The Calico-Coyote Lake area is my main research area. The surface archaeologial sites that are considered "Lake Manix" sites are prehistoric quarries with aborted bifaces. Before these sites were looted, aborted percussion bifaces dominated the assemblages. I have looked at every "mint" specimen from the subsurface excavations at Calico, and I do not consider any of the items to be man-made.
Jeanne Binning

[quote:="jebinning"]The Calico-Coyote Lake area is my main research area. The surface archaeologial sites that are considered "Lake Manix" sites are prehistoric quarries with aborted bifaces. Before these sites were looted, aborted percussion bifaces dominated the assemblages. I have looked at every "mint" specimen from the subsurface excavations at Calico, and I do not consider any of the items to be man-made.
Jeanne Binning

Even "Blackie" (first and second images )? It seems there's just too many "flake channels" for the piece to be non-cultural, imo.

Dear Jeanne,
You remark that "you do not consider any ...".
What about this? What do you think would happen if you mixed this mint collection in with other local prehistoric assemblages in the Mojave, and, in blind tests, ask fieldworkers (BA or better w/ 2yrs in the field or lab) or even lithics lab personnel to separate geofacts from artifacts? Would they be as certain as you without knowing where they came from?
Chris Hardaker
Tucson, Az


"The Calico-Coyote Lake area is my main research area. The surface archaeologial sites that are considered "Lake Manix" sites are prehistoric quarries with aborted bifaces. Before these sites were looted, aborted percussion bifaces dominated the assemblages. I have looked at every "mint" specimen from the subsurface excavations at Calico, and I do not consider any of the items to be man-made.
Jeanne Binning"

Dee Simpson and Louis Leakey together at the Calico dig.
D. Griffin photo.




Budinger measuring objects exposed in the wall of Master Pit I.
T. Oberlander photo.




John Kettl of the Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California, who made the first discovery of a core tool in place in the subsurface in an artificial cut at the Calico Site in the fall of 1958. The discovery was made during the Association's survey of the Lake Manix Lithic Industry, under the auspices of the San Bernardino County Museum.
D. Griffin photo



Leakey examining a find in one of the Master Pits.
D. Griffin photo




Ritner J. Sayles, who first recognized the unusual nature of surface artifacts above the high shoreline of Pleistocene Lake Manix, bringing Dr. Gerald A. Smith and Ruth Simpson to the Yermo Fan area in 1952.
D. Griffin photo

Friends of the Pleistocene meeting at Calico
October 4-7, 2007
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/pacificfop2007/

Quaternary Stratigraphy, Drainage-Basin Development, and
Geomorphology of the Lake Manix Basin, Mojave Desert
October 4-7, 2007

Did anybody attend this? :?

Friends of the Pleistocene members -- about 250 showed up and partied well into the night. Checked out the Manix basin area for four days. It is great to get the interest from the scientific community.
Shazaam!
Chris

[quote:="hardaker"]Friends of the Pleistocene members -- about 250 showed up and partied well into the night. Checked out the Manix basin area for four days. It is great to get the interest from the scientific community.
Shazaam!
Chris

Hey there, Chris.

Awesome! I really wanted to go, but money, kids, wife, blah, blah, blah...

Any interesting tidbits you can share? :?

Seeing Calico in person is on my "things to do before I die" list.

No tidbits, just a chance to see old friends. I was there, in and out, since I have some house stuff to take care of. Gave a powerpoint presentation about Valsequillo to some of the Calico folks. Just neat that folks were up there and interested in one of the coolest early man regions in the Americas. The Manix region has hardly received any attention. Great for the future.
Chris

The Manix region has hardly received any attention. Great for the future

Yes indeed. Lots of opportunity, and this generation isn't hung-up on the Clovis-first bit. Take Valsequillo, for example. Mike Waters, a well-respected, mainstream type is down there researching the site. 10-15 years ago it would have been the kiss of death to any archeologist's career. Apparently that isn't the case anymore. 8-) You're another great example, researching both Calico and Hueyatlaco, and yet still able to get your work published.

Mike Waters went to Valsequillo because we were there first. Only after INAH was open to going back in 2001 did he manage to later visit in 2004. It was not his own initiative so to speak. Marshall Payn was the real ice breaker.

[quote:="hardaker"]Mike Waters went to Valsequillo because we were there first. Only after INAH was open to going back in 2001 did he manage to later visit in 2004. It was not his own initiative so to speak. Marshall Payn was the real ice breaker.

Roger that. Overall credit for reopening the case is definitely due to Marshall, his diplomacy and generosity.

Calico Man Made Attributes- Chi Square Goodness of Fit

http://bandstex.globat.com/Calico/Chi%20Square%20Calico/CRP%20Submission/Calico%20Man%20Made%20Attributes-%20Chi%20Square%20Goodness%20of%20Fit.doc

Attributes applied as detailed in Jason David Gillespie, Susan Tupakka, Christine Cluney 2004 Distinguishing between naturally and culturally flaked cobbles: A test case from Alberta, Canada Geoarchaeology Vol. 19(7): Pages 615 - 633:

“…Platform Preparation

During the manufacture of cultural artifacts, the knapper attempts to gain maximum
control over flake removal by manipulating the dimensions and angle of
the striking platform. Although the platform is usually removed during reduction,
a remnant may remain. The presence of platform preparation was recorded when
all remnant platforms were cortex-free and exhibited small micro-flaking at the
location of flake removal, suggesting intentional platform preparation (Patterson,
1983:302).

Uniface/Biface

While both natural and cultural processes can produce bifaces (Schnurrenberger
and Bryan, 1985; Chlachula and Le Blanc, 1996), it was hypothesized that bifacial
reduction would be more common in culturally produced assemblages. This is particularly true, given that many of the known natural cobbles had only a few flake scars
(Table I). While a tool of human-manufacture may be unifacial, it is hypothesized
that bifacial reduction is more common. This type of statistical argument has been
used for many of the lithic attributes. While exceptions may be found, the utility of
each attribute is based on whether it statistically differentiates artifacts from geofacts.
Thus, if any part of the cobble was flaked on both faces, it was awarded one point.

Differential Weathering

If a cobble has been flaked by natural processes, one would expect a significant
period of time between flake removals. This may be manifested as differing degrees
of weathering on flake scars from the same cobble (Oakley, 1959:19). If a cobble did
not exhibit noticeably different degrees of weathering on separate flake scars, it was
awarded one point.

Inverse Bulb

When percussion is used to remove a flake from a cobble, an inverse bulb may be
left on the core surface. Because a significant degree of force must be applied at the
proper angle to create a bulb of percussion (and therefore an inverse bulb), this
attribute is more likely to exist on artifacts than on geofacts. It has been argued that
natural flake removals produce either a shallow diffuse bulb of percussion or, frequently,
no bulb at all (Peacock, 1991). The presence of one or more obvious inverse
bulbs on a cobble scored one point.

Percentage of Cortex Present

While the amount of cortex present on a cobble will vary widely, increased modification
results in less cortex. Therefore, a human-produced cobble may have less
cortex than a geofact, especially when the cobble is intended to be a tool rather than
a core. Obviously, some tools will still have cortex, but it is unlikely that a geofact
would be entirely free of cortex. Conservatively, a cobble was awarded one point if
it had no remaining cortex.

Scar Alignment

The argument has often been made that human-manufacture produces a “logical”
flaking pattern, while natural processes result in random or “illogical” flaking
(Patterson, 1983; Chlachula and Le Blanc, 1996). This has been difficult to characterize
in a systematic fashion. It was thought that scar alignment might test this
hypothesis. Parallel flake scars, especially if adjacent and/or overlapping, would be
indicative of human-manufacture. Random flake-scar alignment would be indicative
of natural-manufacture. Only large, primary flake scars were used in this category,
not secondary retouch scars. One point was awarded to a cobble if all primary
flake scars were parallel.

Secondary Retouch

A human-manufactured cobble may exhibit secondary retouch (Chlachula and
Le Blanc, 1996). Secondary retouch is defined as the presence of additional flake
removals from a previously flaked edge of a cobble, usually to create a better
working edge or for platform preparation. Secondary retouch flakes are smaller
than primary flakes. This attribute was recorded when a cobble showed any indication
of modification subsequent to primary flake removal. We chose to remain
conservative, so crushed or ground edges were not recorded as secondary retouch,
as this process could occur in both natural and cultural settings. One point was
awarded when secondary retouch was present.


Size Uniformity of Edge Flake Scars

This is also an extension of the retouch attribute. It was hypothesized that human manufactured retouch would produce flake scars of a relatively uniform size. Natural edge
modification would produce flakes of varying sizes, depending on the type
and extent of force during removal. Obviously, even on a cultural cobble, all flake
scars will not be the same size. Therefore, a small amount of variability was permitted.
The degree of variability accepted was judged on a cobble-by-cobble basis
and based on the overall flaking pattern. Interestingly, although this attribute is
subjective, the chi-square results suggest that, if fairly applied, it can differentiate
artifacts from geofacts. One point was awarded when edge modification consisted
of flake removals of a uniform size.


Patterned Edge

Patterned-edge modification is another indication of human-manufacture
(Chlachula and Le Blanc, 1996). Overlapping retouch would be indicative of human manufacture,
while retouch that leaves unflaked areas (i.e. denticulate) may be
indicative of natural-manufacture. A patterned edge would also contain flake scars
which are aligned. Therefore, this attribute also records scar alignment for
edge/retouch flakes. This attribute did not show a statistical difference between artifacts
and geofacts and was not used in scoring (Table II). The failure of this attribute
to differentiate artifacts from geofacts may be due to the fact that denticulate tools
were common in prehistoric lithic traditions.


Arrises

Flakes removed during human-manufacture will exhibit deep negative scars, while
natural flake removals often result in shallow flake scars (Chlachula and Le Blanc,
1996). This should result in well-defined arrises (i.e., the edge representing the bor-
der of the flake scar). Furthermore, if a cobble has been subjected to substantial
post-depositional alterations, arrises may be worn. Consequently, it is hypothesized
that well-defined arrises would be more indicative of artifacts. Small changes in
angle, speed, and degree of force can alter the shape and size of flake scars. As a result,
there is no absolute cutoff point separating well-defined from diffuse arrises. Each
cobble was scored by comparing it to the other assemblages. One point was awarded
when all arrises were clear and well defined.

Low-Angle, Alternate Biface Flaking

While the presence of any type of bifacial flaking appears to be indicative of artifacts,
low-angle, alternate bifacial flaking is believed to be particularly indicative of
human-manufacture (Chlachula and Le Blanc, 1996). This attribute was recorded
when the cobble had an edge that resulted from several flake removals on both faces.
The edge also had to result from alternating flake removals (i.e., one removal from
the first face followed by one from the second) and the end result must have been
a low angle (_ 75°). While this may prevent some core tools from scoring in this
category (edges near 90°), they would not be eliminated from other categories, as each
attribute is independently scored. One point was awarded when bifacial flake removal
alternated, producing a low-angle edge.

Striations on Tools

The next four attributes attempt to measure the effect of context rather than the
cobbles’ manufacture. While both artifacts and geofacts can experience post-depositional
alterations, we hypothesized that geofacts would experience greater postflaking
alteration than artifacts, given the context of the assemblages used in this
study. This is based, in part, on Chlachula’s (1994a) claim that only low-energy
processes were available at the proposed pre-Clovis sites. If this interpretation is
correct, little post-depositional alteration would be expected. On the other hand,
geofacts are nothing more than clasts within the till deposit and are subject to continued
taphonomic alternation (i.e., load and shear stress). Therefore, striations anywhere
on the cobble may be more common on geofacts. Finally, striations may be
indicative of shear stress, which may suggest flaking in an active glacial environment.
Conservatively, one point was awarded if the cobble had no striations, indicating
no post-flaking alteration.



Striations on Flake Scars

Striations on flake scars should be even more indicative of post-depositional alteration
because they must have occurred after reduction. A cobble was awarded one
point if no striations were found on any flake scars. While using striations on both
cobble and the flake scars results in “double-counting” of a similar attribute, it was
thought that by separating these similar features, it would be possible to differentiate
pre- and post-depositional alterations. Furthermore, although double counting may
seem to give too much weight to a given set of attributes, it is important to remem-
ber that all cobbles were scored using the same criteria. In other words, even if two
attributes record a similar phenomenon, it does not bias the results, as each assemblage
was treated equally.

Pecking on Tools

Like striations, pecking would indicate post-depositional alteration. Pecking
results in small impact scars on the cobble surface. However, unlike striations, pecking
would indicate the presence of impact force common to high-energy fluvial and
colluvial environments. Again, this attribute provides a general record of past taphonomic
processes. One point was awarded if no pecking was found on the cobble.

Pecking on Flake Scars

We hypothesized that pecking on flake scars would be clearly indicative of postflaking
alteration. One point was awarded if no pecking on flake scars was found.
The previous four attributes provide some indication of context, and thus are only
useful in analyzing the Alberta assemblages. They were designed to test specific
claims about the geological context at the proposed pre-Clovis sites in question
(Chlachula, 1994a; Young et al., 1998; Osborn et al., 2000). Sites in other geological
contexts would require different attributes.



Logical Flaking

This is a subjective attribute that incorporates all other attributes. Logical flaking
was recorded when the cobble appeared to have been reduced in such a way that a
usable edge was produced, or flakes were removed in an efficient manner (e.g., using
previous scars for subsequent removals). Obviously, this assumes that our interpretation
of “logical” is similar to that of the prehistoric knapper. This attribute was
included because many researchers have used it in their analyses (e.g., Patterson,
1983; Chlachula and Le Blanc, 1996). By itself, it would provide little interpretive
value, but because it is only one of 16 attributes used in this study, it does not unduly
bias the results. Furthermore, Table I shows that logical flaking was recorded on
several of the known natural and proposed pre-Clovis cobbles. One point was
awarded when logical flaking was present.

Number of Flake Removals

While the number of flake scars is dependent on many factors (e.g., lithology, tool
use, production method), it was hypothesized that artifacts would have more flake
removals than natural cobbles. A cobble was awarded one point if it had more than
five flake scars. The cutoff point of five flake scars was chosen because it seemed a
reasonable number in differentiating natural from cultural cobbles. In fact, most of
the known natural cobbles had less than five flakes while most of the artifacts
had more than five. The proposed pre-Clovis assemblage had an
average of 3.5 flake scars…”

Charlie,
That was a good post, I enjoyed it, thank's for bringing it up.
Look's like I need to go digging thru some of the old post,
Vary eductional for a rookie like me.

Oh yeah! I really like Hardaker's signiture : "I dont see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible".-Astrophysicist Sir
Fred Hoyle
Jeff

[quote:="Jeff"]Charlie,
That was a good post, I enjoyed it, thank's for bringing it up.
Look's like I need to go digging thru some of the old post,
Vary eductional for a rookie like me.

Oh yeah! I really like Hardaker's signiture : "I dont see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible".-Astrophysicist Sir
Fred Hoyle
Jeff

Hardaker is a master when it comes to the lithics of very early sites in the Americas. He's been very much a mentor to me. He's researched Calico, Pedra Furada, Hueyatlaco, etc… exhaustively.

Calico Early Man Site

Calico Early Man site is a possible archaeological site 15 miles NE of Barstow, California, in the Calico Hills of the Mojave Desert, officially known as Calico Early Man Archaeological Site. Thousands of stones that bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric tools have been found at the site. Scientifically dated to over 200,000 BP (years before present), these stones are older than the traditional date of man's first entry into the Americas, approximately 11,000 BP. The debate centers on whether the "tools" were made by humans (i.e., artifacts), or through typical geological processes (i.e. geofacts). The general scientific consensus is that the stones are geofacts.




Contents [hide]
1 Artifacts or Geofacts?
2 History of Excavations
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links



[edit] Artifacts or Geofacts?
Up to 60,000 possible stone tools have been found at Calico. Due to their shape and size, it has been hypothesized by several archaeologists that these objects are artifacts, that is, that they were shaped by human actions. If confirmed, dates for these objects would indicate human presence at Calico far earlier than any other site in the Americas, 50,000 to 200,000 years BP. These dates are based on the age of the sediments containing the stones, which were most recently dated by thermoluminescence at 135,000 years BP,[1] and by uranium/thorium analysis at 200,000 years BP.[2]

However, in 1979, James G. Duvall and William Thomas Venner published a statistical analysis of the stone objects, stating that they were "not modified by man but, rather, were form selected by the archaeologists. Form selection . . . is the selection of naturally fractured lithics that resemble man-made tools and therefore create a biased sample of lithics from the total population of naturally fractured lithics at that site".[3] However, Duvall and Venner failed to realize that every archeologist exercises this same subjectivity when separating artifacts from natural cobbles at any given site.

This was followed in 1982 by Louis Payen's analysis of the stone objects against the Barnes platform angle method.[4] However, the Barnes test is meaningless when testing core and unifaical tools. Payen concluded, based on the Barnes test, that the stone objects were geofacts.

Both the Duvall/Venner and the Payen papers have been criticized on a number of levels, and analyses supporting the pro-artifact argument have been published.[5] However, the present consensus, by no means unanimous, is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including:

The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts).
The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial).
The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6]
The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
Renewed interest in the site has been sparked by research at the Topper Site, Meadowcroft Rockshelter, and other pre-clovis archeological sites.





[edit] History of Excavations
In 1959 Louis Leakey, while at the British Museum of Natural History in London, received a visit from Ruth DeEtte Simpson, an archaeologist from California. Simpson had acquired what looked like ancient scrapers from a site in the Calico Hills and showed it to Leakey.

Leakey viewed it as important to study the Calico Hill site,[7], as he was convinced that the number and distribution of native languages in the Americas required more time than 12,000 years to evolve and acquire their current distribution.[8] The opportunity to test this theory came four years later in 1963, when Leakey obtained funds from the National Geographic Society and commenced archaeological excavations with Simpson.

Louis Leakey continued to visit the site several times a year and was connected with the project until his death in 1972. The site was taken over by California's Bureau of Land Management and was opened to the public. It presently offers a visitor center, gift shop, and guided walking tour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site

I've added a bit of text to go along with the Calico/ Gillespie et al.
table discussed in an earlier post:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/Calico%20Man%20Made%20Attributes-%20Chi%20Square%20Goodness%20of%20Fit.doc


I'm thinking about polishing it up and submitting it for publication
in the 2008 Current Research in the Pleistocene publication. It's very
condensed due to a 400-word limit when a table is utilized. Any
advice, comments, criticism, suggestions, etc...will be much
appreciated.


Don't worry: I'm not holding my breath here, but I figure I can only
learn from the experience.

Many years ago, '63 or 64, I visited the Yermo site along with my two young children and an instructor from a college I was then attending. The site was then rather pristine, digs had only just begun. What a thrill it was, though, to walk through this early man workshop.

On an adjacent area to which we were directed by site personnel, basically what was then the dump, we found a variety of excellent examples of tools and some petrified palm root.

We visited the site two more times in subsequent years. One time we encountered a wild old hermit who threatened to shoot us for taking his 'dinosaur tools'.

Aside from sharing the tools with my elementary and middle school students, I hadn't followed activity at the digs until just the other day. I must say I'm quite surprised and excited as more recent dating. I have been wondering what to do with all these tools. Few people I know would be interested in them. I have no way of authenticating them, other than telling my story. Too bad I didn't take pictures. I think my college instructor may had photos somewhere. I have lost track of her.

Hi Noka.

If it is within your means, you should try as hard as possible to get images of your specimens. Digital cameras are pretty cheap these days. You don’t need a high dollar one. And if you don’t want to bother with it, maybe you could hire a photography student from a nearby college to take images of the specimens.

Also, documenting estimations of the longitude and latitude of where you found the specimens will perhaps be very valuable to some future researcher. And, if at all possible, tracking down the images of the specimens in situ might prove very valuable to future generations.

Thanks for sharing your story, and I hope to someday see your specimens.

Here's an update from Chris Hardaker:

Hi Charlie and Allan et al,

This is only a preliminary assessment. Also, these are only primary
attributes, and given the unique nature of the assemblage, there is no
absolute confidence at work here yet and probably won't be until we get
into the usewear investigation early next year, but thousands of pieces
are extraordinary. Many of the specimens exhibit multiple attributes.
For example, a blade might have been bifacially retouched, or might
have been denticulated, and so these attributes would be added to the
list of attributes assigned to each piece. There are a number of
multiple purpose and multiple function pieces as well, and the
attribute list reflect that as well. For now, this should give an idea
of what we have. We have just completed Master Pits 1 and 2, with
around 75,000 classified specimens, 90% debitage. The challenge here is
that the geofactsters have to be right in their assessment that all of
these specimens are nature's handiwork, and that all 75k are geofacts.
Geofactsters have to be right all the time. Calico afficionados have to
be right only once. That is how science is played ... hopefully.

Also, the geofactsters have to come up with a precedent that nature
does this kind of thing in other parts of the world. They need to cite
a precedent for their geofact argument unless they are satisfied with
hot air, which is okay for religion, but quite disrespectful of the
scientific protocols of evidence. Just one is all we ask: one other
place in the world where nature is so prolific in making these kinds of
artifact-looking things. They seem to act like Calico is a dime a dozen
where natural rock crushing can make just about anything you find in
the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. If the critics are privy to "natural
quarry sites," then why won't they tell us where they are? Let's
share.

Thanks for your interest.
Chris

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/SBCM%201500A.pdf

To quote Bob Dylan " the times they are a changing" and nowhere is this more apparent than in new archaeology. North American paleo archaeology and pre-Clovis is the real issue here imho. On one side the classical minded professionals (read: if it doesn't match anything we have then it is either unfinished or an ecofact) and the progressively minded professionals (read: we don't know everything and any hypothesis is valid- Einstein going so far as to suggest that the hypothesis must at first seem "crazy)
Whatever side you choose, no this: "whitey" is not a single, isolated lithic. I believe i have retrieved a similar stone and others have too. With matching chert for that matter- which originated in Collingwood, On, approx 250 kms North from the location I retrieved my "whitey". Since that chert could only have originated from Collingwood, it is unreasonable to suggest it is an ecofact transported by nature. Remember Occam's Razor.
More likely, this stone indicates a trade route between Collingwood and North shore of Lake Erie since at the Collingwood site, Onondagan chert from Lake Erie was used for tool manufacture at that northernly location.
Here's the link to that paper:
http://www.adamsheritage.com/articles/lennox/mckean_site.htm
now have a look at this: photo B is the Collingwood chert example from the site at Collingwood-
[img]http://www.adamsheritage.com/articles/lennox/figure_8.htm[/img]
since the image is in htm format, i have converted it into a jpg image for this thread, but to validate my post, you should cut and paste the original link into your browser address bar........heres the jpg:

note photo D is the Onondagan Chert from here North shore Lake Erie.
Now it gets interesting, here are a couple of pics of the "whitey" I saved from shoreline erosion: any guesses on the type of chert? Collingwood anyone?


Now I know that the picture quality isn't the best, but the form and material are suggestive enough, the long "flute/channel" is a strong indicator, the "red banding" in the white Collingwood chert is a strong indicator.
Academia, your witness.

charlies

Lake Erie's

Collingwood's

The diagnostic stuff in this image looks Archaic.

Hi Bob.

Did ya'll take any images of the specimens from "The Site of a Thousand Bifaces"?

[quote:="DesertRat"]Hi Charlie,

No, we didn't. Just the usual pictures required during site recording. Overview, setting, and I think we decided there was a cluster of FCR worthy of being designated a feature, so a picture of that.

The other stuff? Nope. Like I said, we don't pay much attention to just rocks. I was thinking, though, that if I can find the site record in the archives and go back to that location...and if it hasn't been built over or something, I could maybe get some pics. It's, I dunno, less than 20 miles from here.

Bob

That would be cool, if you get the chance. That would be an argument against "artifactsters'" claim:

They need to cite a precedent for their geofact argument unless they are satisfied with hot air, which is okay for religion, but quite disrespectful of the scientific protocols of evidence. Just one is all we ask: one other place in the world where nature is so prolific in making these kinds of artifact-looking things. They seem to act like Calico is a dime a dozen where natural rock crushing can make just about anything you find in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. If the critics are privy to "natural
quarry sites," then why won't they tell us where they are? Let's
share.

Could someone resize those photos so they are somewhat less than 1280 pixels wide?

Thanks

[quote="Charlie Hatchett"]That would be cool, if you get the chance. That would be an argument against "artifactsters'" claim:

They need to cite a precedent for their geofact argument unless they are satisfied with hot air, which is okay for religion, but quite disrespectful of the scientific protocols of evidence. Just one is all we ask: one other place in the world where nature is so prolific in making these kinds of artifact-looking things. They seem to act like Calico is a dime a dozen where natural rock crushing can make just about anything you find in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. If the critics are privy to "natural quarry sites," then why won't they tell us where they are? Let's share.

Any decent effort into researching eoliths will clearly demonstrate this class of "artifact" and the settings in which they are found.

The earth and her weathering mechanisms constantly make items that appear much like the tools made in our lithic past. The onus is on the person making the claim that the site is cultural. In presenting a case it is necessary to be able to argue against natural causes of production. It's the same for all of us, and I'm sure it's something we all do within ourselves when we come across an ephemeral site and diligently look for the item that "makes" the site "real."

"...The onus is on the person making the claim that the site is cultural..."

There's been plenty of published reports making a case for the Calico specimens being cultural:

Archaeological Excavations in the Calico Mountains, California: Preliminary
Report
L. S. B. Leakey; Ruth De Ette Simpson; Thomas Clements
Science, New Series, Vol. 160, No. 3831. (May 31, 1968), pp. 1022-1023.

Criteria for Determining the Attributes of Man-Made Lithics
Leland W. Patterson
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Autumn, 1983), pp. 297-307.

Analysis of Lithic Flakes at the Calico Site, California
Leland W. Patterson; Louis V. Hoffman; Rose Marie Higginbotham; Ruth D. Simpson
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Spring, 1987), pp. 91-106.

Popular Misconceptions Concerning the Calico Site., Leland Patterson, CRP 16, pp. 57-59

A TL/ESR Study of the Hearth Feature at the Calico Archaeological Site,
California
James L. Bischoff; Motoji Ikeya; Fred E. Budinger, Jr.
American Antiquity, Vol. 49, No. 4. (Oct., 1984), pp. 764-774.


If you'd like any of these reports just pm me your email address.


Are you aware of any published rebuttals to this research?

Could someone resize those photos so they are somewhat less than 1280 pixels wide?

No doubt.

This is a pain in the rear.

Well, I'm not here to evangelize anyone, so I'll leave it at that (the published research on the prior page).

Absolutely Bob.

Charlie, thanks for the biblio. My point was that which Bob just mentioned.

[quote:="FireArch"]Absolutely Bob.

Charlie, thanks for the biblio. My point was that which Bob just mentioned.

Your welcome. There are only two published papers I'm aware of that contend the Calico specimens are geofacts:

A Statistical Analysis of the Lithics from the Calico Site (SBCM 1500A), California
James G. Duvall; William T. Venner
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 6, No. 4. (Winter, 1979), pp. 455-462.

The Calico Site: Artifacts or Geofacts?
Vance Haynes
Science, New Series, Vol. 181, No. 4097. (Jul. 27, 1973), pp. 305-310.

Versus at least 4 published papers that contend the Calico specimens are cultural:

Archaeological Excavations in the Calico Mountains, California: Preliminary
Report
L. S. B. Leakey; Ruth De Ette Simpson; Thomas Clements
Science, New Series, Vol. 160, No. 3831. (May 31, 1968), pp. 1022-1023.

Criteria for Determining the Attributes of Man-Made Lithics
Leland W. Patterson
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Autumn, 1983), pp. 297-307.

Analysis of Lithic Flakes at the Calico Site, California
Leland W. Patterson; Louis V. Hoffman; Rose Marie Higginbotham; Ruth D. Simpson
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Spring, 1987), pp. 91-106.

Popular Misconceptions Concerning the Calico Site., Leland Patterson, CRP 16, pp. 57-59

A TL/ESR Study of the Hearth Feature at the Calico Archaeological Site,
California
James L. Bischoff; Motoji Ikeya; Fred E. Budinger, Jr.
American Antiquity, Vol. 49, No. 4. (Oct., 1984), pp. 764-774.


Doesn't sound like the work has been finished to me. Sounds like it is still disputed in the literature.

We can throw out the Leakey reference as he pretty much disavowed his earlier statements as to the cultural nature of the site.

[quote:="FireArch"]We can throw out the Leakey reference as he pretty much disavowed his earlier statements as to the cultural nature of the site.

Did he? Where?

[quote:="jebinning"]The Calico-Coyote Lake area is my main research area. The surface archaeologial sites that are considered "Lake Manix" sites are prehistoric quarries with aborted bifaces. Before these sites were looted, aborted percussion bifaces dominated the assemblages. I have looked at every "mint" specimen from the subsurface excavations at Calico, and I do not consider any of the items to be man-made.
Jeanne Binning

Jeanne,

Will you explain your case?

Or is this just an argument from "authority"?

What attributes do deem necessary to declare a specimen man made?

What attributes do deem necessary to declare a specimen a geofact?

What weights do you assign the various attributes?

Anything scientific that forms your opinion?

Have you thought this issue through?

My personal belief is that there are plenty of very old sites out there waiting to be found. Go find them and stop wasting your energy defending a lithic procurement site on an active alluvial fan.

Bob

We do have a modern example of the Calico situation: Topper. Like Calico, Topper has secure stratigraphy, good dates but the specimens are disputed.

I think researchers disagree because there are no agreed upon set of objective attributes that indicate a specimen is man made. If there are no objective criteria agreed upon then it basically becomes a bunch of opinions (AKA a pissing contest).

For example, I think some of the specimens from Topper's ca. 15kya stratum look good:

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=65&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=3&mforum=nohandaxesinus

While others think the entire assemblage is the result of thermal fracturing.


The community, as a whole, needs to address this issue, IMO.

One way I propose the community go about this is a lithic analyst kick the process off by writing an initial report proposing what they think are vital attributes indicating artificiality. Some attributes that might be included are: platform preparation; unifacial versus bifacial flaking; differential weathering between the unaltered and altered portions of the specimen; a bulb of percussion; percentage of remaining cortex; flake scar alignment; arrises; number of flake removals; indications use wear, etc… After the initial report, other lithic analysts could: criticize the proposed attributes; recommend other attributes; recommend how much weight should be allocated to each attribute, etc…Eventually a consensus could be achieved, based on objective criteria.

You should go there, Charlie. I've been there four times and have also worked on surrounding gravelly fans and nearby bajadas. In each case, I've seen the same things I see when surveying on alluvial fans and across gravelly washes right here in NM...flakes, flake fragments, flaked pebbles and cobbles, even some "cores" and "bifaces".

How do you know what you're observing aren't artifacts? I observe the same type of stuff within the alluvial gravel terraces in central Texas. To me, the most parsimonious explanation is man percussively spalls hard stone. He's been observed doing so. Alternate explanations, such as thermal spalling resembling percussive fracturing or percussive macro fracturing due to stream transport have not been widely observed (if at all), AFAIK.

The major force at work in these environments is abrasion, resulting in smoothing and rounding versus percussive breakage (1, 2). P. H. Kuenen concludes from his research that alluvial and fluvial environments only exhibit 10% of the force necessary to percussively spall hard stone.

Gillespie et al. report:

“…High energy processes (e.g., glacial transport, weathering, and colluvial action) may result in macro-alterations, such as flake removals, while low-energy processes (e.g., aeolian, fluvial, and solifluction) can result in striations, pecking, edge flaking, or crushing (Schnurrenberger and Bryan, 1985)…” (3).


1. Earlier Than You Think A Personal View of Man in America George Carter Texas

A&M University Press 1980 pp. 96-102

2. Experimental Abrasion of Pebbles: 2. Rolling by Current P. H. Kuenen 1956

3. Distinguishing Between Naturally and Culturally Flaked Cobbles: A Test Case from Alberta, Canada Jason David Gillespie, Susan Tupakka, and Christine Cluney

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 19, No. 7, 615–633 (2004)

That's why some fire-cracked rocks exhibit features from conchoidal fracture.

I admit I have seen this before:

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/NF/NATFACT.JPEG

The one in the bottom, right-hand corner.

From what I've heard, however, is thermal spalling fractures around the crystals, following the matrix, whereas percussive fracturing cuts right through the crystals. Of course, in this situation, you would have to microscopically examine any fine-grained rock to make a determination

OMG, Bob, you used microcrystalline quartz. Yeah, I'm not the only one....

In many heat spalls one can see the lines of radiation emanating from a central point in the rock, indicating that the force radiated from the middle of the "flake" or "core" rather than in the traditional manner, from the side. I'll have to photo one of those the next time I come across a spalled rock. I might have one here in the lab.

BTW, I am fairly sure I read that Herr Lewis said he no longer supported his earlier position re: calico - I think it was in his biography (or autobiography); it's been a long time since I read it, and as Paleoface pointed out, my memory is not necessarily the best, lol.). Maybe it was Mary who cast the doubt. She certainly was the more empirically minded of the two.

[quote:="DesertRat"]That's not true. The direction(s) the shock waves take depend on how well the particles are stuck together. This is an entirely different issue but to briefly digress: In a sandstone, shock waves pass around the individual sand grains. In an orthoquartzite, the sand grains are extremely well cemented and in a true, metamorphic quartzite, the grains are actually fused together. In both cases, impact forces pass right through the grains. The same thing happens at a much smaller scale in unaltered microcrystalline quartz rocks like chert, chalcedony, and silicified wood. The fracture passes around the little quartz crystals, not through them. If those rocks are subjected to the right heating and cooling conditions (what we would call 'successfully heat treated') the cement binding the crystals becomes denser and more tenacious, so fracture forces pass right through the little crystals. Alot of this is from the work by Purdy I mentioned many months ago.

The big difference between thermal fracturing and impact fracturing is directionality. That's why we look for a micro-ring crack point of impact, a bulb or cone of some kind, undulations, fissures, etc., right? So we can see the direction of the shock forces (basic Crabtree). Potlid fractures just pop right out of a rock and the fire-cracked rocks we find in hearths, etc. just seem to have bursted.

Bob



Sorry Bob.

For some reason my whole comment didn't post:

Here's the whole comment:

That's why some fire-cracked rocks exhibit features from conchoidal fracture.

I admit I have seen this before:

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/NF/NATFACT.JPEG

The one in the bottom, right-hand corner.

From what I've heard, however, thermal spalling fractures around the crystals, following the matrix, whereas percussive fracturing cuts right through the crystals. In rougher grained material the difference is pretty obvious, IMO. Even with finer grained material it’s fairly obvious, IMO. With thermal spalling the parting plane is relatively rough compared to the smooth parting plane of percussive spalling.

And make no mistake, an arroyo that, when flooded can move boulders the size of volkswagens, surely has the power to do alot more than scratch and abrade rocks.

I haven't observed anything that big in action, but we don't have boulders that big here. However, I've seen boulders heavier than I can carry get scooted along for 50 yards or so after flash floods. But I haven’t observed any fresh percussive fractures associated with this movement. Of course I’m only looking at several gravel terraces, and have only been doing so for a little under 4 years. I’m keeping my eyes open and trying to learn.

In both cases, impact forces pass right through the grains.

Agreed.


The same thing happens at a much smaller scale in unaltered microcrystalline quartz rocks like chert, chalcedony, and silicified wood. The fracture passes around the little quartz crystals, not through them. If those rocks are subjected to the right heating and cooling conditions (what we would call 'successfully heat treated') the cement binding the crystals becomes denser and more tenacious, so fracture forces pass right through the little crystals

I agree that evenly heat-treated rock (at least many types), ramped up and down slowly, will produce a "slicker" surface (passing through the crystals better/ easier). But this is hardly a natural process. There are thousands of posts on knapper forums about how to properly heat treat rocks, and even specific types of rocks. And it involves hours of consistent heat and smooth temp gradients.

The same thing happens at a much smaller scale in unaltered microcrystalline quartz rocks like chert, chalcedony, and silicified wood. The fracture passes around the little quartz crystals, not through them.

Many rocks in central Texas work just fine raw, still passing through the crystals versus the surrounding matrix:

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?t=137&start=0&mforum=nohandaxesinus

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1&mforum=nohandaxesinus

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/21753/t/Brushy-Creek-Black-Experiment-Results.html

When I get a chance I'll make a big ol' fire and throw some chert cobbles in and see what happens.

[quote:="FireArch"]
In many heat spalls one can see the lines of radiation emanating from a central point in the rock, indicating that the force radiated from the middle of the "flake" or "core" rather than in the traditional manner, from the side. I'll have to photo one of those the next time I come across a spalled rock. I might have one here in the lab.

Thanks Rich.

I'd like to see some of those.

I'm a typical man, and visuals always do me good. :wink:

[quote:="DesertRat"][quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]

I agree that evenly heat-treated rock (at least many types), ramped up and down slowly, will produce a "slicker" surface (passing through the crystals better/ easier). But this is hardly a natural process. There are thousands of posts on knapper forums about how to properly heat treat rocks, and even specific types of rocks. And it involves hours of consistent heat and smooth temp gradients.
I didn't say or imply that heat treatment is a natural process. I've sucessfully heat treated cherts in a fire pit. I did say that my discussion of fracture force transmission was a digression and not precisely on topic.

[quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]The same thing happens at a much smaller scale in unaltered microcrystalline quartz rocks like chert, chalcedony, and silicified wood. The fracture passes around the little quartz crystals, not through them.

Many rocks in central Texas work just fine raw, still passing through the crystals versus the surrounding matrix...

What are those pictures supposed to show, Charlie? You don't really know if the force is passing through or around crystals without a scanning electronic microscope.

Bob

I don't think we have to go to the SEM level. I'll throw some unaltered Brushy Creek Black chert cobbles into a fire and we'll compare. That way we're not having a pissing contest. However, if you have some funding available to analyze the recently knapped material via SEM, I'll send the specimens to you.

[quote:="DesertRat"]Ummm...something's not registering here.

I'll pass on the analysis. I'm too busy determining the temperature at which water boils. What? It's already been done?? Doh!!

Bob

Oh yeah? Site your references. :? :wink:

Onondaga Chert looks pretty rough and has a lot of inclusions:

http://www.theaaca.com/lithnics/Onondaga-Chert.htm

I can see how cooking something rough like that would help.

But what about Georgetown Chert:

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/612364ad12a00d3333cb20c15683373e26b3606b.pjpg

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/21732/t/Texas-Hand-Knife.html

[quote:="DesertRat"][quote:="FireArch"]OMG, Bob, you used microcrystalline quartz. Yeah, I'm not the only one....

Well, they're not completely "crypto" except to the naked eye and the optical microscope. Using a scanning electron microscope, the crystals can be seen.

Bob

Agreed Bob. I use Luedtke's definitions for micro and crypto. Since SEM would be needed to illustrate either from field specimens, and since she did give great guidance as to what sources were likely crypto, defaulting to micro is not really an issue, particularly since it is more than likely the field specimen is not crypto.

[quote:="FireArch"][quote:="DesertRat"][quote:="FireArch"]OMG, Bob, you used microcrystalline quartz. Yeah, I'm not the only one....

Well, they're not completely "crypto" except to the naked eye and the optical microscope. Using a scanning electron microscope, the crystals can be seen.

Bob

Agreed Bob. I use Luedke's definitions for micro and crypto. Since SEM would be needed to illustrate either from field specimens, and since she did give great guidance as to what sources were likely crypto, defaulting to micro is not really an issue, particularly since it is more than likely the field specimen is not crypto.


What are Luedke's definitions for micro and crypto. What are we talking: micrometers?

Thanks.

I dont have her book here with me, but "micro" was 5 or more microns, and "crypto" was 2 or less microns. Not sure what she did with the space in between.

An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint
by Luedtke, Barbara E.
Edition: 3rd Edition
Binding: PB
Publisher: Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Date Published: 1991
ISBN-13: 9780917956751
ISBN: 0917956753

[quote:="FireArch"]I dont have her book here with me, but "micro" was 5 or more microns, and "crypto" was 2 or less microns. Not sure what she did with the space in between.

An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint
by Luedtke, Barbara E.
Edition: 3rd Edition
Binding: PB
Publisher: Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Date Published: 1991
ISBN-13: 9780917956751
ISBN: 0917956753

Thanks Rich.

Tiny!

I can see why field peeps don't get too wrapped up in the difference.

Thanks for providing the author information, firearch. I've been looking for something like that lately. I just ordered it.

CALICO REDUX: ARTIFACTS OR GEOFACTS?

On closer inspection, Calico does not appear to be a natural rock crushing geofactory. Nor is it the case that Calico is bereft of definite and repetitive artifact types. Most tool types are either unifacial (including notched specimens) or bifacial in nature, hundreds of them, and delicately notched perforators (reamers, gravers). There are dozens of artifact types and subtypes represented, and there are thousands of flakes and tool types without cortex and with multiple flake scars. After a review of the controversy, tabulated data are presented.

http://www.scahome.org/publications/proceedings/Proceedings.22Hardaker.pdf

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY

http://www.scahome.org/news_announcements/P22_TOC.html

[quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]CALICO REDUX: ARTIFACTS OR GEOFACTS?

On closer inspection, Calico does not appear to be a natural rock crushing geofactory. Nor is it the case that Calico is bereft of definite and repetitive artifact types. Most tool types are either unifacial (including notched specimens) or bifacial in nature, hundreds of them, and delicately notched perforators (reamers, gravers). There are dozens of artifact types and subtypes represented, and there are thousands of flakes and tool types without cortex and with multiple flake scars. After a review of the controversy, tabulated data are presented.

http://www.scahome.org/publications/proceedings/Proceedings.22Hardaker.pdf

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY

http://www.scahome.org/news_announcements/P22_TOC.html

Charlie,

Good find but I will call cowchips on this until the product claimed above is published and peer-reviewed. I was at that meeting and specifically went to that presentation only to find that he bailed and didnt present the paper :x

I really wanted to see and hear what he had to say about this since I have a particular interest in eoliths/geofacts/tractorfact/carterfacts/etc.facts....

Hi Rich.

Yeah, I know you've always enjoyed topics like this and you had a fun thread a while back where we all had to guess if a specimen was a artifact, geofact, tractorfact, etc...

Now it's really strange that Chris didn't make his presentation. He's usually really into making presentations. There must be some valid excuse...I know he wouldn't have missed the opportunity to talk about all the labwork he's doing on the Calico specimens unless there was some critical conflict.

I'll invite him to this thread to answer any questions we may have.

Obviously he was poisoned by the archaeological establishment cabal. (Just kidding.) I sure hope it wasn't a serious personal problem, and of course I'm eager to hear a follow-up on this topic, which I try to follow even though I don't get involved - just don't know enough about flintknapping, etc. to take a position.

AD

Like plants before Linnaeus, there are any number of common names for lithic sources. Leudtke standardizes and uses scientific method to clarify and categorize lithic sources in the most fundamental forms, thereby deleting misnomers and misunderstandings. And that's a good thing.

Not sure if it is applicable across the board, but lithic analysts call those "pot lids" - esp. the small bit that pops off the mother stone, which is "pot lidded." The process for their creation is as you described.

Chris Hardaker's Calico Lithics Photographic Project:

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/

I contend some of the specimens photographed by Chris are hard to dismiss as geofacts:

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide01_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide02_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide03_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide04_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide05_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide06_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide07_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4aGALLERY-BLADES/content/Slide18_large.html

http://calico.earthmeasure.com/SLIDESHOWS-CalicoPictureFiles/4bGALLERY-LONGBLADES/content/Slide02_large.html

And then the Calico specimens I previously posted:



This small, finely-worked, symmetrical, black chert graver has been created by the sequential removal of dozens of flakes in a patterned manner. The ventral side is a smooth flake bulb. Found in cemented reddish-tan sands at a depth of nearly 4 m in the Lower Yermo Formation. There is no possibility that this object could be a geofact produced by natural geologic processes. Coated with powdered aluminum. D. Griffin photo




Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) sides of a small beaked graver recovered from a depth of 3.99 m (157 in) in Master Pit I. Powdered aluminum coating to reveal morphological details. Dorsal side clearly fashioned according to a predetermined design, being nearly symmetrical. The ventral side is the unmodified positive bulb of the small flake. The working tip is shown in greater detail in a subsequent image. D. Griffin photos

___________________________________________________________




Reamer Fashioned From a Flake

A 3-cm flake modified into a reamer or boring tool, from a depth of 6.83 m in Calico Master Pit I. Coated with powdered aluminum to accentuate morphology. Left image (ventral) shows flake bulb; right image (dorsal) shows edge retouch. D. Griffin photos





Rippled flake

Calico flake showing bulb scar (eraillure) and rippled compression rings indicating a single sharp blow to detach from a core. Coated with powdered aluminum to accentuate morphology. D. Griffin photo.


_________________________________________________________



Multi-function Scraper or Blade

Chalcedony blade with a narrow ventral bulb scar (at right) and a high dorsal arete (at left), bifacially retouched along margins, and unifacially flaked at the distal end, with use-wear evident. Appears to have been used as both a cutting tool and an end scraper. Recovered from Trench 1 at a depth of 1.88 m (74 inches). D. Griffin photos




Blade tool or side scraper

Same as the dorsal view in the preceding figure, but a clearer portrayal of the sharp, evenly-spaced removal scars on the blade laterals. Lateral retouch is bifacial. D. Griffin photo.




End Scraper on a Blade

A blade tool with margins and convex terminus worked to be utilized for scraping. Coated with powdered aluminum. From a depth of 1.87 m in Calico Master Pit II. D.Griffin photo.





Bladelet Cores

Chalcedony cores from which narrow bladelets were struck, found at depths from 1 to 5.4 m below the surface in Master pits I and II. No natural force could remove sequences of elongated flakes without battering the remaining edges. D. Griffin photo

____________________________________________________________




Second Flake ("Whitey")

A flake was struck from the dorsal surface of this item before a second impact detached the specimen from its core. Thus the flake has a negative bulb on the visible face and a positive bulb on the opposite face, with four sharp arêtes. Centimeter scale. Powdered aluminum coating. From a depth of 1.37 m in Calico Master Pit I. D. Griffin photo.




Concavo-convex Secondary Flake ("Whitey")

Flake struck from preceding flake scar, resulting in concave dorsal surface and convex ventral surface, the two being parallel. Natural processes would not produce such a flake, which requires carefully-controlled sequential impacts. T. Oberlander photo




Cross-sectional View of Concavo-convex Flake

Preceding flake seen so as to reveal its concavo-convex cross section. T. Oberlander photo

__________________________________________________________




Manix Lithic Industry artifacts collected from desert pavements on the surface of the Yermo Fan. D. Griffin photo



Manix Lithic Industry artifacts collected from desert pavements on the surface of the Yermo Fan. D. Griffin photo




Picks or ovate bifaces representative of the Lake Manix Lithic Industry, which has an estimated age of more than 18,000 years. Centimeter scales. The two examples at the right are casts of the originals. D. Griffin photos

__________________________________________________________



Identical to Paleolithic picks and handaxes, collected from Calico site excavations. For larger views showing details see preceding section on the Calico Lithic Industry. Typologies clearly evident. Some butts blunt, others are edged. Lengths from 10 to 20 cm. T. Oberlander photo





Lunate Chopper of "Skreblo" Type

Crescentic chopper of chalcedonic jasper from a depth of 6.83 m in Master Pit II. Centimeter scale. Face flaking on both sides, with classic flake scars visible here. All cortex removed. The lunate working edge is battered while side flake scars and arêtes are pristine. A definitive chopper subtype in Asia, known as a "skreblo." D. Griffin photo







Crescentic Chopper

Crescent-shaped chopper or skreblo, showing bifacial flaking and a blunted back edge; a definitive tool type in Asia. Coated with powdered aluminum. From Calico Master Pit II. D. Griffin photo.




Crescentic Scraper

The reverse side of the skreblo-like convex scraper, showing flaking to create a crescentic working edge (top). D. Griffin photo)


_____________________________________________________________

Multi-purpose Flake Tool

Jasper flake with bifacial face flaking including long ribbon flake scars on both sides. A multi-purpose tool with retouched and denticulate margins that show use-wear. From a depth of 3.38 m in Master Pit I. D. Griffin photos




Calico Scrapers

Convex scrapers from the Calico Master Pits (coated with powdered aluminum). Note denticulate margin on left flake tool. D. Griffin photos.