[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Interesting article, thank you. But… One barbed harpoon was once used to spear salmon and eels 3,000 years ago… how do they know this? Maybe it was used to spear rattlesnakes or something. This is where archaeologists lose me. All they have to do is quit while they are ahead rather than rattle on.

[Brilliant]

Maybe it says something like "Acme Salmon & Eel Spear" on it.

[Honcho Bongs]

I agree there isn't much information in this story, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Mi'kmaq's decendants use the same sort of tools today. Here's a link to a short article on the Mi'kmaq that shows one of the barbed harpoons. Look at the illustration of the spear under the heading "food" - looks unique to me. Maybe they were the same back then.

My question would be how they have dated these objects. Are they the same as previous finds that they have dated by their position in soil strata or have they done some sort of carbon dating to establish their age?

They've probably been taking salmon and eels in that area for thousands of years. I doubt it would have changed that much over that geologically "short" time.

[mad_as_he$$]

I agree but I'm not sure about rattler population in the region.

[Graymatter]

Check out this page: http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

It has a good non-technical introduction to carbon dating. That's a way of determining the age of something that was once alive (provided it isn't too old).

[Graymatter]

Er...about that link I just gave you. The page claims that the Shroud of Turin is likely a medieval artifact. Whoever wrote the page doesn't know much about the Shroud, and if you'd like to, a good page for that is www.shroudstory.com (First thing you'll see on that page is "New Tests Prove 1988 Carbon 14 Dating Invalid.")

:)

[Rebelbase]

"how do they know this? Maybe it was used to spear rattlesnakes or something."

There are no poisonous snakes in Nova Scotia. :-)

[Natural Law]

Archaeology is a science where where absolute proof is rarely achieved. In the absence of overwhelming evidence and data, hypothesis are put forth and then tested by peer review and further data collection. In this case a tool, similar in size, material and shape to others known to be used for spearing fish, was found next to a waterway with a significant salmon run. The conclusion is pretty obvious.

What is your learned counter-hypothesis or grounds for dismissal?