Archaeologica.org

So, Charlie....don't throw that stick away!

Hi Charlie...

It's interesting but not surprising that you have found one of these apparently carved sticks in Texas. They are quite common here in Ohio, certainly at the site I have been investigating for quite a while. They are often carved with parallel grooves at the pointed end, or on a side of the stick near this end when it is cleanly cut at about a forty-five degree angle. (Often this end is quite identifiably formed into the head of a bird or quasi-anthropomorphic figure.) No, the marks are not rodent gnawings. I know much better than I like what mice, etc. do, and believe me, they are not that well organized. The markings on the sticks are much too uniform in their length and orientation, and also they do not seem to exhibit the narrow ridge between adjacent grooves typically formed by paired incisors.

My tentative hypothesis is that these objects are precursors of the well-known Native American "prayer sticks". As for temporal association, several of these appeared recently with a large cache of very nice flint, quartz, and calcedony points and blades professionally identified as Late Archaic at another site in southern Ohio, buried 1.5 meter beneath the surface. So maybe that's the age of your material, at least in the stratum in which these appeared. (Hard to say - that whole iconography seems to have originated somewhere far back in the Paleolithic.) And by the way, wood buried tightly in a more or less anaerobic environment has lasted in fairly good condition for many thousands of years.

Regards, AD

So, Charlie....don't throw that stick away!

Haven't thrown it away yet. But guys, check out these beaver gnawing marks:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefi ... /00651.jpg

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefi ... /00648.jpg

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefi ... /00640.jpg

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yell/slidefi ... r/Page.htm

AD wrote:Hi Charlie...

It's interesting but not surprising that you have found one of these apparently carved sticks in Texas. They are quite common here in Ohio, certainly at the site I have been investigating for quite a while. They are often carved with parallel grooves at the pointed end, or on a side of the stick near this end when it is cleanly cut at about a forty-five degree angle. (Often this end is quite identifiably formed into the head of a bird or quasi-anthropomorphic figure.) No, the marks are not rodent gnawings. I know much better than I like what mice, etc. do, and believe me, they are not that well organized. The markings on the sticks are much too uniform in their length and orientation, and also they do not seem to exhibit the narrow ridge between adjacent grooves typically formed by paired incisors.

My tentative hypothesis is that these objects are precursors of the well-known Native American "prayer sticks". As for temporal association, several of these appeared recently with a large cache of very nice flint, quartz, and calcedony points and blades professionally identified as Late Archaic at another site in southern Ohio, buried 1.5 meter beneath the surface. So maybe that's the age of your material, at least in the stratum in which these appeared. (Hard to say - that whole iconography seems to have originated somewhere far back in the Paleolithic.) And by the way, wood buried tightly in a more or less anaerobic environment has lasted in fairly good condition for many thousands of years.

Regards, AD

Hello AD and welcome. I looked at your website. Very interesting.

Regards, AD

Hey, AD, you have alot of bird figures on your site...

What's your take on this "bird thing" going on, apparently worldwide, in Paleolithic contexts.

Welcome, Bro.

Hard to tell from the photos but to me the proximal end looks worked (with some "rolling" of the edges) and the distal end looks more like it has been gnawed (and "looks" more recent).

Just an opinion...

Hard to tell from the photos but to me the proximal end looks worked (with some "rolling" of the edges) and the distal end looks more like it has been gnawed (and "looks" more recent).

Just an opinion...

Welcome, Many.

I definitely haven't thrown it away, but, until I come up with more conclusive evidence, I'm assuming, for now, that it's the work of rodents.

It was a beaver or a nutrea. AD's fulla baloney.

It was a beaver or a nutrea.

That's my take on it at this point.

Sorry, AD, I shouldn't have said that. I still disagree with you, but welcome to the forum. I hope I didn't discourage you from contributing more. You're probably not full of baloney. It was late and I was in a bad mood. Don't hold it against me.

Sorry, AD, I shouldn't have said that. I still disagree with you, but welcome to the forum. I hope I didn't discourage you from contributing more. You're probably not full of baloney. It was late and I was in a bad mood. Don't hold it against me

We all know you can be a cantankerous Sum' B...ch at times, Frank, but your a good man, and I know you've helped me plenty, expecting nothing in returrn. Alan's pretty thick skinned...I don't think he'll hold it against you.

Hi Frank...

No offense taken, and of course I could be wrong - shouldn't have been so certain in what I said. But then I might be right - those things are quite real here in Ohio, anyway, rather consistent in appearance and sometimes with attached decoration(?) including, in one case, two small leaves affixed symmetrically to the carved end, and, in two cases, apparently human hairs attached to the side. I show just a few of the sticks here at http://www.daysknob.com/Stick01.htm (I don't really push these at this point - you present one find that's really over the top and relatively unimportant, and people fixate on it at the expense of everything else.)

The finder of the sticks that appeared 1.5 meter down at another Ohio site told me that there they come in sets of the same lengths, the lengths being of very close tolerance. I was skeptical but had a look in person, and he was right about this.

As for Charlie's, one really needs to see the grooved end from additional perspectives. I'm wondering if this end was first cleanly cut - here, this is usually at about a 45 degree angle. Also, it's been my experience that if one of these things appears, there are almost always more nearby. If Charlie has only this one, this argues against its being like one of those here.

Regards, Alan

you present one find that's really over the top and relatively unimportant, and people fixate on it at the expense of everything else.)

I wish you'd explain that to Charlie as regards his alleged "kill site" in San Diego and 40 million cracked rocks he's stumbled upon alongside his actual artifacts. (Imagine an elbow in your ribs, Charlie)

I wish you'd explain that to Charlie as regards his alleged "kill site" in San Diego and 40 million cracked rocks he's stumbled upon alongside his actual artifacts. (Imagine an elbow in your ribs, Charlie)

! Come here, I've got kill site for you...(imagine me giving you a noogy) .

Lol @ "40 million cracked rocks he's stumbled upon alongside his actual artifacts.". Get your butt down here, and I'll make you a believer!!

Hi Frank...

Of course, one should choose one's battles wisely. (And I'm not real good at that yet...) Nonetheless, although it can be hard to see in the deluge of images, Charlie almost certainly has genuine artifact material of a kind not generally recognized. I'm thinking specifically of the simple limestone zoomorphs much like some from the site I have been investigating here in Ohio, these having been identified by doctorate-level lithics specialists as artificially modified. (Predictably, local members of the "Club" - as Minimalist would say - present their scientifically unassailable counterargument "I do not feel that these are artificial"). I'd also speculate that there might well be "pre-Clovis" material in that mix, or at least farther down (as at Topper), given that people seem to have been in that area for a very long time. Also, Charlie's material suggesting prehistoric smelting should be taken seriously, at least to the extent of properly investigating it. Another Ohio site (not my own - one I'm helping with) has yielded metal and slag in direct context with diagnostically Late Archaic points and other artifacts buried 1.5 meter beneath undisturbed terrain. Similar-looking material has also shown up in West Virginia - haven't had a chance to personally take a look at this.

Given the resources in Charlie's area, he should have received a visit by one of the many professionals, or at least some intelligent advice. But what actually happened was that Dr. Michael Collins at TARL just threw him off track temporarily by telling him, with regard to limestone, "...anything of preClovis age would be so completely eroded that its original shape could not possibly survive". (Well... So much for the Venus of Willendorf, and apparently the sharp and beautiful markings on the Clovis-age limestones at Gault...) I must say, I would not have taken that kind of abuse as graciously as Charlie has.

Regards, Alan

"I do not feel that these are artificial"

And, remember that there are no "hand axes" in the Americas.