Of the several bipoints from the eastern seaboard that have been touted as Solutrean in origin, the two that interested me the most were the two believed to be made of French flint. One had to be discounted because it was found beneath the chimney foundation of a colonial era cellar hole. I inquired about the other and a knowlwdgable friend relayed the following information on these bipoints made from a European flint:
"In “Bipoints before Clovis” Hranicky describes a Solutrean-like point as “found in a 1980 Browning Farm Site (44CC8) excavation in Virginia (Buchanan and Owen 1981)” and also as “found in the Epps [sic] Island site” and that it was “found in a trash pit”. He cites XRF fingerprinting by the Smithsonian as a “near perfect match” to French gunflint material and cites “Bradley 2012” as a reference. He doesn’t specifically say French “Grand Pressigny” flint, but I would assume that’s what he means. Hranicky provides a picture on page 169 which I probably shouldn’t publish for copyright reasons but I can send you it by e-mail if it helps.
It is nevertheless very clearly the same biface as in Clovisoid’s picture, which I would agree is the second example (of claimed French flint). Hranicky adds a caption to the picture saying that it shows “recent breakage” and that the patination shows that “one face was up” during its burial prehistory/deposition.
He adds some confusion by then citing Howard MacCord (Buchanan & Owen 1981): “Its outer surface is patinated with a thick white layer of corrosion products. It had been broken before burial since two small slivers of the stone are missing and the two larger pieces were physically separated about 2 feet when found.”
The confusion arises in part from the apparent contradiction between “recent breakage” and “broken before burial”. Further confusion arises from citing “Bradley 2012” as a reference since it could be (and has incorrectly been) read as referring to the last-minute note on page 110 of “Across Atlantic Ice”. That wasn’t Hranricky’s intention and the note is in any case clearly attributed to Stanford, not Bradley. Stanford’s note describes a completely different point, which I believe was the “first” (of claimed French flint). He describes it as found “in the 1970’s” [other sources specifically say 1971, which is ten years earlier than the point Hranicky describes] from “archaeological excavation of a 17th Century colonial homestead on Eppes island, Virginia” [ie the same general locality as the second point] and found “below a clay chimney” [ie different circumstances]. He references “Grand Pressigny” flint specifically rather than just “French” with regard to the results of the XRF testing. There’s no mention of it being broken and Stanford doesn’t provide a picture.
I think it’s this first point mentioned by Stanford for which we don’t have a picture or any better formal documentation (as far as I know). I believe that although he included the brief last-minute note in his book as it was going to press, he subsequently reconsidered the wisdom of using that point as further evidence because of the uncertain provenience which has the potential to “taint” other evidence on a “guilt by association” basis . He hints at that in the note by saying it couldn’t be ruled out as a 17th Century colonial import for example although I would say it’s pretty unlikely to have come in with flint ballast in a ship as some have suggested. The island was largely settled by the British, which some have taken as an indication that the point wasn’t imported from France, but that neglects the fact that the Solutreans spread from France to Britain – albeit in very limited numbers (as well as to Portugal and Spain). British-found Palaeo artefacts made from French lithics are – in general – not that uncommon.
My take is that Stanford lost interest in the point for those reasons (again, he hints at that in the note by saying it’s “not the smoking gun” but “an intriguing piece of evidence”, however its brief mention in the book nevertheless established it in many minds as the “only” example (of claimed French flint) at the time because the 1981 example wasn’t mentioned at all. I would presume that was because the detailed assessment of its characteristics (which were not initiated until much later) were not ready in time for the publication deadline.
It’s easy to see how the confusion might have arisen.
The circumstances of the second find were published in “The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County: Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Randolph M. Owen - Quarterly Bulletin Archeological, Society of Virginia. Vol. 35, No. 3 (March 1981), pp. 139-158” but I don’t know of a free source for that and haven’t read it myself. I don’t know why Hranicky quotes MacCord when it was Buchanan & Owen’s paper. Maybe MacCord provided an introduction to the paper or editorial comment in the bulletin."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The thread in question, from which the above information is copied, is archived here:
http://forum.arrowheads.com/index.php/f ... t?start=15
I have seen photos of one of the bipointed blades, the broken one, made from French flint, as it was displayed at the Paleoamerican Oddesey conference in Sante Fe a few years ago. It may be in the above link, I haven't checked. Unfortunately, one photo I'm aware of was posted using photobucket, which recently imposed fees, and all archived photos anywhere on the internet were purged.
We should keep in mind how many elements of Solutrean "culture"(it's really a technology, not a culture) have not been found in the Delmarva Peninsula. We should also keep in mind the criticism that did indeed arise regarding the find circumstances of the Cinmar blade. We should also keep in mind the presence of bipoints in later Native American cultures. It may be debatable that outre passé flaking technology is only found in Solutrean and Clovis bifaces, and never during later periods.
Of further interest, perhaps the finest made of these east coast bipoints, that have been included in Stanford's sample size of potential Solutrean derived bipoints, was discovered by Jack Hranicky in a Providence, RI artifact collection, and purchased by him. It was included in the display of these blades at the Paleoamerican Oddesey in Sante Fe. It is reproduced here as a cast. Good photos and line drawings of both sides:
http://cart.occpaleo.com/boatsbladepaleobifacecast.aspx
Note, there is no real find location for this blade beyond its residence in a southern New England collection. Others from the Delmarva have been for sale on the internet for several years now....