This large blade was found down in Providence Canyon, Ga. (Stewart County) back in the late 1970's. I don't recall now if it was found down in the canyon or up at ground level on the edges, it's been such a long time since we found it. Folks on this site seem to know their artifacts. We're cleaning out my Dad's house now, and I'm finally getting around to asking for help understanding it, and how old it might be, where it came from. It has a kind of interesting "biological" patina on it, like someone has carried it around for a long time. Any opinions about it? Thanks a lot.

 

[bloodiarrow68]

Can't help with info on it but it's a nice find.

 

[kmckinnie]

THat looks like a noggin knocker. ?
NC will be along to give some details.
Mr Nic is busy. Got hit by the storm.

 

[Forest Grump]

I would call that an early stage preform.

It is basically a small biface, but I see no halfting notch for it to have been fixed to a handle. It probably is Early Archaic, as it is not heat treated; & has no finish work along the edges.

Some of those were abandoned because they were not thinning evenly & the overall size didn’t fit whatever they were trying to make at the time. Later, they might pick it up & have another go if making a smaller point. They were very utilitarian people.

They certainly might have used such items as a “hand axe”; especially since that one has a “less worked” side that would fit a hand.

 

[NCHillbilly]

As FG said, that is an early stage preform-a point in the beginning stages of its manufacture. Often, rock was reduced to that stage at the quarry site to assure its quality and make it lighter to carry, and would be worked into a finished point later on.

 

[Eidolon]

I would call that an early stage preform.

It is basically a small biface, but I see no halfting notch for it to have been fixed to a handle. It probably is Early Archaic, as it is not heat treated; & has no finish work along the edges.

Some of those were abandoned because they were not thinning evenly & the overall size didn’t fit whatever they were trying to make at the time. Later, they might pick it up & have another go if making a smaller point. They were very utilitarian people.

They certainly might have used such items as a “hand axe”; especially since that one has a “less worked” side that would fit a hand.

So by Early Archaic, it's actually 8-10,000 years old? (!). Is it made of soapstone, is that why it has that kind of glossy look? (nobody has carried this around in the 40 or so years we've had it, it's just been sitting on a countertop, so nobody modern imparted that patina...). Since the edges don't look worn, is it safe to assume this was just discarded once the maker decided it wasn't going to work out, and thus it likely was not used as a scraper of some kind? Thanks for all the other info, guys.

 

[Eidolon]

And BTW, it has a very satisfying feel in the hand, like it would be useful for scraping something like hide.

 

[Forest Grump]

So by Early Archaic, it's actually 8-10,000 years old? (!). Is it made of soapstone, is that why it has that kind of glossy look? (nobody has carried this around in the 40 or so years we've had it, it's just been sitting on a countertop, so nobody modern imparted that patina...). Since the edges don't look worn, is it safe to assume this was just discarded once the maker decided it wasn't going to work out, and thus it likely was not used as a scraper of some kind? Thanks for all the other info, guys.

No, it’s flint (Chert). The patina comes from time & chemistry, not handling.

It “probably” is Early, because it is not heat treated, but it has only basic percussion flaking, so only context could tell you. There is not enough finish work there to say which cultural period that belongs to, with confidence.

Based on the rough flaking, I’d guess Early to Mid Archaic...but only context could tell you for sure. It could even be Mississippian at that stage.

 

[NCHillbilly]

So by Early Archaic, it's actually 8-10,000 years old? (!). Is it made of soapstone, is that why it has that kind of glossy look? (nobody has carried this around in the 40 or so years we've had it, it's just been sitting on a countertop, so nobody modern imparted that patina...). Since the edges don't look worn, is it safe to assume this was just discarded once the maker decided it wasn't going to work out, and thus it likely was not used as a scraper of some kind? Thanks for all the other info, guys.

No, not soapstone. It's chert. Soapstone isn't knappable, doesn't break with a conchoidal fracture. The glossy look is just due to the type of rock.

It wasn't used, the edges aren't finished for a scraper or some such, they are set up as striking platforms for removing more thinning flakes. It probably wasn't discarded due to any flaw, probably just set down somewhere and nerver finished. Looks like a nice piece of chert.

 

[Eidolon]

Thanks for all the information. I appreciate it.