artifact, a learning discussion

[Jon Stewart]

For the sake of all of us learning something, especially me, lets have a good natured discussion about artifacts.

What makes an artifact and artifact?


Does is have to be a specific age?


Does it have to be authenticated?



I ask no put downs, we are all human and have opinions about this hobby. I know of no experts on this site and if you are an expert please let us know so we can rely on your knowledge.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[theviking]

[h=2]ar·ti·fact[/h] noun \ˈär-ti-ˌfakt\: a simple object (such as a tool or weapon) that was made by people in the past

 

[GatorBoy]

I have to say this is getting kind of funny... pretty soon you'll be debating what makes a rock a rock.
If something is being portrayed as a Native American artifact.... keyword being "Native American" and pre 1600 and its not the term fake fits it perfectly.
The way this is going a pull tab from a beer can can easily be labeled an artifact... But I would just call it junk like a lot of the stuff on that site that's been mentioned here several times.
Some of this sounds like it would be coming from one of the legal advisors making Florida's antiquity laws

 

[Neanderthal]

An item that was manufactured or altered by human hands. The alteration can also come by way of use.

 

[theviking]

This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite stores, "Antique tables made daily".

 

[rockheadhunter421]

An artifact, can be speculated to have, or is known to have without a doubt human alterations, whether the material is stone, bone, wood or metal. If one can prove that a material was once used by a person (a Native between the Contact Period to a Paleolithic Period) as a tool for everyday use or in survival situations, then you can believe that it is a fact that the item was a creation of art (the form having signs of being created and that knowledge was passed on). Overall, this art is a primitive technology created first in the Paleolithic Period as part of human evolution. The term "paleolithic" basically means "old stone age." Paleo means "old age" and lithic means "stone." Also, artifacts can be known as an old human lithic. In archaeology, a lithic analysis is a study of human-created stones. I don't feel like I'm an expert, but this is basically a short answer for your discussion. To learn more about this, you can Google lithic analysis or even lithic to get an better idea about this area of study and what essentially would make an item an artifact.

 

[Jon Stewart]

Gator Boy I know you posted pre 1600 and Native American but would you consider a point made by Ishi (who died in 1916) an artifact. Some of which were made by using electrical line insulators. I am in the middle of reading Ishi in Two Worlds which is a very interesting read.

theviking , maybe some of us would like to learn a bit more about this hobby. I admit that I know very little.

 

[GatorBoy]

I would be honored to be the caretaker of one of his pieces.. What I'm about to say has nothing to do with a dictionary definition ..but personally I would consider that an antique... Or maybe more like a relic since it's essentially a personal item.

 

[intensecrasher]

I have known several Native Americans over the years. They told me that if a person is going to make a modern Indian "artifact", it should be done the traditional way. I'm not against copper boppers and all that stuff, I think it has its place. But if you want to be traditional, learn ancient technologies, and show respect for those who came before you, you should use the same type of tools that were originally used. I just ordered a Abo knapping kit because Neanderthal told me that learning how to nap will help a person learn how to identify point types. I know it is much more difficult to learn how to make lithics with hammer stones and antlers but that is how I am going to learn because I respect those who developed and perfected the technology.

 

[intensecrasher]

I would be honored to be the caretaker of one of his pieces.. What I'm about to say has nothing to do with a dictionary definition ..but personally I would consider that an antique... Or maybe more like a relic since it's essentially a personal item.

I have seen several magazines that sell artifacts including some items from the early 1900s. The magazines referred to early 1900s items as contemporary. IMO they are not referred to an antiques because they do not met the 100 year old requirement.

 

[theviking]

Gator Boy I know you posted pre 1600 and Native American but would you consider a point made by Ishi (who died in 1916) an artifact. Some of which were made by using electrical line insulators. I am in the middle of reading Ishi in Two Worlds which is a very interesting read.

theviking , maybe some of us would like to learn a bit more about this hobby. I admit that I know very little.

I'm not stopping you from learning, you asked a question and I answered it with references. Sorry you did not like the response.

 

[Jon Stewart]

intensecrasher, copper was used by Natives also, especially here in northern Michigan where raw copper can be found. ABO is much harder for some, like me so I use copper. They also made copper tools and weapons.

 

[intensecrasher]

intensecrasher, copper was used by Natives also, especially here in northern Michigan where raw copper can be found. ABO is much harder for some, like me so I use copper. They also made copper tools and weapons.

I am aware of that but to my knowledge it was mostly a trade item used in the Mississippian period right? In NW Iowa we find copper rings, rolled copper, and even copper arrowheads but they are all trade items. Anyway I know ABO is harder but I want to learn the old way first.

 

[rockheadhunter421]

I want to explain myself a little more, by what I meant by speculation. I do not really search the big archaeological sites but for those who do, speculation may come in when you find something in archaeological context and you can't explain how that stone could be natural or even formed by a person. It depends on the collector but I've seen people who collect a unique stone just for speculation. It may not be an artifact but it was found amongst other artifacts and one can't explain it's origin there. Moreover, natural rocks are exponentially more abundant than artifacts. If you find a stone in archaeological context then the chances of it being an artifact increases, but that doesn't necessarily always mean that it will be one. Overall, the collector wanted to add that stone in their collection as part of that archaeological site (mainly b/c of speculation). This is basically my opinion about collecting and it is part of this hobby. That's why many people post wanting to know if they found an artifact or not. Some finds I see being not an artifact, I would just say that it's an unusual stone picked for speculation (natural or not). Overall, there is much to learn and I don't feel like some of the things these ancient people made and used can be fully explained; it's unfortunate but that knowledge was probably lost in time.

 

[releventchair]

Copper country was visited thousands of years and the estimates of what was removed have yet to be accounted for. Yes it was traded and though late in the mound building period the Mississippians too would have had access.. If I,m correct native copper from the area can be traced back to the Superior area in certain cases not unlike flint and other lithic material can be to its source. All tools left there are artifacts for sure but exact culture has not been clear and going out to Isle Royal unlike the Keweenaw Penninsula where much was worked a different style stone hammer was common. Tales of cartloads of hammers hauled out of worked pits and dumped.(Frown). Copper was worked into a variety of tools. Awls,knives and points ect.
Artifacts can be young,their historical context and age starts our perceived value of originality. A head Ishi worked is a relic and an artifact in my opinion.. The culture trumps the age but it is genuine. I really don,t know of a time test to define either an artifact or relic.Even adding authentic does not help. Provenance? That adds interest. While I would have any artifact older than myself at least ,if a culture rose and fell leaving only their self made tools during my life span they would be artifacts and relics by dictionary terms.Would a dog bone pull tab?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Jon started a thread in good faith, he also requested no put downs, let's please not attack the thread again.......






American by birth, Patriot by choice.

I would rather die standing on my two feet defending our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees......

 

[yakker]

In good faith- and perhaps from a different angle, I offer this- a long and vey detailed read. Worthy or not? I don't know, but the theory is interesting. You just have to scan a lot of repetitive text to get to the meat of the thesis. I was originally looking up theories on heat-treating and this popped up, so I get it my best shot. Very academic, but again, it offers a different perspective on reproduction/experimental/intentional-for-research etc. Give it a shot-

Theoretical Reflections on Experimental Archaeology and Lithic Technology | Hugo Nami - Academia.edu

This is not an easy topic to discuss, as it has so many facets (all puns intended). Yak