Archaeologica.org

I suppose it would help to know what these tools were being used for.

Yeah, I've been trying to figure that out. Most are heavily iron stained, but that doesn't necessarily imply they were used for iron working. The iron staining may have been ritualistic.

A few weeks ago I went to the anthropological museum at
Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem. There was a display comparing natural rocks to American Indian stone tools.
One of the tools was the largest "axe" I have ever seen.
It was about a foot long and a nice symmetrical shape, bifacially flaked into an oval with one thick end and the other a sharp edge.
(It was about 4-5 inches thick and about 6 inches wide!)
The attendant would not let me take a picture.
It's hard for me to see how something like that could have been used by being held in the hands.
Maybe it was hafted originally.
It looks too heavy to have been used as a hoe, but maybe could have been used as a heavy axe for splitting logs or something....

To what culture was the ax assigned, Stan. Mississippian or Woodland, maybe. Possibly the axe was for woodworking, like you said: shelter contruction; making dug out canoes, etc...Also butchering animals seems like a plausible use.

Yes, probably woodland. Do you know of anything that large?

Yes, probably woodland. Do you know of anything that large?

The closest thing I've found, size wise, is this ax type tool:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20522.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 10" x 9.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20523.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 10" x 9.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20524.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 10" x 9.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20525.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View (close-up)- 10" x 9.5"- Lima-Igl

It's definitely very crude compared to the piece your describing.

Here's a honker Acheulean ax from Algeria:

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Most are heavily iron stained, but that doesn't necessarily imply they were used for iron working. The iron staining may have been ritualistic.

Charley, was iron staining a known practice in some cultures? How is it done?

Charley, was iron staining a known practice in some cultures? How is it done?

Morning, Monk.

Hsn and Hss cultures are known to have used hematitic and limonitic ochers for burial and cremation cermonies.

It’s also been speculated Homo heidelbergensis used ochers in a ritualistic sense:

Mineral pigments discovered at the Twin Rivers cave site might be evidence that the human ancestor Homo heidelbergensis used paint 200,000 years ago. Researchers suggested that the red, black, pink, and purple ochers probably had some ritual significance. If so, heidelbergensis must have been capable of abstract thought, which would push back the earliest known example of such thinking by 100,000 years.

http://www.archaeology.org/0611/news/world.html

As to the preparation of ochers:

Other designs—particularly the marks on red and yellow ocher cobbles—appear more random, as if someone scratched the surfaces repeatedly and from different angles. Unlike the engraved objects, these "scratched" stones likely were not "works of art," as we understand the concept, but rather the "ingredients" of art. Scratching ocher stone with a sharp tool or crushing small ocher nodules produces a fine, pigment-rich powder that—with a few added ingredients such as animal fat—becomes paint. Working with a brilliantly hued palette of reds, oranges and yellows, artists could paint designs on hides, small pebbles, and cave walls, as well as bodies and faces.

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/kincaid/stones.html

Charlie,
That last gigantic "axe" of yours....must have been for smashing heads!
The acheulean one you posted is more like what i saw.

You probably already know about all the following, but you keep saying
that early man was engaged in "ochre staining."...so here's some thoughts.

About earth pigments.
I have used a lot of them in painting, and i think there's a difference between
staining and painting.
It is my impression that painted-on pigments would stay on the surface like any other pigment.
Staining implies that the material soaks into or penetrates something beneath the surface. Lots of rocks have natural iron staining which resembles the same colors as ochre. Around here a lot of quartzite is stained red or brown.
Further east the Indians used iron nodules from the sandhills as a source of paint. Colors range from black through reds and yellows. These nodules are hollow, with a powdery interior surface of pigment. something like this:



Here's some iron staining:

Will iron ore produce those stains naturally?

Those are natural stains in the polished stones. I really don't understand all the chemistry of
it. There are so many different iron compounds.
My impression is that it takes iron rich water leaching through another mineral over a long time to stain it.



(I also read online that bacteria can produce iron staining.)

Having said all this I suppose it would be possible that iron compounds painted on the surface of a bone or stone could result in staining over millennia under the right conditions.

Staining implies that the material soaks into or penetrates something beneath the surface. Lots of rocks have natural iron staining which resembles the same colors as ochre. Around here a lot of quartzite is stained red or brown.
Further east the Indians used iron nodules from the sandhills as a source of paint. Colors range from black through reds and yellows. These nodules are hollow, with a powdery interior surface of pigment. something like this:

Will iron ore produce those stains naturally?

My impression is that it takes iron rich water leaching through another mineral over a long time to stain it.

Many of the local artifacts are stained versus painted, I'm pretty sure. Here's a few examples:





http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2054.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2055.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2056.jpg

Note the staining on the ventral surface and distal edge, but the lack of
staining on the dorsal surface. This rules out iron rich water, or the whole piece would be stained.



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2058.jpg





http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2060.jpg

Note the staining on the distal tip only.





Again, note the staining on the distal end of the dorsal and ventral surfaces, only.



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2037.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2038.jpg

Note the heavy staining on the ventral surface only, and the charred portion on the distal edge of the ventral surface only. Also note the carbonate coating portions of the iron staining, on the ventral surface.



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20429.jpg



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20431.jpg

Note the iron staining in the middle of both lateral surfaces, and in the middle of the ventral surface, only. The bright red color of the overall piece is from heat treating or exposure to high heat.




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20109.jpg

Note the iron staining on the distal end, only. Again, the bright red color is from exposure to high heat or heat treating. Also note the carbonate covering portions of the iron staining.

The first two photos make it look as if the staining is only on the business edge of the piece.

Were it "natural" I would expect the stain to be more random.

The first two photos make it look as if the staining is only on the business edge of the piece.

Were it "natural" I would expect the stain to be more random.

That's what I've deduced, Min. If natural, the staining would be more generalized.

So why would someone be using a stone tool on iron ore?

So why would someone be using a stone tool on iron ore?

Smelting activities?

All these tools were found within 50 meters, downstream, of the hypothesized furnace and mold carved into the ancient bedrock riverbed.

That last gigantic "axe" of yours....must have been for smashing heads!

Right, Stan.

It's very heavy, and just massive.

I've deduced it is a two handed tool.

What the hell were they having to strike with such force.

It definitely wasn't for detail work.

Smelting activities?

That would mean putting one's hand pretty close to the fire, wouldn't it?

My barbeque tools have long handles for a reason.