Archaeologica.org

Over the past twenty to thirty years archaeology has made incredible strides

Not to the archies of the world, it hasn't!


Good finds, Beagle.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here. These ancient people were evidently hunter-gatherers, according to the article. That brings up the issue of feeding quite a few workers. I'm paraphrasing the author. These artisans were not in the age of metals, and still used flint for tools.

Some of the art is fascinating.

I doubt that those carvings were made with flint tools. For that matter I doubt they would have been able to carve those stelae with flint tools.

T-shaped stelae discovered during excavations
are believed to have religious significance

here we go again with the assumptions. for a group of people who want religion out of archaeology they certainly ascribe a lot religion to many artifacts and ways of life.

Didn't mean to suggest that. It's an example of their stone age culture. The author points out that flint flakings were found nearby.

I think I first saw this on the Daily Grail but I haven't heard any news in a while.

Oilers lost. for you but I'm not a hockey fan.

Beagle wrote:Didn't mean to suggest that. It's an example of their stone age culture. The author points out that flint flakings were found nearby.

I think I first saw this on the Daily Grail but I haven't heard any news in a while.

Oilers lost. for you but I'm not a hockey fan.

I'm rooting for the Canes, if anyone.

The author points out that flint flakings were found nearby.

Just for the hell of it tomorrow, I am going to take one of my musket flints and see what happens when I try to scratch an average quartz rock.

Mini - it's nearly 4 o'clock my time and I wonder if you tried your experiment.

Of course you might have posed the question to one of our geologist members, but noooooooo.....that wouldn't be any fun. If you didn't burn the garage down let me know.

Wife dragged me out shopping. I thought of it on the way back.

One thing we have out here is lots of friggin' rocks.

Okay. As promised:

#1



A rock which my landscapers dropped on my front "lawn" and an average musket size flint from my shooting kit. The rock was selected because it had a flat face which I thought would make for a better demonstration than some of the rougher rocks. Note the orange and blue/green dots. The blue/green denotes the thickest part of the flint and the orange the point which was used to scratch the stone.


#2



After scratching the surface for about 30 seconds the "damage" to the rock is minimal, however, the working point of the flint (orange) has been worn down.


#3

Close up showing the "damage."




#4



I put the rock in a vise and tapped the flint with a hammer. In two or three blows the flint chipped apart. The fragments are visible.

Perhaps on a softer stone than quartz, (limestone or sandstone) the flint might do a slightly better job but it is difficult to see them using their most important survival related tools for such an esoteric purpose.



Now I know how Charlie feels when posts his photos and "gets his rocks off!"

HUH ?

I thought it was whether or not you could spark off of quartz. That's cool though. I don't need to see any more of your rocks.

I'd say that flint is not an ideal tool for scraping other rocks.

Ah yes. Evidently not.

Minimalist, You just haven't found a soft enough material to scratch with flint.

I'm no geologist, but I know all minerals have a hardness rating (MOHS scale). (one through 10)
Calcium carbonate, the main ingredient of limestone, is relatively soft, with a hardness of 3.
Flint, or black chert, is cryptocrystalline quartz, with a hardness of 7...and the rock you were trying to scratch was quartzite. Similar to flint, in other words.
Some minerals harder than quartzite are topaz, corundum, and diamond (10).

They could have done the carving on limestone with flint tools.