# Help with arrowheads



## Tugboat1 (Mar 26, 2009)

Several years ago while in Mexico a friends father gave me a gift of approx. 50 arrowheads, almost all obsidian. He gathered them over the years digging earth to make handmade bricks.They are currently mounted on a board covered in canvas with some type of adhesive, pretty sloppy I must say. I am interested having someone knowledgeable remount them properly. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thank you kindly.


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 26, 2009)

You can purchase shadow box type frames that have a foam back. No adhesive is needed, and you can arrange and rearrange them as you like. Can you post a pic of these points? I`d like to see em.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Mar 26, 2009)

Thanks for the quick reply. My main concern is removal and removal of adhesive without damaging the arrowheads. I just took a couple pics, I wiped them off but the background is really dirty.


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 26, 2009)

Nice! Those prismatic blades are exceptional!!! Thanks for postin` em.


----------



## bigox911 (Mar 26, 2009)

Is that a pair of teeth in there??  Nice collection!


----------



## Tugboat1 (Mar 26, 2009)

Yea, that is what I was told. There are also two buttons/ornaments that are probably aztec.


----------



## Muddyfoots (Mar 26, 2009)

Nice collection.


----------



## ROOSTER HOGGER (Mar 26, 2009)

Nicodemus said:


> You can purchase shadow box type frames that have a foam back. No adhesive is needed, and you can arrange and rearrange them as you like. Can you post a pic of these points? I`d like to see em.



frames with foam back  nice  collection


----------



## dmedd (Mar 26, 2009)

Acetone works well for removing the adhesive. Mr Troy Futral will treat you right on some excellent frames. They're very high quality and the prices are reasonable. Give him a call. PM me and I will give you his number.


----------



## Willjo (Mar 26, 2009)

I would try water first if they used something like elmers glue most is water soluable. If you put them in cases like they are talking about the glue wont show and you are the only person that will know they have glue on them. those buttons  i would be careful you might not find any more of those.


----------



## Son (Mar 26, 2009)

*Help*

Those are neat, and look to be the real thing.

To remove I would first try soaking in warm water. If that doesn't work, then try acetone. If neither works to get em loose, come back and let us know what if anything, that it did do.
12 x 18 frames from Troy Futral of Auburn Al, would be your best bet. Glass front, latches and foam to hold em against the glass. That's the way most collectors keep their points.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Mar 26, 2009)

Thank you all for the kind replies and helpful suggestions. I've already removed some of the larger ones with only small spots of adhesive on the back. I'm worried about breaking/chipping the smaller ones and especially the thin blades. I know nothing about arrowheads but do know these came from a brick making pit in the state of Guanajuato and were found over a period of years. I don't doubt they are the real thing because I know the founder and his family and their character. Funny, but what impressed me more at the time wasn't the arrow heads but the fact that the guy did all his small game hunting with a slingshot. If anyone can contribute any knowledge about such pieces, I'm all ears. Thanks again!


----------



## Nugefan (Mar 27, 2009)

Hobby Lobby has some shadow boxes that won't break the bank ...

and nice collection you have there ....


----------



## Tugboat1 (Aug 15, 2009)

Nugefan said:


> Hobby Lobby has some shadow boxes that won't break the bank ...
> 
> and nice collection you have there ....



Finally got a shadow box on sale at Hobby Lobby ... sixteen bucks and change including a red bandanna for the back ground. What is the best way to "lock" them in place so they don't scatter if I hang it vertically?


----------



## Nicodemus (Aug 15, 2009)

Tug, put a piece of foam underneath the cloth first. Make sure it is thick enough so that when you shut the lid, it presses the points down into it. That is how the frames I get from Troy Futral work.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Aug 15, 2009)

Thanks Nic. The frame came with some fiber material so I'll try something with a little more body to it.


----------



## Kawaliga (Jul 4, 2012)

Those ceramic "Buttons" are actually spindle whorls. They were used in the process of manufacturing cloth from native fibers.


----------



## Son (Jul 4, 2012)

Obsidian is fragile, don't let em touch one another, and just have enough pressure from the foam to hold em in place. You may need larger pins than what came with the frames.


----------



## Bow Only (Jul 5, 2012)

I don't know why, but I'm seeing a broken and reworked Folsom in that frame.  Maybe from a later time period.  There's no other way to get the flute like that.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Jul 5, 2012)

Kawaliga said:


> Those ceramic "Buttons" are actually spindle whorls. They were used in the process of manufacturing cloth from native fibers.



Both "buttons" have engraved design on them. One is flat on the back and the other matches the front. The third round piece on the left is definitely Mayan and am told it was an ear lobe ornament.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Jul 5, 2012)

Son said:


> Obsidian is fragile, don't let em touch one another, and just have enough pressure from the foam to hold em in place. You may need larger pins than what came with the frames.



Thanks Son. I'm still accepting offers on the collection.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Jul 5, 2012)

Bow Only said:


> I don't know why, but I'm seeing a broken and reworked Folsom in that frame.  Maybe from a later time period.  There's no other way to get the flute like that.



I have very limited knowledge of artifacts and points. Could you explain what you are seeing? Thanks.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 5, 2012)

I don't see anything near a Folsom. I see an unfinished preform with a thinning flake taken from the distal end that vaguely resembles a flute. Folsoms were really thin and well-worked. Fluting the point was one of the last steps, followed only by fine pressure retouch. It's pretty common to strike thinning flakes from the base to thin a piece in the earlier stages of reduction.


----------



## Forest Grump (Jul 5, 2012)

Tugboat1 said:


> I have very limited knowledge of artifacts and points. Could you explain what you are seeing? Thanks.



What they're arguing over is the big patinated knife in the last pics (post 14) with the flutes up the sides. To get that flute, it has to be struck before the part along the haft is pressure flaked, so either somebody reworked an old point, as BowOnly said, or they used 2 techniques in the manufacture, as NCHB stated. I don't know if it would help to see the other side of it?

Don't know that it really matters, except that even more rare than Paleo points are Paleo points found by later Indians & reworked into points more like the kind they made. Apparently, as these folks have taught me, they just didn't do that, for what reason I don't know.

I'm really impressed that the original fella who collected those recognized those prismatic knives were what they were & not just splinters of obsidian. Yours are some of the longer ones I've seen, but I don't know a lot about this like some of the folks on here. I thought that was a paleo knife too, what do I know?


----------



## Bow Only (Jul 8, 2012)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't see anything near a Folsom. I see an unfinished preform with a thinning flake taken from the distal end that vaguely resembles a flute. Folsoms were really thin and well-worked. Fluting the point was one of the last steps, followed only by fine pressure retouch. It's pretty common to strike thinning flakes from the base to thin a piece in the earlier stages of reduction.



The thinning flake doesn't travel all the way to the base of the point.  Look at the shoulders, you can see that the flute continued down and was reworked as evidenced by the redirection of the flaking.  

In all my years of looking at points, I've never seen a thinning flake that long that wasn't made by a Paleo person.  I'm saying it was a Folsom, it was broken, and then reworked on the edges and distal end.   That would be over a 4 inch distal end thinning flake.  They just didn't do that, it was too risky.  The tip looks intact.  

What you seeing Son?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 8, 2012)

Well, as a knapper, I frequently take thinning flakes that long from the base of a preform if there's a ridge there, it's the most efficient way of thinning a piece without losing width, and not risky at all in that stage of the game. This flake wasn't taken late in the game on a finished preform like a true flute on a Folsom or Clovis-it was fairly early in the process. And yes, it originated from the base and terminated near the tip of the preform. The rest of the flake scar was removed by the knapper shaping the stem. It looks like this was a triangular blade-like spall with a ridge running down the back, and it was taken off with one long flake struck from the base, nothing complicated about it.  A lot of the Mesoamerican stonework is heavy on prismatic blades, and spalls for points were often struck off using the same technique-basically a giant blade with a ridge running down the back. The Levallois points of Europe used a similar thinning strategy of striking off longitudnal ridges. Look at those prismatic blades in the same frame and tell me that these people didn't take off long flakes lol.

If you look at that point, it's still quite thick, even in the finished state. A true fluted point would be much, much thinner IMO. And a Folsom point isn't anywhere near that big to begin with. Most Folsoms were a couple inches long or so, and were thin and flat as soda crackers, and you could almost see through the fluted part it was so thin. That would be in the size range of a big Clovis, but Clovis points were also thin in the fluted areas, this one is still thick and almost triangular looking in cross section. I'd about bet that the other side is flat.


----------



## Forest Grump (Jul 8, 2012)

Can we see a pic of the other side, so one of these 2 can buy the other a steak & a beer?
(They done made me curious too...)


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 8, 2012)

NCHillbilly said:


> That would be in the size range of a big Clovis, but Clovis points were also thin in the fluted areas, this one is still thick and almost triangular looking in cross section. I'd about bet that the other side is flat.



When you say the other side is flat do you mean uniface?Also, the point looks out of place surrounded by all the obsidian.I'd be willing to bet it's not from Mexico....I do see what your sayin bow only.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 8, 2012)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was uniface or at least not worked nearly as much on the other side. Hard to say for sure what it is from a pic of one side, though. We'd have to see the other side and a edge view from the side to know for sure exactly what it is. I have seen some big points like that that were unifaced or nearly so, made off big blades.


----------



## Bow Only (Jul 8, 2012)

I can see what Hillbilly is saying, show us the other side if you can.

I've found and seen quite a few points over the years and dang if I've seen flakes taken off like that.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 8, 2012)

I`d like to see the other side, and a side and end view.


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 8, 2012)

Whats weird is the flaking seems to stop about a third of the way down from the tip and then picks back up on the base.


----------



## Tugboat1 (Jul 12, 2012)

NCHillbilly said:


> It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was uniface or at least not worked nearly as much on the other side. Hard to say for sure what it is from a pic of one side, though. We'd have to see the other side and a edge view from the side to know for sure exactly what it is. I have seen some big points like that that were unifaced or nearly so, made off big blades.



That is correct. The other side is unifaced. Thanks for the education gentlemen. Appreciated. I checked with my friend that gave it to me. He is in the southern Yucatan but said he obtained it in Belize.


----------



## Son (Jul 12, 2012)

I believe it was common to use large blades struck off larger cores to make points with minimal edge work. Mostly just to shape. That could be what that large white point is.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 12, 2012)

Yep, that seems to have been pretty common in Mesoamerica and Europe anyway-those guys were into making blades and modifying them into tools, so I think they used the same technique to produce spalls for bigger points.


----------

