What did I find and how was it used?

[Garscale]

I see this question posted over and over. Mostly by new artifact hunters but also seasoned hunters. When I walk a site, I look at every stone with the question in mind of why it's there and signs of how it may have been used. After all, there is a good chance some native brought it there. That said, it's important to understand that virtually all intentionally made tools are obviously altered for the purpose.

A while back, I sat and watched a modern knapper work. All around him , the ground was covered with rocks. Immediately I could see a paleo blade, a nice core, a flint celt or hoe, a dozen choppers, etc. The truth was all of that was just scatter created by his reduction of cobbles to create biface. The exact same is true of native sites. The vast majority of items there are just scatter from a culture who's very existence leaned on lithic reduction. So did an indian put it there? Yep but whether it was a cooking stone, a one use flake , or the rock Pocahontas threw at a rabbit... we cant know.

In our desire to find artifacts, sometimes it's easy to make something special out of nothing. My point of this thread is to help people realize that the vast majority of items found on a site are just indicators of a site and not intentional tools. The next time out maybe consider that it's just waste scatter and recognize finish work. It will make collecting more fun.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[crashbandicoot]

Pretty good advice sounds like to me.

 

[Tpmetal]

I see this question posted over and over. Mostly by new artifact hunters but also seasoned hunters. When I walk a site, I look at every stone with the question in mind of why it's there and signs of how it may have been used. After all, there is a good chance some native brought it there. That said, it's important to understand that virtually all intentionally made tools are obviously altered for the purpose.

A while back, I sat and watched a modern knapper work. All around him , the ground was covered with rocks. Immediately I could see a paleo blade, a nice core, a flint celt or hoe, a dozen choppers, etc. The truth was all of that was just scatter created by his reduction of cobbles to create biface. The exact same is true of native sites. The vast majority of items there are just scatter from a culture who's very existence leaned on lithic reduction. So did an indian put it there? Yep but whether it was a cooking stone, a one use flake , or the rock Pocahontas threw at a rabbit... we cant know.

In our desire to find artifacts, sometimes it's easy to make something special out of nothing. My point of this thread is to help people realize that the vast majority of items found on a site are just indicators of a site and not intentional tools. The next time out maybe consider that it's just waste scatter and recognize finish work. It will make collecting more fun.

does this mean native american skipping rocks don't count? lol

 

[Garscale]

does this mean native american skipping rocks don't count? lol

Sure they count but they most likely are not bear effigy skippers. Lol

 

[crashbandicoot]

does this mean native american skipping rocks don't count? lol

Good ones guys!When I find Native American skippers I immediately put them to their original purpose and skip them over the nearest body of water!Unless of course they,re bear effigy skippers!

 

[uniface]

OK. Here we go. Wise *ss here with a dissenting opinion.

1) Modern knappers use modern tools (starting with copper ones) & approaches. They don't care if they waste several pounds of good chert to make one point. To them, at the end there's one final product & a pile of mostly thin, flat waste flakes. If A'ology were still here, a headline article on making a Scottsbluff point, showing the debitage produced at each stage, would make this obvious.

Paleo (and later) peoples used a planned reduction continuum where pretty much every piece taken off was suited to at least two uses. Nothing went to waste when you had to wrestle good stone out of the rock faces it was in.

 

[uniface]

2) site hardware tells me I'm still signed in but, when I hit "post quick reply," that my action is forbidden. So this is in stages.

Another lost resource was Tony Baker's site. One of his essays was "The Flake -- the Stepchild of Lithic Analysis." Bottom line, flakes were the workhorses of daily life. The kind of flakes that die-hards here want to insist are just waste flakes, useful only as indicators that real artifacts might be nearby.

Check this core out: no less than 12 careful flake removals from the top side alone -- each one for use as-is (working edges were too thin for resharpening). Living proof of the foregoing.

 

[uniface]

PS: not a stone tipi effigy (LOL !)

 

[Greg Lafla]

The need to poke fun of people who see things different points to an insecurity in your interpretations.

 

[crashbandicoot]

The need to poke fun of people who see things different points to an insecurity in your interpretations.

Don,t understand Greg.I didn,t see any poking of fun here.

 

[dirstscratcher]

"Another lost resource was Tony Baker's site. One of his essays was "The Flake -- the Stepchild of Lithic Analysis." Bottom line, flakes were the workhorses of daily life. The kind of flakes that die-hards here want to insist are just waste flakes, useful only as indicators that real artifacts might be nearby."

When did you lose Tony Bakers site? http://www.tabaker.net/ I haven't used it lately but it still appears to be intact. It's a national treasure for sure.

 

[Fat]

Don,t understand Greg.I didn,t see any poking of fun here.

I didn’t either Crash but look at Greg’s started posts. He is having trouble telling artifacts from geofacts.

 

[crashbandicoot]

I see what you mean Fat.No matter,I see some friendly humor here but no meanness.Big difference.Thanks.I thought Garscale had some excellent advice for we who don,t know about these things,I know I liked it and my comments were just meant as humor,nothing more.I do that a lot,helps me,I hope some one else can get a laugh out of it too.

 

[uniface]

"Another lost resource was Tony Baker's site. One of his essays was "The Flake -- the Stepchild of Lithic Analysis." Bottom line, flakes were the workhorses of daily life. The kind of flakes that die-hards here want to insist are just waste flakes, useful only as indicators that real artifacts might be nearby."

When did you lose Tony Bakers site? http://www.tabaker.net/ I haven't used it lately but it still appears to be intact. It's a national treasure for sure.

The older you get, the more memory becomes an adventure. I could have sworn I had to use the wayback machine the last time I went there.

 

[Older The Better]

I?ll be a fence sitter, I like unifaces points but Garscale has some truth too, it?s easy to make every little find more than it is. I?ve helped a few people with collections they?ve inherited and it?s funny lots of woodland points listed as paleo, most recently a fire popped triangle was labeled Folsom. Also when out looking and you?re striking out on the real deal it?s natural to try to find something worthy of the outing. I?d be careful not to dampen that spirit though ?what did I find and how was it used? in my opinion is a Fantastic question to ask when sorting out a site. I would agree with uni that they probably were more careful to maximize material you only had as much as you were willing to carry. That?s with high quality material in mind readily available local material could have been used more in the way gar mentioned.

 

[antmike915]

I think that was a excellent post Gar, When I found my first area (with lots of flakes, ect...) I thought every flake, chunk of chert/ flint was something (because it was different). It didn't take me long to realize things because I listened to old collectors/ hunters, took their advice well and if something wasn't "artifact related" I didn't argue or give up. I will admit before I became familiar with cores and hammerstones; I threw many into rivers, at friends or just out of the way so I wouldn't find them again.

 

[ToddsPoint]

I flint knapped for over 20 yrs. I can guarantee that when I walk a site and pick up debitage, my take on it is much different that the average surface hunter. Follow in the Indians footsteps and you'll learn a lot. Gary

 

[Greg Lafla]

It’s not as cut and dry as you want it to be. Not saying the the poking fun is even done consciously but the OP started the same thread on another site and there was far more of it. Usually the need to put others down comes from one’s own insecurity’s. See you in another 6 months or so.

 

[Garscale]

It?s not as cut and dry as you want it to be. Not saying the the poking fun is even done consciously but the OP started the same thread on another site and there was far more of it. Usually the need to put others down comes from one?s own insecurity?s. See you in another 6 months or so.

I havent put anyone down. I was just hoping to get some people to look at the totality of what they are seeing in a site and realize the vast majority of what they see is discarded scatter, not some rare tool. I'm not speaking from insecurity. Im speaking from experience.

Now I might have offended someone that sees effigy shapes in the scatter but that's a related but separate issue.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I havent put anyone down. I was just hoping to get some people to look at the totality if what they are seeing in a site and realize the vast majority of what they see is discarded scatter, not some rare tool. I'm not speaking from insecurity. In speaking from experience.

Now I might have offended someone that sees effigy shapes in the scatter but I that's related but separate issue.

Your thread is fine and you haven't put anyone down.