Wanted to get some oppinions on artifacts

[dblski]

Once I read a statement that only five to ten percent of native american artifacts have ever been found. This seemed exceptionally low at first. But, then I thought we have only been here for a little two hundred years and look at the waste we have made. If native Americans were here for 15,000 years, there wasted artifacts would have to be a staggering amount. What does everyone else think?
Jake

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[archer66]

Since there were so many fewer of them than there are of us today and since life was so much less complex back then the amount of waste would be exponentially smaller but yes I do agree that the earth still has an immesureable amount of artifacts left to give up. Every scoop of dirt, every turn of the plow, and every rainfall has the potential to uncover some type of artifact....that's what keeps us hunting.

 

[Ohio_Doug]

I would think the percentage would be even less than 5-10% found.

 

[joshuaream]

I think it depends on the culture.

If you are looking at some of the later Mississippian ceremonial stuff, I'd say a lot more than 10% of what was made has been found. (Not counting individual pot shards and flakes in definition of artifact.)

But if you are looking at paleos, I'd say we've only scratched the surface since many sites are buried deeper than the plow goes and rivers only errode so much...

Joshua

 

[Tnmountains]

I am thinking that many sites are now under impounded waters. It is still there but may never be recovered. As the Government claims more and more land it will be off limits as well. Farmers going to no till does not help/ Erosion creeks and construction will be the future in hunting artifacts in my humble opinion.

 

[lostlake88]

A local archaeologist whom I have spoken with a few times told me there are probably hundreds of mega-fauna kill sites, camp sites buried 30+feet under the Ohio River flood plains stretching it's length. It would take catastraphic events to uncover them. It's fascinating to think an early paleolithic hunter standing high on a hill along the Ohio River would have a hard time not noticing a 5,000 foot wall of ice 30 miles north.

 

[artorius]

In the Eastern US, many Paleo and Early Archaic sites now are covered by ocean, which moved in as glacial melting increased the sea level. The East Coast in Paleo and Early Archaic times was miles out from where it is now. Very few artifacts on these sites ever will be recovered.

The effect may be more pronounced than one might think. I recall a museum on Mt. Desert Island I visited many years ago, which displayed late Archaic relics recovered from an island off the coast of Maine. Pollen studies showed that the site was a winter camp, not a summer camp, and the reason is that even cold seas can warm land in their immediate proximity above normal New England winter temperatures. Mt. Desert Island, for examply, today has noticeably milder winters than points only ten miles in from the coast. Particularly in Paleo times, I suspect that many groups tended to gravitate toward the coast during the winter. If that suspicion is correct, those winter sites now are all in the drink.

My understanding is that the line of the West Coast was as dramatically affected by the post-Ice Age rise in the sea level.

atorius

 

[11KBP]

I think it depends on the culture.

If you are looking at some of the later Mississippian ceremonial stuff, I'd say a lot more than 10% of what was made has been found. (Not counting individual pot shards and flakes in definition of artifact.)

But if you are looking at paleos, I'd say we've only scratched the surface since many sites are buried deeper than the plow goes and rivers only errode so much...

Joshua

This varies from one part of the U.S. to another but for every site that can be hunted, many many more exist or did exist that cannot be hunted because they are too deeply buried, covered with water (sea coasts & man-made reservoirs), destroyed by urban sprawl or lay with in the millions of acres controlled by the Feds, especially BLM land.

I agree with Josh, later cultures that are not so deeply buried can produce a lot of artifacts for the hunters.

However, archaic and paleo points can be deeply buried especially in the region of the Great Plains. It is not uncommon for paleo sites in Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska to be buried 10 to 30 feet deep and that explains why the river hunters in those states find paleo points and the field hunters rarely find paleos.

From my observations from hunting artifacts, visiting paleo archaeological sites and viewing many personally found collections from the Great Plains region I have no problem saying that less than 1% of the paleo artifacts have been found in this part of the U.S.

11KBP

 

[dblski]

Thanks guys for all the input. It is a very intersting thing to think about, and yes keeps us hunting for new spots. I am in Southern illinois and have to believe that many, many spots are hidden away in the forests and may never be exposed by farm equipment. Thanks again,
Jake

 

[SoIll]

Jake, the dig of Modoc rock shelter in Randolph county reached depths of 25 feet and only reached the archaic level.

 

[catherine1]

When we think of finding artifacts. We must first understand were we found them. Then we also study the depth they were found at, and the enviroment in which we discover them. If it is a creek bed the artifact find is very open. A plowed field after being churned so long will produce artifacts by examples of woodland and and archaic features, that are determined by the plows depth. As amearture archeoligist we can only see the big picture by documenting what is found and where. All rock hunters are Archeoligist. The peoples stuff you are finding, well try to live with rocks as your main rescource of survival. And you will see that this part of the planets ancestors, had and short life my friends!

 

[Treefrog]

yea when i dig points out of a shelter, I sit there on the rocks trying to imagine what it may have been used for back then the last time it was in a human hand.
they definitely give you a lot to think about.
I agree with most of you on the paleo stuff, pick up tons of stuff to every handful if lucky of paleo unless you know exactly where some are.
I wonder a lot if the life span of paleo was much diff than newer peoples, fewer back then maybe looking to kill u and ur ppl for ur belongings and shelter than i can imagine l4000-5000 yrs later when its getting more populated with better killing tools and horse back possible sometimes to get around from 1 site to another to cause destruction.
I mean besides all the other reasons for someone with no Obama health care back then would die from naturally.

Tree

 

[tomsneck]

All i know is that here on Martha's Vineyard i know at least 30+ people that look on a regular basis, and have been for the last ten years, and before us folks have looked for 50-75 years and we still find artifacts just about every trip out. It never ceases to amaze me when I'm in a spot that I know someone else was at the day before and I find one, two, maybe three points walking the beaches. I don't know where you all are but the northeast was one of the most populated places in the country for quite a long time, and i think we'll be finding stuff for a longtime to come.

tomsneck