Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
'Examinations' by cronies of yours . . . ?fossiltrader wrote:If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
At the moment i could set up for his work to be seen by two people who are respected in the field but both work out side the university heres money do it our way area in other words both fund themselves if he interested let me know.
Looking at those pictures again, in light of this explanation from Chris, I can see the use wear they are talking about."Not being a skeptic but what exactly make wear patterns different from
normal moving of rocks because of erosion? This seems to be a specialty
that lithic specialists understand. How does a rock become a tool and a
tool with wear patterns?"
"What sites are we actually seeing proposed wear patterens? Is it just
the above?"
Imagine you have a neighborhood BBQ, and afterwards you bury all the
dirty knives and spatulas and forks etc (even if they are plastic).
Come back in a few years and dig them up and you will see some of the
gunk still sticking to them, even if it's dried out. You can tell the
implements were used.
The same with stone tools. If you have a favorite knife and skinned a
lot of rabbits and dear with it, the edge develops evidence of use wear
damage. An artifact edge can always be damaged and can appear to
exhibit usewear, but maybe it was only dropped on the ground or stepped
on. But when you work with wood, bone, flesh, vegetation, it sometimes
leaves a gloss on the edge that can identify what the tool was used on
and how it was used (i.e. the motions used, like cutting or scraping).
And the polish, and/or gloss sticks to the stone edge and can last for
a long time depending what kind of dirt it was buried in. These are
stone artifacts with close-ups of their edges; they are from a Paleo
site in Brazil called Pedra Furada. Even the Valsequillo and Calico
artifacts might still have this micro usewear evidence on their edge.
(It takes an expensive microscope.) If so, it proves that someone
actually used the artifact, and so it stands as very strong evidence
for definite human presence in very old sites.
There are other sites on the web that deal with this and provide other
photos. I don't have them handy but they are googleable: usewear,
lithics, polish, gloss -- should get you there. Hope that helps.
"What will be the tipping point? This site or Calico or Valsequillo or
yours?"
God knows. I'm starting to think UFOs will be landing at the White
House before the that tipping point arrives. The new headlines about
16,000 year old Siberian Vancouverites are a step in the right
direction. Anything with Pleistocene boats in it is probably a step in
the right direction. It is an absolute nuclear bomb that departments
tried to shield themselves from for over a century. It is going to be
hard to swallow for the Academy, who were generally so adamant for much
of that time against any talk of pre-Columbian (pre-1492) boats to the
Americas. Now it seems boats are being figured all over the place.
Enjoy the ride.
Chris Hardaker
Tucson, AZ
THE FIRST AMERICAN
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Su ... overed/dp/
1564149420
FIRST AMERICAN Article
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HardakerC1.php
******************
NATIVE AMERICAN GEOMETRY
http://earthmeasure.com
AndIf Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
I think it would behoove Charlie Hatchett to take Fossiltrader up on his offer. Of course Australian archaeologists, like all of us, have their biases, but keep in mind that the Aussies are familiar with very old artifact material that would escape the notice of, or simply be rejected by, archaeologists here. What is there to loose? (Of course there must be assurance that the material would be returned, all at Charlie's expense - no big deal.) If the material is rejected as natural, and a detailed explanation of this assessment is provided, the appropriate course of action would be to submit the material to geologists, petrologists, and possibly forensic scientists for an assessment of whether or not the stones are likely to have acquired their current forms by entirely natural processes. In my own project, I have shown my material to anyone willing to take a look, and have learned a lot from this. In a pleasantly surprising number of cases, the assessments by actual physical scientists have conclusively refuted the archaeologists' assertions, often quite amusingly. This was the case, for example, with the small quartz sandstone shown at http://www.daysknob.com/H05.htm It was summarily rejected by archaeologists as a naturally worn pebble, but a doctorate-level petrologist and geology professor (and subsequently another geology prof) identified very good evidence of artificial modification. This enabled me to publish a short article on it (discretely dealing only with the technical details) in the respected and very mainstream Ohio Archaeologist magazine. Shying away from showing putative artifact material to any professionals serves only to damage one's credibility. (And by the way, having a university degree in a relevant field is not conclusive evidence of incompetence.)Do they, like you, also have 'double degrees' that came with their cereal boxes?
Fossiltrader wrote:Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: Thank You I feel Better now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read about the internet making knowledge dangerous in here or should i say too little knowledge.
Then i look at a startling collection of pre-clovis artefacts so i show some rather good and easy to identify items sadly though it seems the internet a great teacher when it comes to rare items it skips the basics .As for the pre-clovis items i am sorry ,wish you luck with them but they do not appear to have any of the signs visible that point to them being artefacts.
P.S. I threw in the fossil picture as an idiot check its a mammoth tooth.
cheers Terry.
Bit of a turnaround here huh Tel?Fossiltrader wrote:Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: Charlies stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
At the moment i could set up for his work to be seen by two people who are respected in the field but both work out side the university heres money do it our way area in other words both fund themselves if he interested let me know.
Terry, please do yourself and us a favor and drop this charade please. Dropping the insults would be nice also.I have not commented on the iron bird whatever it is because unlike untrained internet experts i dont know every thing just a bit about lithics cheers, Terry,
Come on then Terry, have a look at my material and tell me what you think?fossiltrader wrote:Hi mate i do most of my work under confidentiality agreements so it difficult to get used to open forums but if i had 1 dollar for every great discovery i have been asked to examine i would be rich.
I find that about 3 out of 4 enquiries to have lithics examined usualy in the end never happen mostly because people think they have something wonderful and either dont want to accept they havent or figure if they dont get an opinion their inagination has free rein.
Terry,fossiltrader wrote:I took a look spent quite a while in there i actually love some of the stuff will be going back there soon.
