A Bone Flute...in Central Texas?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:21 pm

My hypothesis is the creek started right up against the valley wall, right after the limestone diagenesis, then worked it's way into the, now
exposed, lower channel...ca. 1-2 meters lower in elevation. Of course the structure would have still been subject to inundation during heavy rainfall events (which is also the case now), but, because of the infrequency of this happening (assuming there was was a relatively dry climate during the period of utilization), the relative ease of removing the debris, and the nice, flat, slab the limestone valley floor (perfect for carving this structure) provided, made the former worth the benefit.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2061.jpg

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

These guys appeared to be very intelligent, taking into account they didn't have the history of technology to fall back on like we do.

That's my take on it to date...

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:44 pm

Charlie,

It's just frickin rock's getting washed away! Hell the whole north american continent has what texas has. Just got off of the continental divide in north park co. and it's not just the rocks it's the whole damn landscape. These acient canals or what we call rivers are just littered with stuff! Min haven't you found anything in your backyard yet?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:50 pm

Nope.....my backyard was installed by my landscapers. We do have a stone bench which, I suspect, in 10,000 years will be declared by archaeologists who have paid up their dues to The Club to be an altar to the god of water, Hayward, because it is quite near the pool filter.

All Hail Hayward!

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:12 pm

Charlie,

It's just frickin rock's getting washed away! Hell the whole north american continent has what texas has.

But what do you make of the "furnace" cavities? I agree, these Pleistocene, alluvial gravels are being scoured out of this ancient fluvial system...I've watched it happen, bit by bit. This increased erosion has been brought on by rapid, urban development along the creek corridor.

Here's a few of the dissected alluviums I'm investigating:

Note, the unexposed portions of the Pleistocene gravels are still covered by ca. 10' of topsoil. Also, these topsoil strata have been well documented by The University of Texas, 8 miles upstream, with the contact between the gravels and topsoil marking a well defined Clovis strata, backed by 70, C14 Assays.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:32 pm

But what do you make of the "furnace" cavities? I agree, these Pleistocene, alluvial gravels are being scoured out of this ancient fluvial system...I've watched it happen, bit by bit. This increased erosion has been brought on by rapid, urban development along the creek corridor.

Looks a good example of how to irragate a plain. the vents could possibly be springs if the ground water level would rise on the bedrock, as it surely was 50,000 yrs ago when the glaciers were further south.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:16 pm

Looks a good example of how to irragate a plain. the vents could possibly be springs if the ground water level would rise on the bedrock, as it surely was 50,000 yrs ago when the glaciers were further south.

But, then why carve out cavities? Why not just drill the triangular holes, like at the bottom of the cavity, and on the surface, ca. 3' south of the cavity. And how do we explain the heavy iron deposits in many of the crevaces in the cavity...then, the charring at the mouth of the triangular hole drilled into the bottom of the cavity. Then we have the magnetic iron, silver, zinc alloy, formed into bird motiffs:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2012.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2097.jpg

And then, the many iron stained stone implements...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:42 pm

Looks a good example of how to irragate a plain.

Wait. Established dogma is that agriculture started 9,000 years ago in the Middle East....not 20,000 years ago in Texas.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:12 am

It is my understanding that the creek has moved a lot over time. But still it would have been in the flood plain of the creek. NAs seldom built anything "permanent" in the flood plain, therefore I have to reason that it's white men who built the furnaces, because only us whiteys are stupid enough to build in the flood plain. Water would have been a necessary part of any smelting operation. Gotta cool stuff off. People too.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 am

Wait. Established dogma is that agriculture started 9,000 years ago in the Middle East....not 20,000 years ago in Texas.

It is my understanding that the creek has moved a lot over time. But still it would have been in the flood plain of the creek. NAs seldom built anything "permanent" in the flood plain, therefore I have to reason that it's white men who built the furnaces, because only us whiteys are stupid enough to build in the flood plain. Water would have been a necessary part of any smelting operation. Gotta cool stuff off. People too.

The creek definitely has meandered over the millennia:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... rd%203.jpg

The gravels, resting on the limestone bedrock, is from where the artifacts have been unraveling (except, of course, the furnace and mold).

I think you have a good point, Frank. The high temperatures necessary for smelting would have necessitated a cool water source to cool off the implements, people doing the forging, and for the forging process itself.

Lol @ "whitey".

not 20,000 years ago in Texas.

Well, we don't know any dates for sure, Min. It certainly seems plausible that these artifacts are preClovis, though. We've got two pieces being dated via U/Th analyses. That should give us a more concrete date with which to work. The stratigraphy, as compared to Wilson-Leonard upstream, indicates anything unraveling out of the gravels is preClovis.
I wish Collin's would hurry up, and release his preClovis paper concerning Wilson-Leonard: Stratigraphic, Chronometric, and Lithic Technological Evidence for PreClovis at Wilson-Leonard, Texas.

stan · Post by **stan** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:10 am

Chrlie, I really appreciate your sharing your finds with us.
As far as I know, you are the only person on this forum who is actively
engaged in archaeology!
Looks like you have found a great place to practice your obsession.

Stan

Still not convinced about the crucibles, though. How did they get
fire under these pits? Or are you saying they poured molten metal into
the pits? It seems that if the metal were poured into a stone pit
it would harden eventually and stay there (not to mention cracking the cool, damp rocks.) Then you'd have a clump of
solid iron to pull out. And that would have busted up the rock, not left it
neat and slick like your pictures.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:20 pm

Still not convinced about the crucibles, though. How did they get
fire under these pits?

The ore was placed at the bottom of the furnace, slightly elevated by a slab of chert, propped up by 4 smaller cubes of chert. This allowed the air flow through the vent. The coals where heaped on top of the ore, creating a reducing atmosphere.

The cavity without a blow hole appears to be a 3D mold. It's close proximity to the furnace hints that it was a mold for smelted metal (perhaps a metal with a lower melting point, like lead. A combination of lead and silcone was found in situ in the furnace. Elements of silver are also indicated in the magnetic bird effigies.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:56 am

Hey guys, check out these chert nodules, with holes drilled through them:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/limestone1.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/limestone2.jpg

What stands out to me, is how very round the holes are: Like they were drilled with a small, distally pointed, rectangular prism of chert.

The holes are similar to the side and bottom holes on the hypothesized flute:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone129.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone130.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone131.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/bone133.jpg

The holes on top seem a bit oblong, perhaps from using a more triangular prism to drill these holes.

Again, brainstorming.... coffee does that to me...

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:52 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
One would think that these stones (tools) would be of interest...at least more interest than they are apparently gathering.

Clovis First apparently has their own Club, Charlie!
"Theory tells us these stones are not possible, therefore the stones are geofacts..."

Is this science, or is it observation bowing to theory?

P.S.- Jim, this is not directed at you. It's just typical of some of the responses I've received from pros.

I hope no one said that to you.

Theory is what you develop as a way to explain the evidence, and you change your theory as the evidence changes.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:59 pm

Beagle wrote:That's a neat possibility there Charlie. There is good evidence that Neandertal man made bone flutes.

I remember the pictures of the site where you work. The erosion looked fairly extensive. I take it that the whole bank is being eroded pretty quickly?

I would say that there is disputed evidence that Neandertal man made bone flutes, not good evidence.
Morley, Iain. 2006. Mousterian musicianship? The case of the Divje
Babe I bone. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(4): 317-333.

Summary. The reputed Neanderthal 'flute' from the Slovenian site of
Divje babe I has stimulated much interest and detailed research since
the original publication of its discovery in 1997. In spite of nearly
ten years' worth of analysis and discussion its status as an artefact
has remained ambiguous; nevertheless it is still frequently cited as a
'flute'. This paper examines the literature and research regarding
this object, and finds that much of the ambiguity regarding the
object's status derives from the literature itself. It concludes that
there is no need to invoke hominin agency in explaining the features
of the bone.

This earlier paper by Morley discusses the bone:

http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/dcrr/dcrr002.pdf
Doug

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:55 am

This is in contrast to ethnographic examples of huntergatherer
cases in recent history (examined in Chapter 2), where the use of bone for the manufacture of sound-producers is relatively rare, with naturally occurring plant-based (or other organic) products being by far the dominant material use. It is worth noting at this early stage of the discussion that the apparent exclusivity of bone as a raw material for the
manufacture of musical instruments in the Palaeolithic is likely to be the result of differential preservation, rather than the exclusive choice of that material on the part of those peoples carrying out the manufacture.

Translation: They may have had an entire woodwind section but only the bone-based artifacts survive the passage of time.