Archaeologica.org

But Min. I was on about, for example, scree slopes as a source of stone.
As I pointed out, not all stone tools need an edge, hence they don't need to be made of Flint for example.
Just consider.
Net weights.
For spinning and weaving.
Softening meat and vegetables.
Opening bones and brain cases.
Mortars.
Bolas weights.
Sling missiles.
Hammer stones.
And that just off the top of my head.
Many such would logically have been picked up, used, and discarded, as such we wouldn't even necessarily recognise them as tools. You don't see Chimps lugging damn geat lumps of stone around to open nuts after all!

Roy.

Dig wrote:Why your fixation with Flint?

Because the discussion hinged on the possibility that the pre-Clovis artifacts at Cactus Hill (?) could have come about through natural freezing and thawing. Since these were (as I recall) either of flint, quartz or quartzite, ergo my fixation on it and insistence that the properties of materials like slate were irrelevant.

not all stone tools need an edge,

Absolutely, Dig. In some cases a rock can serve as a tool without modification. In which case we do not call them Levallois, or Mousterian, or Solutrean or Clovis. We call them "rocks."

But when certain techniques are employed for the named styles and those styles are capable of being detected by investigators the notion of "Intelligent Design" does come into play. With a nod to Ish and her cognition fixation, these tools show that someone designed and executed a plan, over a long period of time. We know almost nothing about these people other than their tools. So when some guy comes along and says, "you can get the same result by freezing" and then makes no effort to prove his point, well, how much credence should he be given.

I call such people "priests" (but that's just me!)

Granted. But I was trying to broaden the view as 'artifacts' seem to mean Flint. I wonder how many stone tools of the type I described to Min have ended in the rubbish pile?

And I call it tunnel vision Min. For years Egyptology meant studying the Pyramids and ignoring the bigger picture. Like studying us by examining the wreckage of our vehicles.

Roy.

I don't think there is any doubt that flint and chert make good tools. So does obsidian but it seems a lot harder to come by.

Sites like Topper seem to be primarily tool factories rather than camps and I have a vague recollection of Cogs making the same observation about Lake Mannix. If people travelled miles to reach them there must have been some compelling reason to do so. I find it hard to believe that it was a shortage of rocks in the landscape.

But the right rock? That's another question.

But the right rock? That's another question.

Indeed.

Roy.

Not to get all sexist but it also seems that a lot more attention was put into the "guy-tools" (spear points)




than the chick-tools (scrapers and such.)




Looks like even back then, men were pigs.

Minimalist wrote:Not to get all sexist but it also seems that a lot more attention was put into the "guy-tools" (spear points)

Those look like they were chipped yesterday.

Don't fortet that when the men came back from their hunt (with their beautifully make points) empty-handy, who had something for them to eat. Yes, it was the women, who with the use of their pounders and scrapers managed to feed them.

Yes, it was the women, who with the use of their pounders and scrapers managed to feed them.

Exactly my point earlier. Professionals seem to to have narrowed vision that ignores anything other than points on sticks.
Just consider the number of 'tools' needed to produce their weapons and the clothing they needed in cold weather. I suspect that points were only a very small part of the tool kit, yet they seem to be a very large part of museum displays.

Roy.

yet they seem to be a very large part of museum displays.

But that's why they hang the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and not some kids' finger paintings.

Professionals seem to to have narrowed vision that ignores anything other than points on sticks.
Just consider the number of 'tools' needed to produce their weapons and the clothing they needed in cold weather. I suspect that points were only a very small part of the tool kit, yet they seem to be a very large part of museum displays.

Stone survives. Unless it's in a protected environment (like a cave), wood, antler and bone don't.

qed

I don’t know about that.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis put on pots.

But, admittedly, they are the last “tool” in the process.

Stone survives. Unless it's in a protected environment (like a cave), wood, antler and bone don't.

I'm not sure how to reply to that!

Roy.

uniface wrote:Stone survives. Unless it's in a protected environment (like a cave), wood, antler and bone don't.

Or unless it's covered by sediment.