Tools of Coarse Stone; part one

[CDEAN]

Originally Posted by meetmaker

200/15/5 2011, found 12-9-0011. A sandstone like material with fine grits of white, black, and colorless. Heavy and porous it didn't react to muratic acid, maybe some kind of glacial errata. Very similar in design to the tool in Part Eight, held dagger like can deliver a powerful concentrated blow. Turned in hand a scraping edge is presented. Please notice the triangle cross section and ground plane leading to the blunted point. Though much like the tool in part eight I have no reason to believe the two were made by the same person,or even within a lifetime of two people. The design of this tool must have been just right for its intended use, whatever that may have been. Like the other tools this one is ergonomic, in pic four I have tried to show finger nicks that provide a secure and precise grip.

How a rock fits in your hand has no bearing on whether it's an artifact or not. I can go to any creek around here and find a rock that's "ergonomic".

[uniface]

No full rides for box-thinkers.

There are too many of them already

[meetmaker]

Good news, in my next post there is an ancient bunion remover...stay tuned.

[Cluton]

Not being argumentative, but, I'm not seeing artifacts there once again! I'm really trying to think out of the box too!! Sorry!!

[comanche]

Originally Posted by uniface

No full rides for box-thinkers.

There are too many of them already

Bill
I think you Know where I stand On "Paradigm Shifts.(Cartesian Thought are Out dated since Einstein),,,,But my Main point is that we need more to go on.
If These were Backed up by solid Contextual Assemblages.Then Meetmaker would have my full support.
Theories are Great,,,,But show me the "Proof////////c

[uniface]

More in archaeology is, in my experience is a lot like the horizon : the closer you get to reaching it the further it recedes.

Seriously. Think about it.

Q : How much money do you really need ?

A : More.

We don't have enough pre-Clovis sites to say anything meaningful yet. Just one site doesn't prove anything.

The population is currently too small to derive a statistically significant set of attributes from. We need a lot more of them. Hundreds more. Spread across numerous sites, widely dispersed. All with sealed stratification capable of independent dating and all congruent with each other.

Those things are just 'frost splits' and 'geofacts,' RocDoc. You need MORE than just an obvious Levallois assemblage. You need to find those in sealed contexts . . . a lot of them . . .

It's always MORE.

I wouldn't complain so if we were doing what we could with what we have while carrying on about the perpetual need for More. A lot of times, IMHO, More is just a convenient boilerplate copout that spares people (as they imagine) the trouble of original thought and effort.