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.

 

[uniface]

No accurate one-size-fits-all generalization is possible. In a lithic-poor environment, every flake likely was a tool. On the other hand, human nature being as it is, when good material is abundant and easily gotten, there is no built-in penalty for being wasteful (profligate behavior). So what you see depends (partly) on where you are.

 

[crashbandicoot]

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.

No body,s putting any one down,except in your own mind.Why do guys like you always call someone who disagrees with you as insecure?

 

[crashbandicoot]

No accurate one-size-fits-all generalization is possible. In a lithic-poor environment, every flake likely was a tool. On the other hand, human nature being as it is, when good material is abundant and easily gotten, there is no built-in penalty for being wasteful (profligate behavior). So what you see depends (partly) on where you are.

This,along with garscale,s OP is what it,s about,not some attempt to denigrate anyone,

 

[Greg Lafla]

I don?t always do anything, think for myself. Only insecure in his OPINION on what is being discussed, questionable ( or very old)artifacts/geofacts and rock art.

 

[joshuaream]

To get that awesome core down to that shape, they probably took off a lot more than 12 bladelets. (I'm addicted to cores.)

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.

 

[joshuaream]

This...

No accurate one-size-fits-all generalization is possible. In a lithic-poor environment, every flake likely was a tool. On the other hand, human nature being as it is, when good material is abundant and easily gotten, there is no built-in penalty for being wasteful (profligate behavior). So what you see depends (partly) on where you are.

I'm good with both Gar & Uni's take on the situation.

If you've ever read a newspaper article that talks about archaeologists finding 50,000 relics on a site, this is what they are dealing with... 100 things most of us would be happy to find and 49,900 flakes/bits/shards/chips.

On some sites those 49,900 are used, curated tools. On other sites they are just waste flakes that were dropped and left where they fell. The flakes and tools can tell you a lot more about the site than a couple of isolated finds if you know what you are looking for. I'm sure Gar can look at the flakes and tell if he's on a decent site based on the quality of the flakes. (Imported materials, larger clean flakes, all local petwood, etc.)

 

[uniface]

The point to posting the core that I didn't hammer home, figuring it was obvious, is this: how many people, finding the flakes that came off it, would recognise them as tools ? (which they certainly were).

Add: Because why not ?

 

[southfork]

I don't collect waste flakes but I've picked up thousands sometimes they turn out to be nice worked artifacts . It keeps your karma working until something finds you Happy Hunting .

 

[joshuaream]

And the bladelet is the useable tool, a core like those are the leftovers from making the tool.

The point to posting the core that I didn't hammer home, figuring it was obvious, is this: how many people, finding the flakes that came off it, would recognise them as tools ? (which they certainly were).

Add: Because why not ?

 

[uniface]

Of course.

 

[MAMucker]

And the bladelet is the useable tool, a core like those are the leftovers from making the tool.

I?m sure we?d all like to see more of those core flake bladelets, large and small. And hear about the nuances and what separates them from general debitage.

I?ve learned a lot from Uniface and others here regarding Core blades, Prism type and Bladelets. These I?d segregate in a very specific and complicated Niche of NA artifact study. Leave out random percussion and pressure-flakes worked into tools, of which there are many types.

Great posts like these (Thanks Garscale) get us all to dig into the nitty-gritty.

All that said, the majority of, Is This An Artifact? Posts are generally unassociated.

 

[Garscale]

I'm not sure there is any disagreement here Uni or Joshua. Those cores are clearly such. I have some nice ones. Also a couple of frames of uniface, core struck tools.

That said, never mind.....

 

[ToddsPoint]

Here's a core I made from Harrison Co. flint 20 yrs. ago. I started with a small 3' log about 2" in dia. I split it in two about half the length, spread it apart and put the piece of flint in, then wrapped a cord around it to secure it. Laid log on ground. I used indirect percussion with deer antler to remove bladelets. Then you have to unwrap and turn the core for the next removal. With this method you can get a mile of cutting edge from a not very large piece of flint. Gary

 

[Crumb]

One time my dad picked a rock up and was checking it out and said ahh looks like a genuine sex stone.I said a sex stone as he handed it to me. I looked at it and said never heard of such. Then he said yep it?s a F***ing rock then turned and walked off. Lol for some reason this thread reminds me of that