Hey Rich.

A and F look man made. It's hard to tell on the rest. :?

F is the only one that look decent enough for a flake

I'm laughing at I - if I picked up every piece of chert I found in the UK that looked like that and called it an artifact... well I'd probably not have a job very long.

They all looked bogus to me.

I will add that nearly all of these objects were collected in a variety of settings by me while construction monitoring in, near, or because of the possibility or archaeological resources.

I thought the dorsal side of "H" looked a bit like Africa. Since humans (modern) have been running around Africa for a couple of hundred thousand years perhaps they had a coarse concept of its margin and knapped it off as a sort of lithic map, so they can hand it around to other groups saying, "we're here, and I live in this part, oh, and you're from over there, that's great. What's the weather like...."

[quote:="DesertRat"]A is probably cultural. The flakes on the edge could be natural, but the lines of characters appear to be systematic, possibly some form of writing associated with ritual behavior. It could be part of some kind of ceramic vessel used by a shaman in a fertility ceremony.

Bob

Agreed, Bob.

Except I've seen similar ancient codexes describing Hebrews in ancient America, but I just can't put my finger on the exact, ancient codex. :?

[quote:="FireArch"]I thought the dorsal side of "H" looked a bit like Africa. Since humans (modern) have been running around Africa for a couple of hundred thousand years perhaps they had a coarse concept of its margin and knapped it off as a sort of lithic map, so they can hand it around to other groups saying, "we're here, and I live in this part, oh, and you're from over there, that's great. What's the weather like...."

Good eye, Rich!

You should write a book.

Just in case you didnt notice, I did orient the items with the platform at the top, so there should be no need to try to figure out which way to look at things.

Cheers,
Richard

Hi FireArch...

Just now reading this, and filtering out the characteristic twaddle in some of the postings subsequent to your first one: From what little is discernable to me in the photos, unlike some here I would not assert and probably would not even hypothesize that human agency is evident in the morphology of any of the lithic material. (But then it would be presumptuous to categorically rule this out simply from the presented images.) I would, however, suggest that "A" is an artifact if we were to very broadly interpret "artifact" as meaning any object that clearly has been modified through human activity. The presence of what looks very much like an inked inscription in Latin characters in the English language on the surface of "A" (maybe recent ceramic or plastic material?) strongly suggests to me that the object was at some point in time associated with human activity. (And what the hell was going on here? Particularly intriguing is the possible inscription "R.O.C." on the surface of A's "platform" - Republic of China, perhaps?)

And by the way, what is your definition of "actual artifact"? Is "artifact" really precluded by "unintentional and/or incidental" production? If so, is debitage incidental to the production of tools to be rejected as archaeological evidence? I suspect this is not really what you're trying to say, but please clarify.

Regards, AD

Ok, I'll bite. A looks like a bottom of a ceramic coffee mug, probably not too old, since the text mentioned paper clips and alien life forms. B, due to its size, could have been used as hammerstone, but I doubt it. There is a curious looking groove too, though. C, D and E: the surfaces are too smooth to be an artifact. F is a flake tool, modified flake or utilized flake, whatever you want to call it. There is one very good edge that has been worked on, at least a little bit, can't really see if the whole of it was pressure flaked or not. G could be fcr judging from the rough texture of the stone that could have resulted from heat, although the partitioning looks like more recent plow struck or something. H and I look natural, though I might have some other indicators on different sides of it.

[quote:="Bob"]Okay now...I already said that...
Oops! I did inadvertently filter out the part where you noticed the ceramic. Sorry. Preconception on my part, I guess, or more likely I had just stayed up too late.

[quote:="Bob"]Was my twaddle insufficiently stilted and pompous?
No, you do just fine. (You might want to look up the word "parody".)

Delenn74's assessment of "F" seems plausible from appearances, but is that chert? I sure could be wrong, but in the photo it looks to me a lot like limestone.

AD

Just to add a little more detail:

All lithic materials are local to San Diego County and are considered to be fine-grained metavolcanic, some of which are porphyritic. None have been thermally altered as far as can be discerned; I see how folks might think that is the case with "H" but that is the way Cretaceous Santiago Peak Metavolcanic materials weather when situated in stable environments; forming a coarse-grained rind of yellow-red to yellow-green color.

BTW, it's great to see everyone's comments; please keep adding to them, this is great stuff.

Richard

[quote:="DesertRat"]Rich: I'm afraid I can't support your "outside the box" map of Africa theory. It's just too much too soon, young scientist. The concept of Portable Lithic Cartography challenges all the cobwebbed paradigms in which I am so heavily invested.

Bob

Dang-it Bob



I cant stop laughing....


Portable Lithic Cartography, what a great phrase. Beautiful.

[quote:="AD"]And by the way, what is your definition of "actual artifact"? Is "artifact" really precluded by "unintentional and/or incidental" production? If so, is debitage incidental to the production of tools to be rejected as archaeological evidence? I suspect this is not really what you're trying to say, but please clarify.

Regards, AD

I regard debitage as the byproduct of intentional tool production to be intentional itself; I think it would be hard to argue otherwise (I intend to make a flaked-lithic tool without making debitage - see it doesnt work). There are, however, events that can produce debitage, or "debitage-like" if you will, material that are purely unintentional and incidental. Clarence King's "Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada" (1872) noted on more than one occasion that their footsteps along the high ridges would send down cobbles and boulders hurtling at great speed, sending broken debris flying off at dangerous rates. No doubt these debris had the appearance of "flakes" as the principles of two rocks banging into each other are similar to those in archaeological sites. These, however, I would regard and unintentional, as I would for items trodden on by man or beast, or even some sort of vehicle or rock crushing device. And I would say the same holds true for all the recovered eoliths produced by natural forces.

Cheers,
Richard

Delenn74's assessment of "F" seems plausible from appearances, but is that chert? I sure could be wrong, but in the photo it looks to me a lot like limestone.

Didn't think it was chert either. Looked to me like quartzite. Could be wrong though, especially having never set foot in So-Cal.

Ok, FireArch and Delenn74, thanks for the elucidations and observations. Delenn74, You could be right, of course. I'm certainly no geologist, just going on what I might remember from some college courses years ago, and the rock's resemblance in the photo to the hard light-gray limestone that's all over the place here locally, which fractures and chips in a similar-looking manner. And of course I, like all of us, am eagerly awaiting FireArch's ultimate revelation of true knowledge.

AD

[quote:="DesertRat"]

Interestingly, all of your specimens do have one thing in common: A marked lack of zoomorphic or anthropmorphic iconography. Coincidence? Hmmmm.....

Bob




I have to disagree, Bob:





These are so clearly rock portraits of H. erectus that your denial proves you've been thoroughly brainwashed by Daz Club. :roll:

This is the benefit of not having a formal education in archeology: you remain much smarter, not being indoctrinated into the machine.

I'm here for you, if you ever want to know the real truth.

The man with the real answers,

Brother Charles

None of them are "singing" to me- They're all bogus.

[quote:="DesertRat"]Actually, since Charlie pointed them out, those two above are "singing" to me loud and clear. But then you have to consider the fact that I did alot of mind-altering in the 60s. Seventies, too, come to think of it. Probably also in the 80s, but I really can't recall.

Bob

:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSW67ySCio

Further analyses of this sculpture masterpiece reveals a dark side to the story being told to us by our H. erectus forefathers:





This infant H. erectus has obviously had his head bashed in. This proves that infant sacrifice was among H. erectus' cultural practices.

Pretty smart, huh? 8-)

Well, enough time has passed that I think it's time for some answers for those that may want them. Thanks to everyone for posting up. Here's the contexts for the items in the photos:

A: is a ceramic cup with a denticulated flaked edge. The question is, has it been manipulated to create a working edge or usable flakes? It was found during a monitoring project and outside any meaningful context. I dont think it was intentionally flaked, though it is known that during contact period ceramic flakes and flaked materials were used.

B: if found in a direct archaeological context would likely have been described as a hammerstone or chopper. As it was, it was recovered while monitoring area excavations within the margins of the floodplain of the Tijuana river. This would explain all the rounding and incipient cones seen on the margins and body of the stone.

C: is a well rounded flake found in the same monitoring context as B. It seems likely that is an eolith formed by cobble to cobble action during high-energy water events.

D: has two photos of two different rocks (my error in the original post) The first is the same as C. The second is from the same context, but has all the same attributes of a core, but is like B with all the attendant rounding from being in a riverbed context.

E: is from the same context as B. This one clearly, at least to me as I've handled the thing, has a clearly defined platform, point of percussion, and bulb of force, but weathered by being in a riverbed. The margins have be subsequently "flaked" as can be seen.

F: is one of my flakes from some knapping I was doing on local Otay Mesa material. This stuff (Santiago Peak Metavolcanic) is hard, as can be seen by the three strikes to the platform it took to get it off.

G: is a tractor-fact, resulting in a dual flake arrangement, with the larger flake's platform being crushed by the massive force applied. It was retrieved immediately after its creation.

H: is also a tractor-fact. It too was retrieved immediately after its creation.

I: is also a tractor-fact that mimics quite well a series of flake removals found on cores. What the picture doesn't show is the flaking face is nearly 90 degrees to the platform, and would be extremely hard to knap, unless you are a track-hoe. It too was retrieved immediately after its creation.