Fluting vs Basal Thinning

[mootsman]

Well, I've read Tony Baker's papers, People of the Flute, and more.....and yet I still am not sure that I can differentiate the technical difference between a "true" flute and a longish basal thinning strike. I know this is elementary to a lot of you but every time I think I get it, I'll see what I think is basal thinning called a flute...maybe I get it and some others who are using the term "flute" don't. Dunno. If somebody can explain it in layman's terms or point me to a good reference, I'd be most appreciative.

[Mojave]

That will be a never-ending argument.
Seems to me the term "flute" is an invention of modern man to refer to a specific attribute of some paleoIndian points.
I would say that if a basal thinning flake scar is the largest intentional scar on the surface of a point, I guess you could call it a flute. But I'm in the camp that true Clovis points were basally thinned, albeit sometimes with large/long flake scars. Later indians who made points that most of us would refer to as Clovis, along with all the Folsoms, Cumberlands, etc. are actually fluted in that it took on a more exagerated form, possibly/probably for aesthetic reasons.
Lots of other points would meet the definition of "fluted" but are clearly not one of those paleo styles. Pedernales comes to mind.
Yet another thing we will probably never agree on...

[uniface]

Try this on (non-dogmatically) : a removal parallel with the axis of the point is a flute.

One at an angle to it is a thinning flake.

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by Mojave

But I'm in the camp that true Clovis points were basally thinned, albeit sometimes with large/long flake scars. Later indians who made points that most of us would refer to as Clovis, along with all the Folsoms, Cumberlands, etc. are actually fluted in that it took on a more exagerated form, possibly/probably for aesthetic reasons.

I have the book on the Fenn Cache and have wondered why so many of those points have what I would consider basal thinning. Would you consider that group to be true Clovis?

Originally Posted by uniface

Try this on (non-dogmatically) : a removal parallel with the axis of the point is a flute.

That makes sense to me. And, I would assume that the platform preparation for the flake parallel with the axis is what makes fluting difficult relative to basal thinning ???

[joshuaream]

It's an artificial constraint, but the start might be saying that a flute can only be made on a fluted point. i.e. a Dovetail or a Pedernales isn't fluted no matter what that odd thinning flake looks like because there probably wasn't the intent to create a flute.

Once you've got the pool down to paleo and early archaic types that were fluted & or thinned, I think the difference is actually set before the flute/thinning flake is made in all the prep work.

Not to put down the thinning flake, but they are usually just a couple of pressure flakes from the base of a point (or maybe probably light percussion flakes.) The platform is usually just the ridge next to the previous flake.

A flute on the other hand requires some special prep work to create a nipple, ensure that the geometry of the nipple is correct, and above all making the right kind of biface that will allow the flute to travel.

I guess if you wanted to make an arbitrary definition, I think with a little bit of statistical analysis of flutes on known fluted types, you could probably define something around a ratio of the width of the flute with respect to the width of the base. A thinning flake is going to be considerably narrower than a flute.

Joshua

[leon]

the term flute comes from greek/roman columns. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluting_(architecture) . the ability to separate fluting from basal thinning is like trying to get to two guys to agree on how do you define a beautiful woman. For me, fluting cannot be done w/ pressure, but requires percussion. In different words, the scars are larger.

[Mojave]

Here is a Silver Lake that is "thinned from the base" on both sides.
Silver Lakes are considered by many to be contemporary with Clovis.
Seems to me it fits most of the definitions of "fluted."

[uniface]

Oftentimes Clovis points are not "fluted," but basally thinned. I'm pretty sure Collins brings that out in his Technology book.

FWIW

[mootsman]

What I find interesting particularly here in the deep south are Clovis points that have obvious basal thinning and are typically typed as "unfluted." Then an argument starts regarding whether or not "unfluted Clovis" is an oxymoron, etc., etc. Once you discount Suwanee and Simpson variants in my part of the country there are points that are classic Clovis in virtually all ways with the exception of having basal thinning in lieu of flutes. You guys seem to be suggesting that these might be earlier forms ???

Thanks for bearing with me on this. I'm a very long time collector but am a bit of a "Johnny come lately" to the technological aspects.

[Mojave]

IMO,
Earliest forms were probably thinned. Points that are thinned are NOT necessarily the earliest ones.
I just find it hard to believe that the very first time anybody "thinned" a point from a base took a Folsom or Cumberland-like flute out. I think it was an evolution from intentional thinning-to accidental fluting-to intentional fluting with margin preparation.
Purely conjecture on my part though....