OPINIONS NEEDED.

fossiltrader · Post by **fossiltrader** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:53 am

Need some opinions cannot say anymore as this is important thanks.

http://www.freewebs.com/archaeology_dow ... tures2.htm

I cannot say anything as i would like a couple of uninfluenced opinions thanks Terry[/img]

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:21 am

Looks man made.

Fossil.

Hard to tell.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:19 am

I agree with Charlie, except for the second one which I would class as "indeterminate" from the photo.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:03 am

You can probably sell 'm.

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:28 am

I'll bite. Is the first one in Charlie's response from a beach deposit?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:02 pm

Mayonaze wrote:I'll bite. Is the first one in Charlie's response from a beach deposit?

That's my feeling as well Mayo. It looks like a rock formed in a shallow sea or shore. Could still have been shaped into a tool though. The ends may be artificially altered.

fossiltrader · Post by **fossiltrader** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:52 pm

Hi the first one comes from a museum in France it was found in a cave and is part of a Neandethal collection this is the museums opinion !
My opinion in reply to them will be that it doesnt appear to have the characteristics that one would find on Neanderthal tools I believe it not Neanderthal.Plus a 2000+ word report on why i believe this lol.
The second is a neanderthal hammer stone from France it does have the appearance of being genuine.
Cheers Terry.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:58 pm

In my, very limited, experience of knapping, item one looks to be man made. But what the heck for?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:04 pm

My opinion in reply to them will be that it doesnt appear to have the characteristics that one would find on Neanderthal tools I believe it not Neanderthal.Plus a 2000+ word report on why i believe this lol.

You've tweaked my interest, Terry. Is the first specimen quadrifacial? Any guess on the material?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:10 pm

the first one looks too crude to be Mousterian. I may have thought H. Habilis but if it's from western Europe I'm more doubtful about it being anything at all.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:14 pm

Can you think of any natural process that could create such an item Beag, damned if I can?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:24 pm

If you mean the rippling effect on the stone, water will do that Digit. Like Mayo was suggesting, it may have been formed on a shoreline.

fossiltrader · Post by **fossiltrader** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:31 pm

Hi ok well as too the material i am waiting on geologists report on that but it does appear to be possibly possibly iron stone but that just a guess i am not a geologist lol.
It is knapped on both sides in fact that the main problem if you look at the clearly defined knap marks they really do appear rather well done for Neanderthal.
Dependant on what the material analysis shows because of the too clear work marks plus the overall appearance and shape and i suppose a certain amount of gut feeling i dont think this neanderthal it definately has been worked or knapped if you like though it doesnt appear to be Neanderthal but thats just my opinion.
The second item the round ball lol does appear to fit the Neanderthal class of tools actually this ball design i have argued for years about with academics because if you read up on Neanderthal history the general opinion is that they didnt throw their spears???.My question has always been then if they didnt throw because of body shape why did they make what is called bolo balls by many leading researchers????.My answer to my self is because the body shape which stopped them throwing also stopped them speaking an idea i do not agree with in fact radical as it sounds my personal research is on Homo Erectus and to a small degree Neanderthal hoping to find some evidence that points solidy to either both or one of these speciese having verbal communication.
cheers Terry.

P.S. yes i know my spelling crap lol but i the worst typist in history and to be honest i dont care lol

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:36 pm

Hadn't thought of that beag. Ta.
FT, can I just qualify that comment about throwing. As I understand it, the experts on that subject they were actually referring to throwing over arm.
Whilst under arm throwing may not be as effective as over arm it does not preclude the use of a Woomera does it?

fossiltrader · Post by **fossiltrader** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:56 pm

I imagine a woomera would help but what i am looking for is communication the over arm throwing if that is proven 100% means the shape of the chest would preclude the developement of a chest that would encourage speech.
But as to throwing Neanderthals appeared to like cave sites in France that were near rivers ,rivers were reindeer migrations crossed it would to my mind be an easier kill to stab an animal climbing up a river bank after a swim than to chase through the forest? Therefore maybe though its a wild guess they never needed to actually throw a spear merely develop a powerful underarm thrust???
As for the round bolo balls i have long thought they may be simply a hammer stone for breaking bones open etc.?
But anyway im going on forgive me lecture mode easy to slip into lol
cheers Terry

Archaeologica.org

OPINIONS NEEDED.

OPINIONS NEEDED.

Tool

Tool

Tool