Archaeologists Explain Significance Of The Walker Site (Minnesota)

The Pilot-Independent ^ | 1-24-2007 | Molly MacGregor

[blam]

Yup. That was/is the work of J.D. Adovasio and his very good book on the subject is titled, The First Americans.

[TXnMA]

"I have never read a convincing explanation as to how these enthusiasts separate the naturally chipped stone never used as tools from the ones that might have been used as tools, absent other evidence."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it that you have never encountered adequate explanations -- or that you are dogmatically opposed to being convinced?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

First of all, archaeologists are not mere "enthusiasts" -- they are professionals who have devoted entire working lifetimes to the study of ancient peoples and how they lived.

Secondly, the evidence provided by (relatavely rare) presence of preserved organic materials is in no way required to determine whether an assemblage of flakes was natural or man-produced -- or if those flakes were used as tools.

1. Deliberately-produced flakes have consistent and repeatable morphological characteristics that differentiate them from randomly-fractured stone fragments that occur naturally.

2. Working of organic materials with stone tools produces characteristic, microscopic wear and polish patterns on the edges of stone tools. Wear on a tool used for cutting meat is significantly different from one used for cutting bone, or antler, or various plant products.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI, "flintknapping" --- the art and science of making stone tools -- is far from a "lost art". Quite the contrary; modern students and practitioners of the art have developed knowledge and skills that surpass that of all but the "grand masters" of their prehistoric counterparts. Here is but one page from this year's "flintknapper's calendar":

The entire calendar, which showcases the (spectacular, and beautiful, IMO) works of dozens of modern flintknappers, can be viewed here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an archaeologist, lithic technologist -- and accomplished flintknapper (AKA "experimental lithic technologist") -- I would much rather have the "debitage" (waste flakes) from production of a prehistoric stone tool than I would the tool itself.

I can replicate virtually any prehistoric tool -- so, collecting prehistoric (usually less skilled) attempts at making tools (aka "arrowhead collecting") no longer interests me. OTOH, as one who has spent over forty years studying and applying the physics of fracture in brittle materials, I find that the waste materials ("debitage") from stone toolmaking reveal to me unequivocal evidence of the knapping technique used.

Most flakes produced by human flintknappers have characteristics that are very rarely (if ever) duplicated by fractures that occur in nature. In fact, at some prehistoric work sites, huge mounds of nearly-identical flakes remain at stone-tool production locations. Such multiple duplication never occurs in nature.

~~~~~~~~~~

Pardon me if I appear to doubt your willingness to be convinced, but, when you posted your "I have never read a convincing explanation..." you were connected to the Internet -- where such information abounds.

Google searches quickly produced the following:

... an illustration from Lithic Technology: Tools for Life on the website of Maricopa University. The website includes animated movies of the most common stone toolmaking ("knapping") processes.

~~~~~~~~~~

The use of stone tools (including simple "flake tools") produces microscopic wear and polishing on the working edges that not only indicates use as a tool, but is characteristically different based on the material that was worked.

The entire book, INTERPRETING THE FUNCTION OF STONE TOOLS by Roger Grace is available online. It presents the results of thousands of hours of experimentation and microscopic analysis on the wear patterns and "micropolish" produced on stone tools by working various materials.

---

Your "No corroborating evidence has survived, yet someone can take a leap of enthusiasm and described how the ancient groups behaved, based on the presence of chipped rocks and pebbles, created naturally." is, (to be kind) disingenuous. If the "artifacts" in question were produced and/or used as tools by early man, the evidence will be apparent.

If there is any doubt, we archaeologists will be the loudest and most persistent critics. (In fact, these very "artifacts" are the subject of vigorous discussion on archaeologist-only listservers at this very moment...)

~~~~~~~~~~

I have expended considerable effort here to provide you the opportunity to educate yourself on these matters. I hope that you enjoy the study -- and that you do so with an open mind.

All the best.

TXnMA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Texas Archaeological Steward
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[TXnMA]

Coyoteman, I think you will appreciate my #22 -- since I went to great lengths to agree with you! '-)

[Sam Cree]

"Interesting that European hunters would have gotten that far into the North American interior 15,000 years ago."

European, as opposed to Oriental or Asian?

[TXnMA]

I'll bet your explanation fell on deaf ears again.

Let's hope not! (See my #22...)

[muawiyah]

Sure. East Asians didn't get to North America for many thousands of years later.

[Ciexyz]

The First Americans by J. D. Adovasio

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

[blam]

Excellent addition, thanks.

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman, I think you will appreciate my #22 -- since I went to great lengths to agree with you! '-)

No need to agree with me. Just tell it like it is.

You went into more detail that I did, as I did not think most folks here would look up any detailed references. But, as you point out, the literature is huge! Lithic technology is a very detailed study, not one which relies on off-the-cuff opinions. And, there are the replication studies, conducted by archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike. You can learn a lot by making stone tools and studying the debitage. (I had a class in this in grad school--we called it "elementary finger bleeding.")

Many archaeologists devote their careers to this particular field, and their findings should not be dismissed lightly.

[Bender2]

Yeah, I was at The Walker Site...

The new one they gave me... Squeaked!

[ASA Vet]

Thank you, TXnTX, Coyoteman, and blam.

Although the doubting poster hasn't returned, I at least listened and learned.

[blam]

"Sure. East Asians didn't get to North America for many thousands of years later."

The oldest Mongoloid skeleton ever found is only 10k years old.(Oppenheimer) Anyone older that that is someone else...Maybe not European.

Vintage Skulls

[TXnMA]

(I had a class in this in grad school--we called it "elementary finger bleeding.")

LOL!!! Any good knapper's toolkit includes Band-Aids and SuperGlue. When doing lecture/demos, I have been know to SuperGlue a cut closed (stings like mad -- but stops the bleeding)... I also learned (very early-on) that sandals are not safe knapping wear!

As you might guess, I spent so much time off-line composing #22 (including taking a break to walk a couple of miles through the woods with my wife) that I didn't see your #16 -- until after I posted #22. I prefer to think that we agreed -- because both of us were right! '-)

[ForGod'sSake]

I'll bet your explanation fell on deaf ears again.

Let's hope not! (See my #22...)

Well, I wasn't aware ASAVet's shot was in my direction, so let me clear up something. I don't have a problem with the flaking business; I can follow and understand the science behind it, thanks in part to several on this forum. BTW Tx, excellent post your #22!

I didn't really want to get into this much, mainly because few others seem to have a problem with it and I may be picking at nits. BUT, the explanation I have trouble following is how these artifacts came to be under glacial sediment, particularly atop the highest point in Cass(?) county(~150' above the surrounding area according to this or another aritcle I followed). This "oasis" was apparently several miles from the nearest glacier during this period, and notwithstanding the erosion in and around this "hard spot(?)" by glacial melt, that's a considerable height for runoff - from several miles away. More particularly, sediments tend to settle in low spots; not on high points, which tend to erode.

Broken ice dams? SUDDEN increase in temperatures creating hellacious runoff? Maybe an IMPACT?

A confession: My initial assumption from the earlier THREAD was that these sediments settled out and were laid down "in place" as the glacier(s) melted. Wrong assumption apparently but still in all doesn't necessarily clear up my "confusion".

Thanks for your efforts.

[ASA Vet]

It wasn't a shot at you at all. Sorry if tracking back in the thread lead to you. If it did it was unintentional.

[SunkenCiv]

Oh, sure, CM gets the *short* one. BTW, the "22" link s/b:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773793/posts?page=22#22

[SunkenCiv]

---

Geoarchaeology: The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation by George (Rip) Rapp and Christopher L. Hill

---

[Sam Cree]

Thanks.

[TXnMA]

"BTW, the "22" link s/b: "

~~~~~~~~~~~

LOL!!! I got it right in my #23 to CM.

BUT... in #25, I guess I overwrote part of the URL in my clipboard when I copied, "I'll bet your explanation fell on deaf ears again." to quote it. :-(

Good catch!

MEMO TO SELF: Next time, check link function in PREVIEW before POSTing... :-(

---

BTW, I hope you folks enjoyed the "Flintknapping 2007 Calendar". Some of the workmanship (and pretty materials) pictured there are really awesome!

The skill and craftsmanship displayed in the "exotics" shown in the"August" photo excel even that displayed in even the most elaborate Mayan "eccentric" knapped artifacts.

What the heck... might as well post the image here...

There is a lot of awesome "punch" work in that photo. Of course, the modern "lithic artists" use metal punches instead of the deer "cannon" bone or antler punches used prehistorically. And, many (if not most) of the objects in that "exotic" group are made of modern "man-made" materials (AKA "glass"). [All of the colorful or transparent objects in the upper left and lower right corners are made of modern glasses -- but they shore are purty!!!]

OTOH, because I hate to see a grown man (namely, TXnMA) cry, (when you break a piece with days of work invested) I probabably wouldn't even attempt replicating some of those super-delicate "eccentric" forms.

As for the "chain links" -- I've carved such out of a single piece of wood -- but there is no way I'd try to do it in flint!!!

---

The bottom line is that when we "moderns" talk about stone tools, we know what we are talking about!!!

[grey_whiskers]

On the other hand you have clear living or activity sites, and from them you can get bushels of real tools.

Like this?

In a second, more intensive investigation, archaeologists determined that the "pit house" was really the remains of a child's fort. They found several "artifacts" from the early 1960s, including a cap gun. However, in "bottoming out" the site, they found some materials suggestive of stone tools and kept digging.

Kinda reminds me of Calvin reconstructing a dinosaur's skull from a buried coke bottle :-)

. OK, score one for consistency, one doesn't wish to throw out an entire model on the basis of one purported outlier...

But I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall when the grad student who dug up the cap gun took it in to show to the lead investigator :-)

Cheers!