Archaeologica.org

Bravo, cogs...well said. I'll drink to that.

As a furriner chaps what is this problem with hand axes in the Americas? Could someone explain please?

Roy.

The Clovis First Club insists that there aren't any. Apparently, even if you hit them over the head with one, they insist that it is merely a sharp rock that resulted from natural causes.

Minimalist wrote:....they insist that it is merely a sharp rock that resulted from natural causes.

To my untrained eye that's what they look like and I haven't done the research on recognising the tell tale signs of human manufacture like some here have.

What I want to see are the results on microscopic edge wear-isn't that what will determine if these are the real thing?

Or have the thousands of years obliterated that?

Sorry I may have posted this before-is this sort of scientific testing extremely expensive?

EDIT-Please Note-I'm not calling anyone a liar it's just 'curious mind wants to know.'

And why is a natural sharp fracture not a hand tool then Min? As I have suggested on this site in the past it would seem reasonable that the manufacture of stone tools was a deliberate act to replicate what nature had produced.
I doubt that Ooog pick up a lump of flint and said 'Bingo, I can make a sophisticated doubled edged left handed thingamyjig out of this.'
There's none so blind as those who are blinkered by their own prejudice I'm afraid.

Roy.

To my untrained eye that's what they look like and I haven't done the research on recognising the tell tale signs of human manufacture like some here have.

What I want to see are the results on microscopic edge wear-isn't that what will determine if these are the real thing?

Sam, typically a hand axe will have percussion strikes along with tell-tale percussion ripples on both sides of the lithic (bifacial), forming a teardrop or more elongated tool that has a variety of uses as a chopper, drill, scraper, etc. The hand axe pictured has stress marks on the tip (evident under microscopic examination) where it was used to chop into something; however, it did not shatter (sorry about the fuzzies, but it's a close-up):



While nature might be lucky enough to have something harder than Mohs 7.0 drop on a chalcedony lithic and form a percussion strike, it becomes virtually impossible to place a dozen or more percussion strikes on each side of a lithic tool, forming a teardrop shape. The following puppy goes one step further since notches of the material have been removed for a left-handed grip:



It fits perfectly in the left hand, but not in the right as seen here:



It's a large tool - I have big hands.

Intelligent rock falls Cog. Give a scree slope a drawing and it'll produce Rodin's Thinker.

Roy.

I asked Charlie about the rock falling idea once but it is very hard to see how that could work for more than one flake.

Besides, where Charlie is looking there are no rock cliffs. Just gently rolling hills. I'm afraid Mother Nature would have had difficulty building up any speed.

Same here, Min. No cliffs, just gentle rolling hills. It could happen once on a rock - maybe. There is a stream downhill about 1/2 mile away so that won't do it either.

Besides, many of the tools assemblages are found in a circular pattern as if someone was sitting or squatting and flaking tools. Let's see Mother Nature do that over and over also!

Perhaps in the Grand Canyon? Except that is mainly sandstone which is probably not ideal for making tools.

Let's see, if the truth is that there were preclovis peoples here in the states, and the truth is that evidence has been found in numerous places, and the truth is ancient DNA has been found to support the previous truths, and the truth is that there are hand axes in north america because we have them, and the truth is that we have levallois technology because we have some , then we have gone past the point of whether these truths are real or not. Funny thing about truth, it either is or isn't.
It seems that the whole issue here is not artifacts or geofacts anymore , but TRUTH. We have come to the point for some of not being able to see the history for the artifacts....rick d.

Cogs, thank you. Someone has finally gotten through my thick skull. I have been many years in that group, now I fianlly know the difference. Or I should say now I know what makes the difference, but I would still like to see one up close and personal.

Leona Conner wrote:Cogs, thank you. Someone has finally gotten through my thick skull. I have been many years in that group, now I fianlly know the difference. Or I should say now I know what makes the difference, but I would still like to see one up close and personal.

Leona -

I had the good fortune to be on these grounds when I was about 7 years old.

Long story which I won't get into here.

Anyway.

Here's some handaxe porn.


http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/for ... .php?t=807


hoka hey

john


ps


charlie hatchett -

look up Ray Alf in the early/mid fifties re Yermo/Calico.

I was there.

Just to say, there's more history there than you think.

i.e., an article in Life Magazine

Which I can't find.

j

Yeah the multiple flakes are really the giveaway. When you hold one of these in your hand and can trace the flakes with your finger any doubt that these are "naturally occuring" vanishes. There is just no way for nature to chip six-ten flakes off of a piece of chert or flint. That stuff is hard.

Minimalist wrote:Yeah the multiple flakes are really the giveaway. When you hold one of these in your hand and can trace the flakes with your finger any doubt that these are "naturally occuring" vanishes. There is just no way for nature to chip six-ten flakes off of a piece of chert or flint. That stuff is hard.

Minimalist -

When you speak of "multiple flakes" being the giveaway,

I imply can't resist the thought of Das Klub.

In a reverse English sort of a way.

hoka hey


john