Deleted

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:58 pm

What is ToE?

The reason I mentioned sceptical geologists is that i thought I recalled geologists questioning the finds from the calico dig. BUt maybe they weren't geologists...

anyway, someone was saying that the nicked edges could have been caused by natural processes as well as human activity.

Sounds like y'all think that paleontologists and geologists are more open minded than the archeologicial establishment?


Evening, Stan.

ToE is short for the Theory of Evolution. The geologists involved with research at Calico actively support the antiquity of the site:

Bischoff, J.L., R.J. Shlemon, T.L. Ku, R.D. Simpson, R.J. Rosenbauer, & F.E. Budinger, Jr., "1981 Uranium-series and Soils-geomorphic Dating of the Calico Archaeological Site, California", Geology V9 (12), pp. 576-582.


Jim Bischoff, the lead geologist on the Calico project, concluded through his dating analyses, that the sediment, in which the artifacts are being discovered, is securely dated at 200,000 B.P.

Note, his peers had no problem approving his study for publication. The general archeological community ignored the study for years. 25 years later, renewed interest in the site has occured, with the site being actively excavated as we speak.

Earlier in this post are some photos of artifacts recovered from Calico.

Then, you have the San Diego paleontologist research group that published research concerning a 335,000 B.P. mastodon kill site in San Diego County...again, to date, it's been ignored by the general archeological community.

So, I would say paleontologists and geologists are definitely more open minded, and more importantly, more objective than the general archeologicial community.
Last edited by Charlie Hatchett on Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Flaking

Postby Cognito » Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:03 pm

Sounds good Charlie - maybe I'll learn the difference.

Beags, if you get your hands on the real thing look for the form first, then start looking for percussion "ripples". When a rock is "percussion flaked" with another striking stone, the percussion leaves ripples that look like ripples on a pond. "Pressure flaking" is different, but in that case you'll see a series of small indentations along a pathway to rework a stone or make it sharp, etc. Nature just doesn't do that. 8)

You can get percussion rippling on stones when they fall and break, but not half a dozen or more on each side of a bifacial handaxe that is shaped like a teardrop. :roll: To understand more, order a flintknapping video on the Net. They're incredibly boring, but you'll understand how the person made the tools and why they cannot be nature's product.

After being out for a few hours at a tool site I'll start getting critical about the maker's expertise (this person was skilled ... that person was a lousy, etc). You can spot individual styles, mistakes and so on. Anywhere someone was making paleo tools there is going to be far more debitage than anything else, most of it being in a "ring" since they were generally stationary, and either kneeling or sitting.

Hand-axes, knives, drills, adzes, scrapers, etc. They are all out there waiting to be cataloged and stored. To me, paleo tools are more exciting than picking up arrowheads since (a) they aren't supposed to be there, and (b) they aren't supposed to be more than 16,000 years old. :twisted:
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Postby Beagle » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:33 pm

Thanks Patrick.
I enjoy watching flintknapping right here in Tennessee.
For the rest of it, I'm sure I'll see what you mean when I can compare the two visually.

We have lots of Mississippian and Woodland culture flints here but no paleo that I know of.I've been learning quite a lot by looking at the other site where you guys have been posting.

Thanks for the info. 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Beagle » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:19 am

I just looked at more of you're "finds" Cognito. While these "rock" theorys are still on the far left of my personal Bell Curve, it's pretty exciting.

But how are you guys picking up a rock - and noticing human handiwork right away?
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby marduk » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:07 am

But how are you guys picking up a rock - and noticing human handiwork right away?

same way a guy holds a woman and knows someone else has beaten him to it
experience
:lol:
Image
I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts "Lewis Black"
User avatar
marduk
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: newbury, berkshire, uk

Artifacts

Postby Cognito » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:37 am

But how are you guys picking up a rock - and noticing human handiwork right away?

And then
same way a guy holds a woman and knows someone else has beaten him to it ... experience

Marduk's analogy is compelling, after looking at thousands and thousands of rocks it becomes obvious (i.e. experience). However, I am certainly not claiming more than "hundreds". :shock: Who's counting coup, anyway? 8)
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Postby DougWeller » Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:47 am

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
Then, you have the San Diego paleontologist research group that published research concerning a 335,000 B.P. mastodon kill site in San Diego County...again, to date, it's been ignored by the ge
.


Did anyone else besides me think that Charlie was referring to a San Diego paleontologist research group that published research in which they claimed to have found a 335,000 BP mastodon kill site?

Not surprisingly I guess, they didn't. This is purely Charlie's interpretation.

The report can be found here: http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/Caltrans_mastodon_1995.pdf

Charlie uses it as an example of a buried report, and says "In summary, the report unequivocally dates a mastodon kill site near San Diego at 335,000 year B.P. (uranium series)."

So far as I can see, this is flat out false. The report doesn't even mention a kill site, it discusses a mastodon fossil.

Sorry Charlie, but you've lost some credibility here.

A quick search turns up this discussion of the report - where it says quote and the line begins with a number, that's Charlie writing, with 'KidCharlemagne' replying

Started by Charlie Hatchett | Post by KidCharlemagne
Quote:

1. There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend to their
placement in the quarry...


This may scream "kill site" to you, Charlie, but it screams "secondary deposition from eroded fossil bed" to me.

Quote:
2. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of breakage...


"Distinct" here means that the breakage patterns were able to be classified, not that they were human in origin/agency. Articles making such bold claims generally do it out in the open, not in code.

Quote:
3. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side...


Wow. Two femur hears (note, it says nothing of them being from the same individual) next to each other. Call C. Vance Haynes!

Quote:
4. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...


Interesting. So presumably a flowing stream at one point deposited a rib right on top of a piece of granite. Still, I don't see anything suggesting human agency here.

Quote:
5. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing...


Spiral fracturing occurs from a type of force applied to the bone, not exclusively as a result of human activity. Force applied in two different directions to a single bone (a twisting motion) produces this. It's very common for this type of fracture to occur naturally.

Quote:
6. ...sharply fractured piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal surface


Not sure what this even means. Sounds like they're saying that a bone was struck with a force perpendicular to its long axis, and a chip of bone on the inside of the break was dislodged. No evidence of humans here.

Quote:
7. ...distal 70 cm of a tusk was found distal end down, in an upright orientation...

8. Coarse sand from Bed D was found as an infilling along side of the tusk some 40 cm into Bed C...


Tusk embedded in stream bed, water flow around tusk causes some erosion of stream sediments around it. Gradually, sand fills in around the tusk where perturbations of stream flow originally caused lighter sediments to be swept away.

No humans here.

Quote:
9. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces, indicative of stream transport...

10. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that lacked signs of abrasion...

11. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled...


So, let's see... We have stream cobbles, some smaller pieces of broken stream cobbles that show no use wear, and coincidentally some of the broken rocks in the streambed could be fitted back together again.

Why they refit them, I couldn't say. Maybe they just felt like it. Why they put it in the report? I have no idea. But they certainly don't say anything to suggest that they think it had anything to do with people.

Quote:
12. It is plausible that all of the plutonic rock fragments ...are part of the same original boulder...


Larger rocks break into smaller pieces, and sometimes those pieces don't travel very far. This is an excellent (and pointless) hypothesis.
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
DougWeller
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:54 am

Postby DougWeller » Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:58 am

It's also worth looking at the discussion here:
http://tinyurl.com/yakbfn where Charlie goes into more detail and others show where he is wrong. :lol:
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Director and Moderator The Hall of Ma'at http://www.thehallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
DougWeller
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:54 am

Postby Minimalist » Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:24 am

For some reason I can't select and copy from that original .pdf file...not sure why but here goes with a hand copied excerpt.

In units J4 and K4 a large, sharpely fractured piece of long bone (#340) was found with a distinct impact scar on its internal surface. This fractured bone occurs adjacent to two complete thoracic vertebrae and two complete ribs (Figures 4.7 and 4.8.)


So, this appears to be a wound caused by a penetrating weapon which broke one rib(?) while leaving the ones on either side intact. Of course, it could have been done by the tusk of another mastodon....except mastodon tusks seem to have been curved...or a wooly rhino. Herbivores rarely seem to attack each other in nature but one must allow for the possibility that a rhino with an attitude got pissed at a mastodon who got too close to its calf.

One must also allow for the possibility that a thrusting spear wielded by a hominid could also have inflicted the wound.

The report makes no conclusion...at least the parts I saw...but a certain amount of "reading between the ribs" is permissable.
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
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15443
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

335,000 B.P. North American Mastodon Kill Site?

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:05 pm

Doug, you only lifted Kid's first reponse in the debate , and didn't carry the debate to it's conclusion (i.e.-out of context):


report:

1. There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend to their
placement in the quarry...




kid:

This may scream "kill site" to you, Charlie, but it screams "secondary deposition from eroded fossil bed" to me.





charlie:

Hi Kid.
A quote from later in the report:" In contrast to the disarticulated condition of the mastodon remains was the discovery of a partially articulated skeleton of Fulica Americana, the American Coot, collected in Unit B5. The entire pectoral region including the right and left wings and coracoids was found still articulated with the sternum. Articulated portions of the legs were also recovered. Several rodent skulls recovered from bed E were found with articulated lower jaws."
In summary, the authors are conveying to me that, in the same unit, and same low energy mudstone formation, heavy duty mastodon bones are completely disarticulated, while fragile coot and rodent bones are articulated. How would you explain this observation?



report:

2. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of breakage...





kid:

"Distinct" here means that the breakage patterns were able to be classified, not that they were human in origin/agency. Articles making such bold claims generally do it out in the open, not in code.





charlie:

...the distinct classification being spiral fracturing, which is highly indicative of human involvement (especially in a low energy sedimentary formation). See some of Steve Holen's (The Denver Museum of Nature and Science) work concerning this issue of spiral fracturing.






report:

3. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side...



kid:

Wow. Two femur heads (note, it says nothing of them being from the same individual) next to each other. Call C. Vance Haynes!




charlie:

I think the word "both" implies that these femur heads were from the same mastodon. Note that both were isolated, yet side by side. Then there's the context in which they lie: next to a rib lying on a plutonic cobble and a large piece of mastodon long bone shaft displaying spiral fracturing.



report:

4. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...



kid:

Interesting. So presumably a flowing stream at one point deposited a rib right on top of a piece of granite. Still, I don't see anything suggesting human agency here.



5. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing...



kid:

Spiral fracturing occurs from a type of force applied to the bone, not exclusively as a result of human activity. Force applied in two different directions to a single bone (a twisting motion) produces this. It's very common for this type of fracture to occur naturally.




charlie:

Again, look at the overall context: "...Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side..."; "...next to a rib lying on a plutonic cobble and a large piece of mastodon long bone shaft displaying spiral fracturing..."




report:

6. ...sharply fractured piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal surface



kid:

Not sure what this even means. Sounds like they're saying that a bone was struck with a force perpendicular to its long axis, and a chip of bone on the inside of the break was dislodged. No evidence of humans here




charlie:
What their referring to is the semi-circular notch/ negative cone of percussion where the impactor hit the bone. This is diagnostic of percussion by rock hitting bone. Only humans can create this kind of evidence. Especially on the interior of the bone.




kid:

Tusk embedded in stream bed, water flow around tusk causes some erosion of stream sediments around it. Gradually, sand fills in around the tusk where perturbations of stream flow originally caused lighter sediments to be swept away. No humans here.




charlie:

The tusk would have to of been forced downward with considerable pressure to penetrate the underlying comformable beds (Beds D and C), and create this uncomformity (Bed D's Sand pentetrating 40 cm into Bed C). The drawing at the top of the report says it all:
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... n_1995.pdf




report:

9. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces, indicative of
stream transport...
10. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that lacked signs of
abrasion...
11. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders found separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled...



kid:

So, let's see... We have stream cobbles, some smaller pieces of broken stream cobbles that show no use wear, and coincidentally some of the broken rocks in the streambed could be fitted back together again.Why they refit them, I couldn't say. Maybe they just felt like it. Why they put it in the report? I have no idea. But they certainly don't say anything to suggest that they think it had anything to do with people.




charlie:

I don't think use wear was the purpose of the author's stating the smaller fragments had sharp angular edges and lacked abrasion. I think the purpose is to show the lack of erosional forces on these smaller pieces. The larger intact stones must have been imported to the area and reduced via some heavy duty percussion. Certainly not consistent stream transport. Remember, we have a coot and rodent skeletons articulated in this same strata...mudstone.


kid:

Charlie, you remind me remarkably of Ed Conrad.



charlie:

Brilliant response. :wink:



End of debate between kid and charlie

____________________________________________________________



thorfinn.

This report seems to be to be simply that: a report, with all the information detailed and no conclusions drawn or suggested. Nothing in the report suggested human agency, in my opinion. Disarticulation of the mammoth could have been the end result of any number of agents, none of which have to be remotely connected to human activity. Scavengers will disarticulate a skeleton easily, and might cause some of the fractures described in the report. Incidental deposition from upstream would have deposited a disarticulated fragmentary skeleton. Seismic activity seems to be another possibility, which might be why the team reassembled the rock, maybe to confirm suspicions of some earth altering activity. The other possibility is an overzealous paleontologist assumed, as you did, the site to be evidence of a kill site, and set out to find evidence in the form of tool manufacture. Which bring another point up. In almost every kill site I have read about, the only evidence of tool use is re sharpening and repair flakes, not actual cobble reduction, so why is it present here, assuming for the nonce that what the cobble fragments were? In my opinion, the phrases taken to be evidence of human activity are out of context, and disconnected from the very bald data presentation that connotates the thrust and tone of the rest of the report.




charlie:

Fair enough. I respect your opinion Thorfinn.

As to the cobble reduction bit, Christopher Hardaker has short and sweet write up:



Chris Hardaker:

Similar kinds of unifacial specimens were found on old terraces above active cobble washes and arroyos in and around San Diego by Richard Cerruti (San Diego Museum of Natural History), the same individual who showed me how they could have been made, and who also collects varieties of naturally modified specimens.

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/index_bipolar.html




charlie:
Note that Richard Cerruti of the San Diego Museum of Natural History is one of the authors of the Caltrans Mastadon Report.


Peace 8)



end of debate with thorfin

_________________________________________________________


firearch:

Mr. Cerutti is, shall we say, an ardant proponent of the George F. Carter school of thought re: Pleistocene man in NA. Having heavily researched methods of natural fracture and debitage formation (an argument debated since the late 1800s BTW) for a presented paper I'm not convinced by the Carter school of thought.



charlie:

Thanks for the input Firearch.
Mr. Cerrutti may be the very reason the Caltrans report has subtle cultural undertones. :?



terrascythe:

Wait a minute! My question is, if this is true, doesn't this mean that the whole archaeo record for CA is all f't up?
I've monitored my share of ground disturbances in San Diego County and I've run across a few mastodons, shark and other remains. To think they might have been cultural? This presents several problems.
First off, it gives validity to Luis Leakey’s find near China Lake. And let's not forget Michael Cremo either.
Second, it would mean that multiple paleontologists need to re-examine their findings.
Plus, have archaeologists ever examined other paleo finds in SD, especially mastodon?
Third, the truth of this report would only mean added expenses to the environmental monitoring aspect, which has already artificially inflated the cost of development in California.
Not to mention the sheer economic logistics of changing reports and text.
And finally, what do the Native Americans think about this?
Has and band claimed lineage that far back. And, does this mean that Native American monitors will be needed for ground disturbance paleo/archaeo sensitive areas?
Just a few thoughts....




charlie:

You bring up several good points:

1. "...paleontologists need to re-examine their findings..."

2. "...have archaeologists ever examined other paleo finds in SD, especially mastodon..."

3. "...truth of this report would only mean added expenses to the environmental monitoring aspect,

which has already artificially inflated the cost of development in California..."




end of debate

________________________________________________________

Sorry, Doug, but you lose credibility here, by taking one excerpt out of an entire debate, and purporting to show I was proven wrong...

Note, all these responses are from pro archeologists currently working in the field, except, KidCharlemagne, who has never reappeared on the forum above. I know nothing about him. He just tucked his tail, and ran... :?
Last edited by Charlie Hatchett on Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:52 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:24 pm


So, this appears to be a wound caused by a penetrating weapon which broke one rib(?) while leaving the ones on either side intact. Of course, it could have been done by the tusk of another mastodon....except mastodon tusks seem to have been curved...or a wooly rhino. Herbivores rarely seem to attack each other in nature but one must allow for the possibility that a rhino with an attitude got pissed at a mastodon who got too close to its calf.

One must also allow for the possibility that a thrusting spear wielded by a hominid could also have inflicted the wound.


The report makes no conclusion...at least the parts I saw...but a certain amount of "reading between the ribs" is permissable.


Right, Min, the impact scar (negative cone of percussion) was on the interior of the bone...how the heck does a rock, in and of itself, do that?

And then the group performs core refit analyses, and actually reassemble several of the cores. Cores are, by definition, of human manufacture. If they are natural, then they're cobbles. Note the subtle references to human activity all through the report. Then you have Mr. Cerruti:

Note that Richard Cerruti of the San Diego Museum of Natural History is one of the authors of the Caltrans Mastadon Report.


Chris Hardaker:

Similar kinds of unifacial specimens were found on old terraces above active cobble washes and arroyos in and around San Diego by Richard Cerruti (San Diego Museum of Natural History), the same individual who showed me how they could have been made, and who also collects varieties of naturally modified specimens.

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/index_bipolar.html


but a certain amount of "reading between the ribs" is permissable.



Ha! :P Another Min classic!!
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Frank Harrist » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:23 pm

Charlie and I had this discussion months ago. I agree with Doug and others that there is not real evidence of any human activity at this site. It's all wishful thinking and misinterpretation. Sorry, Charlie, my friend, but I still don't see anything there that would even merit such a dabate. Everything there could have been and seems to have been done by nature. Rolling downstream with cobbles and other debris could have and probably did cause all of the things you point to as evidence of human activity. This is a very, very weak argument for humans being around that early. I do not definitely state that humans were not here, but this is not evidence of it.
Frank Harrist
 

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:37 pm

Charlie and I had this discussion months ago. I agree with Doug and others that there is not real evidence of any human activity at this site. It's all wishful thinking and misinterpretation. Sorry, Charlie, my friend, but I still don't see anything there that would even merit such a dabate. Everything there could have been and seems to have been done by nature. Rolling downstream with cobbles and other debris could have and probably did cause all of the things you point to as evidence of human activity. This is a very, very weak argument for humans being around that early. I do not definitely state that humans were not here, but this is not evidence of it.


Noted, Bro. No hurt feelings. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is the true essence of science.

I still think I've got a very good case, though...ha! :P

Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side...Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was found lying directly on a plutonic cobble (charlie: an anvil?)... Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing...

In contrast to the disarticulated condition of the mastodon remain
s was the discovery of a partially articulated skeleton of Fulica Americana, the American Coot, collected in Unit B5. The entire pectoral region including the right and left wings and coracoids was found still articulated with the sternum. Articulated portions of the legs were also recovered. Several rodent skulls recovered from bed E were found with articulated lower jaws."

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... n_1995.pdf



Of special note.... 8)
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Hand Axes

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:18 am

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20351.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20352.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20353.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

________________________________________________________________

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20354.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20355.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20356.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 5"- Lima-Igl

______________________________________________________________

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20357.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 5.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20358.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 5.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20359.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 5.5"- Lima-Igl
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

More Hand Axes

Postby Charlie Hatchett » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:58 am

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20360.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl


Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20361.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20362.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

____________________________________________________________


Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20363.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 4"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20364.jpg

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20365.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 4"- Lima-Igl

_________________________________________________________
Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20368.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 7.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20366.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 7.5"- Lima-Igl

Image

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20367.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 7.5"- Lima-Igl
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com
User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests