100,000 year old use wear from Pedra Furada, Brazil

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Rokcet Scientist

Re: Charlies stuff.

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:25 am

fossiltrader wrote:If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
At the moment i could set up for his work to be seen by two people who are respected in the field but both work out side the university heres money do it our way area in other words both fund themselves if he interested let me know.
'Examinations' by cronies of yours . . . ?

LOL!

:lol:

Do they, like you, also have 'double degrees' that came with their cereal boxes?

LOL!

:lol:

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:54 am

Here is Chris Hardaker in another forum, answering a question about use wear analysis. It's very helpful.
"Not being a skeptic but what exactly make wear patterns different from
normal moving of rocks because of erosion? This seems to be a specialty
that lithic specialists understand. How does a rock become a tool and a
tool with wear patterns?"
"What sites are we actually seeing proposed wear patterens? Is it just
the above?"


Imagine you have a neighborhood BBQ, and afterwards you bury all the
dirty knives and spatulas and forks etc (even if they are plastic).
Come back in a few years and dig them up and you will see some of the
gunk still sticking to them, even if it's dried out. You can tell the
implements were used.

The same with stone tools. If you have a favorite knife and skinned a
lot of rabbits and dear with it, the edge develops evidence of use wear
damage. An artifact edge can always be damaged and can appear to
exhibit usewear, but maybe it was only dropped on the ground or stepped
on. But when you work with wood, bone, flesh, vegetation, it sometimes
leaves a gloss on the edge that can identify what the tool was used on
and how it was used (i.e. the motions used, like cutting or scraping).
And the polish, and/or gloss sticks to the stone edge and can last for
a long time depending what kind of dirt it was buried in. These are
stone artifacts with close-ups of their edges; they are from a Paleo
site in Brazil called Pedra Furada. Even the Valsequillo and Calico
artifacts might still have this micro usewear evidence on their edge.
(It takes an expensive microscope.) If so, it proves that someone
actually used the artifact, and so it stands as very strong evidence
for definite human presence in very old sites.

There are other sites on the web that deal with this and provide other
photos. I don't have them handy but they are googleable: usewear,
lithics, polish, gloss -- should get you there. Hope that helps.

"What will be the tipping point? This site or Calico or Valsequillo or
yours?"

God knows. I'm starting to think UFOs will be landing at the White
House before the that tipping point arrives. The new headlines about
16,000 year old Siberian Vancouverites are a step in the right
direction. Anything with Pleistocene boats in it is probably a step in
the right direction. It is an absolute nuclear bomb that departments
tried to shield themselves from for over a century. It is going to be
hard to swallow for the Academy, who were generally so adamant for much
of that time against any talk of pre-Columbian (pre-1492) boats to the
Americas. Now it seems boats are being figured all over the place.
Enjoy the ride.

Chris Hardaker
Tucson, AZ
THE FIRST AMERICAN
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Su ... overed/dp/
1564149420
FIRST AMERICAN Article
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HardakerC1.php
******************
NATIVE AMERICAN GEOMETRY
http://earthmeasure.com
Looking at those pictures again, in light of this explanation from Chris, I can see the use wear they are talking about. 8)

User avatar
AD
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: Southeastern Ohio
Contact:

Post by AD » Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:45 pm

Greetings...

I'm a bit confused now - thought this thread was on Pedra Furada, and having looked back through some 2005 e-mails, I think I will post an expansion of my observations on the disgraceful treatment of this project by North American archaeologists. But for the moment, let me comment on the digression topic, as this is also interesting.
If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
And
Do they, like you, also have 'double degrees' that came with their cereal boxes?
I think it would behoove Charlie Hatchett to take Fossiltrader up on his offer. Of course Australian archaeologists, like all of us, have their biases, but keep in mind that the Aussies are familiar with very old artifact material that would escape the notice of, or simply be rejected by, archaeologists here. What is there to loose? (Of course there must be assurance that the material would be returned, all at Charlie's expense - no big deal.) If the material is rejected as natural, and a detailed explanation of this assessment is provided, the appropriate course of action would be to submit the material to geologists, petrologists, and possibly forensic scientists for an assessment of whether or not the stones are likely to have acquired their current forms by entirely natural processes. In my own project, I have shown my material to anyone willing to take a look, and have learned a lot from this. In a pleasantly surprising number of cases, the assessments by actual physical scientists have conclusively refuted the archaeologists' assertions, often quite amusingly. This was the case, for example, with the small quartz sandstone shown at http://www.daysknob.com/H05.htm It was summarily rejected by archaeologists as a naturally worn pebble, but a doctorate-level petrologist and geology professor (and subsequently another geology prof) identified very good evidence of artificial modification. This enabled me to publish a short article on it (discretely dealing only with the technical details) in the respected and very mainstream Ohio Archaeologist magazine. Shying away from showing putative artifact material to any professionals serves only to damage one's credibility. (And by the way, having a university degree in a relevant field is not conclusive evidence of incompetence.)

As for my own impressions of Charlie's finds, I would bet that at least some of his putatively "pre-Clovis" material is indeed artificial, based on its morphology (often rudimentarily zoomorphic) that corresponds closely to that of artifacts from professionally investigated sites yielding Clovis and likely older artifact material. His finds, are, after all, from very close to Gault and Wilson-Leonard, which yield artifacts in huge quantity of "Clovis" age, and some apparently older. This stuff is actually quite common throughout North America, and it's just a matter of being madly daring enough to dig below what is popularly recognized (duh...). Of course Charlie's overwhelming deluge of seemingly random rock photos all over the internet seriously degrades the signal-to-noise ratio, causing most people to simply ignore the stuff, but one should take a close look at some of the more compelling pieces shown. I need to go back through this (winter project) and add a few pieces to my own web page showing his finds.

As for the metal bird, this is clearly an artifact, but being a surface find (I think), while it is quite compelling, has relatively little diagnostic value unless it can be objectively dated. (Similar iron artifacts, currently under investigation, have appeared in Pickaway County, Ohio in secure context with diagnostically Late Archaic / Early Woodland material.) Circumstantially, the bird form is significant, as this appears constantly in usually crude but recognizable form in American artifacts up through at least (my impression so far) the Late Archaic Period. In the Woodland Period, quite a cultural surge, there are of course the beautiful and refined albeit still abstract "birdstones", immediately recognizable. Birds, very often "morphing" with human/quasi-human images (animistic/shamanistic, apparently) have figured overwhelmingly in Paleo material all over the planet, and the bird image is obvious both in the Gault "Clovis" material and, although even more abstractly, quite recognizably in the Topper artifacts below the "Clovis" stratum.

An interesting side note: Apparent artifacts below the "Clovis" level at Gault are being touted by Dr. Michael Collins as possibly genuinely "pre-Clovis", but he is on record as dismissing those at Topper as just geofacts, although the Topper material looks more convincing. It's a classic case of "My stuff is real! Yours is not!". I read somewhere that a professional in the field said American archaeology is just high school with rocks. Apparently this is not all that much of an exaggeration...

Regards, Alan
http://www.daysknob.com

Rokcet Scientist

Post by Rokcet Scientist » Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:15 am

Hi AD,

if you had left your comment at
AD wrote:
American archaeology is just high school with rocks.
you would have saved yourself a lot of typing, and us digging through that lot.

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15830
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:51 am

Correct, Alan, the bird is a surface find. Charlie is not "digging" at the site, merely collecting that which has been exposed by the rain.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

kbs2244
Posts: 2472
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Post by kbs2244 » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:59 am

An out of country, and therefore not under local pressure, opinion would have a lot of merit. Someone senior, with a good reputation, and a bulletproof pension.
But wouldn’t make more sense to bring the “outside expert” to the site?
Even with travel and living expenses, it would be less cost than shipping what must be a literal ton of rock all the way to Australia, and they could see the various strata for themselves.
If they came in quietly, did their examination, and left before their presence was known to the “locals” they could get a lot of work done in a short time without any publicity.
Would this be “stealth archolalogy” or would it be “looting”?
(Nobody’s charged Charlie with looting, have they? Most likely not. That would imply what he is finding is important. Better to just consider him a sun crazed old man out picking up stuff along a creek.)

User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:03 am
Location: colorado

Post by Bruce » Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:16 am

All you have to do is compare the aussie artifacts, that have dated to 50,000 yrs and find a match with Charlies stuff. Same with the petroglyghs, aussie 50,000 NA southwest 1000. Look the same to me. Ever see a petroglyph pecking tool or hammer? Seems we could date those lithics now to date rock art.

User avatar
fossiltrader
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

examine.

Post by fossiltrader » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:05 pm

Here is my email if Charlie wants to get some details ,im heading out to lightning ridge for a week will be able to check online stuff maybe every couple of days offer still there if wanted and yes someone there hit the nail on the head most of us here work just in lithics because that what we have the most of and the reason im examing french neanderthal lithics at the moment i believe is because we are independant of many presures ok well later. mr_terry_smith@hotmail.com

User avatar
Manystones
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:21 am
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

Post by Manystones » Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:54 pm

Fossiltrader wrote:Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: Thank You I feel Better now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read about the internet making knowledge dangerous in here or should i say too little knowledge.
Then i look at a startling collection of pre-clovis artefacts so i show some rather good and easy to identify items sadly though it seems the internet a great teacher when it comes to rare items it skips the basics .As for the pre-clovis items i am sorry ,wish you luck with them but they do not appear to have any of the signs visible that point to them being artefacts.
P.S. I threw in the fossil picture as an idiot check its a mammoth tooth.
cheers Terry.
Fossiltrader wrote:Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: Charlies stuff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Charlie wants to email me i will be happy to try to arrange for a few people to examine his finds.
At the moment i could set up for his work to be seen by two people who are respected in the field but both work out side the university heres money do it our way area in other words both fund themselves if he interested let me know.
Bit of a turnaround here huh Tel? :twisted:

User avatar
fossiltrader
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Turn around

Post by fossiltrader » Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:50 pm

Hi mate i do most of my work under confidentiality agreements so it difficult to get used to open forums but if i had 1 dollar for every great discovery i have been asked to examine i would be rich.
I find that about 3 out of 4 enquiries to have lithics examined usualy in the end never happen mostly because people think they have something wonderful and either dont want to accept they havent or figure if they dont get an opinion their inagination has free rein.
I did what i could with Charlies pictures but that is it as far as they are concerned, i made the offer take it or leave it it really not of great concern to me.
I have not commented on the iron bird whatever it is because unlike untrained internet experts i dont know every thing just a bit about lithics cheers, Terry,

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:06 pm

I have not commented on the iron bird whatever it is because unlike untrained internet experts i dont know every thing just a bit about lithics cheers, Terry,
Terry, please do yourself and us a favor and drop this charade please. Dropping the insults would be nice also.

There are actual archaeologists that post in this forum. You are not one of them. I have trouble believing that you are a post graduate of anything.

Why don't you do what the rest of us do. Post, share, and learn about Archaeology. If you can't do that, you won't be taken seriously here.

BTW - Charlie is in communication with established experts in this field right here in the US, and has been for a long time. I'm sure he would tell you thanks anyway.

User avatar
Manystones
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:21 am
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

Re: Turn around

Post by Manystones » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:31 am

fossiltrader wrote:Hi mate i do most of my work under confidentiality agreements so it difficult to get used to open forums but if i had 1 dollar for every great discovery i have been asked to examine i would be rich.
I find that about 3 out of 4 enquiries to have lithics examined usualy in the end never happen mostly because people think they have something wonderful and either dont want to accept they havent or figure if they dont get an opinion their inagination has free rein.
Come on then Terry, have a look at my material and tell me what you think?

User avatar
fossiltrader
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

manystones.

Post by fossiltrader » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:36 pm

I took a look spent quite a while in there i actually love some of the stuff will be going back there soon.

User avatar
fossiltrader
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Beagle.

Post by fossiltrader » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:41 pm

Charlie is in communication with established experts in this field right here in the US, and has been for a long time. I'm sure he would tell you thanks anyway.


A long time you say Beagle ok well that not really a great recomendation now is it ?.I mean after all they appear to be doing a wonderful job (if you missed it being cynical there beagle) but thats ok beagle i do have a great life and love my work.

User avatar
Manystones
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:21 am
Location: Watford, England
Contact:

Re: manystones.

Post by Manystones » Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:52 pm

fossiltrader wrote:I took a look spent quite a while in there i actually love some of the stuff will be going back there soon.
Terry,

By the sounds of this you looked at my old website ... I am currently working on a better version with the benefit of hindsight ... in the meantime I have posted a couple of screen grabs (which swap on mouse-over) at the current website address. If any of the pieces do interest you I can send proper photos that should better illustrate what I observe to be human agency.

Cheers.

Locked