Archaeologica.org

Except...back when it would have been an important resource it was not "under water"

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/2 ... l&tc=pgall

The discovery of black chert off local shores could rewrite America's prehistory by supporting a theory that Paleo-Indians might have come to the continent via a coastal route rather than by land, said Phil Garwood, a geology instructor at Cape Fear Community College who first identified the local rock as chert. The exact route Paleo-Indians followed will always remain a mystery, but clues have come in the form of the tools they left behind.

Yeah.

And with lower sea levels a costal trip from Arkansas to North Carolina would have been a pretty long trip.

More likely would be a overland trade route.

The discovery of black chert off local shores could rewrite America's prehistory

Could is definitely the operative there. I didn't read anything about a lithographic comparison of NC chert and AR chert. There are bound to be some discernible differences in the rock under a scope or in trace and even if the stuff was above water and usable at the time, does the artifact record suggest that a prehistoric source of chert is missing from the books?

I bet that "cultural material" is a spitoon from a civil war shipwreck.

If memory serves, Al Goodyear has found chert at the Topper site ( in South Carolina ).

A geologist would have to compare the different types. I picked up a piece of flint while I was visiting Charlie Hatchett in Texas. It is jet black. Far different than the gray flints I have on hand for my flintlock rifles.

Maybe I'll try to chip off a flake and see how it works in one of my muskets.

Minimalist wrote:If memory serves, Al Goodyear has found chert at the Topper site ( in South Carolina ).

A geologist would have to compare the different types. I picked up a piece of flint while I was visiting Charlie Hatchett in Texas. It is jet black. Far different than the gray flints I have on hand for my flintlock rifles.

Maybe I'll try to chip off a flake and see how it works in one of my muskets.

Here's a piece for you:



Found that in either Jack or Palo Pinto County, Texas when I was 6. Makes a great slicer. Might could skin a deer with it.

That looks like the right color, alright.

"dozens of feet" say 24-36 feet? Anybody know the rate of sea level rise? Or land falling in SC?

All the nearby paleolithic cultural remains would have either been washed away or buried by the Great Atlantic Impact Tsunami, but nearby freshwater and possible traps/killsites and salt deposits should be looked at.

The circular object is likely to be a soapstone bowl, if that limits the date for it any. Possibly relatively late to paleolithic, say Stallings Island time frame.

As they said, E.P., they are keeping the depth deliberately vague in order to discourage plundering of the site.

It seems a reasonable precaution.

kbs2244 wrote:Yeah.

And with lower sea levels a costal trip from Arkansas to North Carolina would have been a pretty long trip.

More likely would be a overland trade route.

A coastal "trip from Arkansas to North Carolina"...?
Wasn't aware there had been coasts in Arkansas.
On what common coast were they then?

Rokcet Scientist wrote: A coastal "trip from Arkansas to North Carolina"...?
Wasn't aware there had been coasts in Arkansas.
On what common coast were they then?

Arkansas hasn't had ocean front property since pre-cambrian times but it's an easy 2 day float down the Mississippi to get to some. Though once you're there and heading east, you're going to run into Florida. I'd rather hoof it overland.

Of course the assumption that they would have had to make the journey themselves deserves some scrutiny. Far more likely that there was trade with intermediaries

Minimalist wrote:Far more likely that there was trade with intermediaries

To me that's a given. Technology travels by trade.