Can you identify lithics - really?

[Aurora1959]

I was told by an Archaeology professor that accurate lithic identification was not possible by "eyeballing" an artifact, and that stable isotope analysis and X-ray fluorescence were the actual scientific methods that professionals use. So, how confident are you guys of your opinions on lithic ID, given you are just looking at snapshots on a computer monitor? It seems like it's way more complicated than "this is gray, this is black, this is shinier than that".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[sandchip]

If elected, I promise a chicken in every pot and lithic identification laboratory equipment in every home. No doubt it is more complicated, but I'm sure everybody's doing the best they can.

 

[tomclark]

Some materials are so diagnostic that you can tell easily. Example: Coral Other examples may be Tiger chert, baybottom chert..etc... Easily identified (some of the material amongst material cause materials vary within the type of rock..) huh? lol

 

[arrow86]

If elected, I promise a chicken in every pot and lithic identification laboratory equipment in every home. No doubt it is more complicated, but I'm sure everybody's doing the best they can.

You have my vote but I want 2 chickens [emoji239] [emoji239]

 

[joshuaream]

The term Accurate is probably the key word here. 99.99% of archaeological lithic analysis is done with eyeballs and maybe a magnifying glass. Maybe 0.01% is analyzed to "finger print" it down to the quarry. That usually happens with Obsidian, where there is a great database of reference samples, and it's relatively easy to match obsidian to an actual eruption flow event.

If you want to really map Hopewell trade routes, you need to be more specific than just Hornstone since over hundreds of square miles, there could be 400 different quarries of similar material with unique isotope singnatures and there could be exotic materials from hundreds of miles away that are visually similar. From a collector point of view calling it Hornstone probably good enough (and not wrong.)

 

[Older The Better]

I’d add it’s a bit more than eyeballs, it’s generally safe to match them to known local material over imports, if you find a point in California it’s probably not made from a material found in Maine. Also certain groups preferred different materials at times so point type can help. I’ve also heard when groups settled down and didn’t roam as far they didn’t have access to the best of the best material all the time. They began using lesser quality material and more heat treating to get better results. So when I find heat treated and lower quality stuff I look to a local match.

 

[quito]

It’s pretty hard to mis-identify a few of the materials I know of around my neighborhood.

 

[newnan man]

If elected, I promise a chicken in every pot and lithic identification laboratory equipment in every home. No doubt it is more complicated, but I'm sure everybody's doing the best they can.

I don't have a pot, can I just have the chicken?

 

[Force_of_Iron]

If you could eyeball something and identify it with reasonable accuracy you wouldn't need to pay professors for 4 years of training and could skip the other barriers to entry to the field that they erect.

I often find local experts to be far better than their academic counterparts.

 

[Kray Gelder]

To the Professor, Lah Dee Dah. All I know about Native American Artifacts, I have learned here. I know enough to know I don't know anything, compared to those others here. We are fortunate to have many genuine experts here, lifetimes of searching, finding, collecting, studying, and a willingness to share that knowledge in a constructive manner. A great many of them, I would consider their opinion the correct opinion, without question.

The professor's equipment is like gravy, narrowing down the source material more precisely, for an artifact already categorized, the mother stone ID'd, and approximate age, plus other peripheral info from the site. All done accurately by amateurs, and a few professional collectors.

I will consider the good Professor's views to be an inadvertant oversight.

 

[cjoej]

Hmm, "Expert"! Let me break that down, "Ex" meaning former. and "spert" a drip under pressure. Yep, that about describes many of the so-called "professionals" that are expected to come up with a definitive answer...I'll vote for the local that has studied for years.

 

[ToddsPoint]

I knapped for 22 yrs. so I have a good idea on a lot of the materials I see. I'm very confident on the flint types that are from Cen. and So. IL because I live here and have handled more of those materials than any. There are a lot of materials that overlap in appearance and can only be told by trace mineral analysis. Alibates and Tecovas jasper are two that come to mind. Hornstone from IL, IN, and KY can look identical. Gary

 

[MAMucker]

We can identify familiar lithic types with great accuracy by using two extremely sensitive instruments called the human hand and the eyeball.
The archaeologists that I have walked with and observed as we (together) examined lithic debitage and stone artifacts also made assessments using the same.


Amazingly and without the use of isotopic testing or analysis, I have scientifically (and positively) identified this lithic as White Quartz.

 

[releventchair]

I was told by an Archaeology professor that accurate lithic identification was not possible by "eyeballing" an artifact, and that stable isotope analysis and X-ray fluorescence were the actual scientific methods that professionals use. So, how confident are you guys of your opinions on lithic ID, given you are just looking at snapshots on a computer monitor? It seems like it's way more complicated than "this is gray, this is black, this is shinier than that".

There are folks here that are pretty handy at identifying lithics.
That helps when the question of a piece of material is not know as an actual lithic to the poster. And , not uncommon for novices ,or the curious to toss out as a question.

IF you are referring to lithic analysis, there are experienced eyes here for that as well.

Should you have an alternative opinion on a pieces material or origin of material , feel free to make mention.

Some like vivid detail of an relic. Others are humbled enough to know it is an actual relic.
Quite a spectrum of folks and part of the fun and learning.

That spectrum of varied knowledge and experience and the sharing , balances a minority of "professional" peer reviewed scientific process in analysis diagnosis of every relic or potential relic just fine.

What some one with concerns of the professional Archie's in mind should concern themselves with is context and recording before how lithic material is diagnosed.
Yet , of those here who retain that process , (and the value's associated) are they nulled due to lack of a related major degree?
And works fine usually.

Is peer reviewed and applauded analysis of a worked piece with no context , worth more than confirmation of context?
Should any possible relic ,or even a relic of debatable material be discarded if not properly i.d.'d?

No professor in my pocket. Nor any desire for one to be.
If not for mystery and learning myself that mythology both detracts and adds to a culture thousands of years ago and resulted in functional art and craftsmanship , they are just busted rocks.
And if I don't get every answer to every question , I can and do live just as happy knowing others came before me without academic professionals wearing (vs posting on a wall) sheepskins and fretting about over I.d. accuracy.

 

[uniface]

An OSL exam settles controversies.

 

[monsterrack]

I have handled tons of lithic material in my time and have read a lot of books an have has geologist talk me through on a few field trips, but I still can't ID all types. A microscope helps a good bit. In the area where I live we have not many lithic sorces. What we have are a deep layer of cobbels that were ground down by glaciers and then washed down by rivers of melting ice water rivers. So we have jasper from Wisconsin to everything in between. Projectalpoint.net is building a nice lithic ID page I suggest that folks check it out.

 

[MosesOfTheSouth]

identification of lithic comes through hunting for me. some areas produce material that i still have no idea what it is, only that it has been utilized by man at some point.

in certain areas the unnamed was seemingly very desirable from all the leftovers.. . this applies to localized types too, to some extent.

exploring localish quarries of the really high quality material in my region has increased field knowledge to where, with some, i can feel very comfortable giving it a moniker.

but most comes from the experience of knappers and collectors that have been at it longer than me. i have a couple areas that produce types in both chert and saga that make my head spin but also keep my nose to the ground

areas with good, and old water have provided quite a rainbow of lithics for me in the Tennessee area.

 

[Sunny Side]

I was told by an Archaeology professor that accurate lithic identification was not possible by "eyeballing" an artifact, and that stable isotope analysis and X-ray fluorescence were the actual scientific methods that professionals use. So, how confident are you guys of your opinions on lithic ID, given you are just looking at snapshots on a computer monitor? It seems like it's way more complicated than "this is gray, this is black, this is shinier than that".

So much to consider with a question like the one you presented. I have come to a conclusion some people have it and some don’t. What I mean by this is what has been called the collectors eye and It can’t always be obtained by raw experience. Since flint is the subject I can say with confidence it is possible to evaluate by a photo, but not always of course. Fake flint has become such a problem that many people don’t collect it like myself. I have very little flint in my collection nowadays because I consider it a fools errand to collect it. When I say collect it I mean BUY it. John Berner once wrote about the G10 phenomenon. He questioned where they all came from in the last 25years? I think those with the collectors eye can use deduction to make a reasonable call.

 

[gilmerman]

All I can say on this subject for sure is that , all my points are made of rocks.

 

[Sunny Side]

All I can say on this subject for sure is that , all my points are made of rocks.

I look above and I just laugh at myself. Christ I wrote. 209 words . Why bloviat