example of charcoal tool?

[stan]

When I look for charcoal tools on the internet all I find is
barbecue implements and drawing materials.

So if it's so easy to find, flintoff, why can't you find a decent scientific reference to tools made of charcoal?

By the way, I think about 90% of your claims are rubbish.

[flintoff]

Min, with regard to your good intentions, fortunately i dont need any help as im fully aware of possibilities that could have happened, may have happened, did happen etc....if you take a piece of wood, shape it into what ever form & stick it into a blazing fire the results would not be a perfect tool shaped piece of charcoal, what you would have is a cinder of no recognisable assistance...plus if this was the case there would be remains of burning present, irrespective of what...whether it be chared logs, lump wood even tree stumps along with small unrecognisable remanants. Here in England the lithic era's produce antiquities not seen anywhere else world wide, just like they do there in the States, hence the saying of British Neolithic artifacts in particular are quite rare...what ever practise this is may not be suited to other countries, even Europe where pieces are found on a regular basis but not here in England, evolution deprived some tribes due to climate, land structure etc but favoured others with the opposite in advantage...its a learning curve for us all as there isnt a soul alive that can actually state for fact this was used for that & they were made for this....its all guess work & assumption...nothing more. I appreciate your replies as all replies are valued so keep them coming as there is so much about our pasts' we are yet to discover & it takes many opinions to reach plausable verdicts

Kindest F

[War Arrow]

Well, I don't know if this helps any. I've had a look on google and sort of gave up after the first 12 of 15,000 results, but this http://www.csam.montclair.edu/earth/ees ... arcol.html seems to demonstrate that petrified charcoal is quite distinct from coal as a substance. I'm guessing that Flint's pieces aren't nearly so old, but clearly something does happen to charcoal over time, providing it gets preserved under the right conditions I guess. I don't think that settles whether or not those objects really were tools (or at least worked) but I don't think the (admittedly bizarre) medium necessarily discounts the possibility.

[Beagle]

That's a helpful post W/A. So evidently charcoal will become petrified under certain circumstances.

In your article there, it was due to the KT event - that's pretty extreme circumstances but still proves the point.

[stan]

Well, it appears that some of the original material can be preserved in petrified material...even charcoal!
That is amazing.
BUt I am still not convinced about the "charcoal tool"...it doesnt look like a tool, and it doesn't look like charcoal.

Am I the only skeptic on board?

[Beagle]

Am I the only skeptic on board?

No Stan, I think you and Min and Frank have been pretty forthright with your skepticism.

As for myself, we're into an area that I know little about, and when good evidence is posted, as Charlie does, I have nothing to say. But there are a lot of pictures of rocks that are supposed to have artwork in them - and I don't see it.

[flintoff]

Stan, why are you so argumentative....i was invited to this board by a sensible, pleasant person to share a few pictures of my finds & discuss with nice decent people the possibilities of them being something that is completely unknown by byself & every expert i have contacted regarding them....you seem to think im here to put your back up (for what ever reason) maybe you have problems with accepting there are things in this world you havent seen before....in my opinion people like you ....no i wont even say it because it must be quite clear to every1 who's read your silly replies....why not purchase some of the BBQ implements & have a few chops for me lol

[War Arrow]

Well, it appears that some of the original material can be preserved in petrified material...even charcoal!
That is amazing.
BUt I am still not convinced about the "charcoal tool"...it doesnt look like a tool, and it doesn't look like charcoal.

Am I the only skeptic on board?

No, and I can't knock your scepticism. All the same I'm still sitting on the fence as usual, and perhaps 'tool' is only applicable in the absence of a better word. Obviously the er... tooliness is about as debatable as you can get, but nevertheless, there's a definite shape there and some relatively clean straight lines which at least, I would say, raise a question about these pieces being shaped by entirely natural (at least, not involving human hand) forces. We need a good link to research (if there is any) describing what happens to charcoal over lengths of time less than 65 million years. Unless somebody found a lump of already petrified charcoal and decided to use that to make some object guaranteed to anger future historians. I suppose if I was an early hairy hominid and I found what looked like a lump of rock which turned out to weigh less than a piece of wood, maybe I'd be intrigued enough to turn it into a spoon, flyswatter, conversation piece or whatever the hell it may or may not have been. Just thinking aloud here.
I'm still working on that time machine by the way. Maths has never been my strong point.

[stan]

Stan, why are you so argumentative....

Well, we have had some prettty intense arguments on this board over the last year about a variety of subjects. We have often talked on the board about whether certain claims would stand up under peer review... it is part of the culture of the board, although since "Archaeologist" left things have mellowed out a bit.
So hard questions are part of the scene.
But i don't think any of my questions have been silly. I'm sorry you haven't been willing to answer them. My question about the nature of charcoal is certainly germaine to your claim to have descovered charcoal tools. As far as I have been able to determine, you are the only person who has done so.
About the issue of definitions of words...to you, "slate" means the kind of slate used to roof houses...is that correct? But where I live, we don't roof our houses with stone plates. In North Carolina, slate is light blue-gray, and commonly used as flagstone, and splits apart easily. ( I'll post a picture of a couple of slate tools I found.)
If I am wrong, I'd like to know why. I am simply a curious and skeptical person..which seems an appropriate stance in a scientific field..
I am overgeneralizing here..sorry about that. I know you have found a lot of interesting things and are in a great place to be looking. And I hope you have found what you say you have found, like the 1.5 million year old knife. If so, more power to you! I guess you are sincere, but
I am still skeptical about some of your claims.
Another problem I'm having is accepting the low threshhold you seem to have for calling something a tool. You seem to be saying something can be called a tool if one day a humanoid picked it up and used it for ...any old purpose. That seems to be what you are saying about some of the objects you have found in the knapping circles.
You seem to conclude they must have been used as tools because they must have been put there by the knapper.
Is this a standard definition?

Peace.

[Sam Salmon]

.....I am still not convinced about the "charcoal tool"...it doesnt look like a tool, and it doesn't look like charcoal.Am I the only skeptic on board?

No-I'm also unlclear as what application that item has in everyday gatherer/hunter life-or any life.

[Manystones]

if you take a piece of wood, shape it into what ever form & stick it into a blazing fire the results would not be a perfect tool shaped piece of charcoal, what you would have is a cinder of no recognisable assistance...

This is a good point, and whilst they may not be "tools" per se they certainly appear to be shaped.

My two cents.

[flintoff]

Stan, by announcing a statement like you did with regard to thinking 90% of some Ones attributes as being rubbish, isnt the best way to go about making friendly aquaintances in my opinion....& why do you keep saying i said they are tools?....please explain this as its arising too often to be ignored.....please quote me on where i actually state the charcoal pieces i find are tools? Sceptism is all we have where new pieces shed light, just because you havent seen an item before dosent mean it dosent exist does it...all i wish to achieve via corrosponding through this site is make new friends, share theorys & view interesting finds.....not have to explain myself to you or any One in the context as myself being the accused....if you dont understand or cannot comprehend anything new to you then i suggest you approach the topic with a better sence of appreciation & interest instead of initially thinking its not the case & will confront, you may not be aware of your statements coming across as argumentative but from where im sitting they are not coming across as answerable with interest. Once again for Stans benifit only I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CHARCOAL PIECES ARE, WHAT THEIR PURPOSE WAS BUT THEY >>>> RESEMBLE <<<< SOME FORMS OF TOOL WHICH I HAVE IN FLINT FORM. Stan...can you read this & let it sink in that i have not called these tools, only they >>>> resemble <<<< some forms of flint tool i have found.

F

[stan]

Thanks for the clarification, Flintoff.