Great basin site gives up ice age treasures

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I can see how it would be looting. They'd be destroyed by the tiller otherwise, though. Gathering data on what you find is a good idea.
Here in the US it's illegal to keep certain things that you find. Civil war artifacts are an example. Say you're digging a septic system or whatever and find something you have to turn it in.

I agree with gathering and preserving the info on surface collected finds. Some of the best possible information an archaeologist can gather is often from the guys who are serious surface collectors. They have a wealth of knowledge that can't be duplicated by university study.
I must take issue with your statement about certain artifacts being "illegal" even on one's private property. Laws vary from state to state but I don't know of any states that have restricted artifact lists. Human remains are the only thing that must be surrendered if found on private property. (I'm sure there are exceptions for lands held privately but put in some sort of government-sponsored trust program.) While there are unethical archaeologists that will actually tell owners that they must surrender artifacts, when asked to produce the law which they are claiming exists, they fail to do so. The supreme arrogance I've seen in my profession has, from time to time, made me ashamed to call myself an archaeologist.

a reply to: diggindirt

I actually meant to note that it's illegal in certain states but hit edit before I wrote it. Then I got distracted. As for human remains, I think they should be returned to the people they belong to and given a proper burial. Ceremonial items should also be returned, as they're needed for ceremonies and to keep those ways from becoming lost.

a reply to: Skid Mark
I'm with ya. However, political bonds don't always equal biological bonds so in order to know who their descendents are, we need the DNA testing. In the case I worked most closely the remains were far more likely to be Shawnee or Osage than Chickasaw. The only reason the Chickasaw could claim them was the fact that they signed the treaty when Andrew Jackson purchased the ground.
This need for testing is especially important in these Paleo finds but many times the native officials have no real desire to know whether these people were their ancestors. Rather, it is the power they can wield over others. Politics amongst Indians is no different than the rest of the world.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I agree with gathering and preserving the info on surface collected finds. Some of the best possible information an archaeologist can gather is often from the guys who are serious surface collectors. They have a wealth of knowledge that can't be duplicated by university study.
I must take issue with your statement about certain artifacts being "illegal" even on one's private property. Laws vary from state to state but I don't know of any states that have restricted artifact lists. Human remains are the only thing that must be surrendered if found on private property.

Couple of things here...
I get it that rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'm just passing along the way that we do it in Ontario. There are efforts being made to bring some of the collectors 'in from the cold', so that their information might be added to the greater knowledge pool. As far as human remains go, the first phone call is to the police and once the remains are Identified as archaeological rather than forensic, it becomes a matter for the closest First Nations community and the Provincial Registrar of Cemeteries. It's all a little clunky, but we are trying to rationalise the process to accommodate all interested parties.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
Ceremonial items should also be returned, as they're needed for ceremonies and to keep those ways from becoming lost.

Here's a tougher subject. As I was told by an First Nations elder, "Everything is sacred, but then there's 'sacred sacred'". The concern is about the spirits connected with the objects, and that they need to be tended to. Some material under my stewardship remains wrapped in red cloth and get smudged every now and again. Not my religion, but who am I to argue? I consult with FN cultural representatives to ensure things are done with respect. Additionally...the local FN may not be at all related to the assemblage in question. Need they care?

Grave goods...there's a strong argument that they should remain with the remains. Often the FN will give archaeologists a pass, so that they can tease the stories from the artifacts. Key to all of this is mutual respect...and that concept has been a long time coming.

TRY THIS GUYS:
flint stone making

Here is the expert on YT "FlintkapperJimmy" how-to I promised:
FlintknapperJimmy Channel

a reply to: punkinworks10

I couldn't find a description of the stone that the point is made from, but it doesn't look anything like Flint or Chert to me - maybe Argillite or Basalt?


This intensifies the levels of skill required quite considerably - to make a blade that long and not break the bugger? That's some serious craft right there, ta for posting this

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: punkinworks10

I couldn't find a description of the stone that the point is made from, but it doesn't look anything like Flint or Chert to me - maybe Argillite or Basalt?


This intensifies the levels of skill required quite considerably - to make a blade that long and not break the bugger? That's some serious craft right there, ta for posting this

Skalla my friend,
good to hear from you,
You are correct, that particlular point is basalt.
tremoundous amounts of skill to produce that

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: punkinworks10

I couldn't find a description of the stone that the point is made from, but it doesn't look anything like Flint or Chert to me - maybe Argillite or Basalt?

Without having viewed the video...it looks like obsidian...volcanic glass. Quite the little project, too! I have only tried flint knapping one, and that was with a strange pink middle-eastern chert (Syrian or Lebanese) that would not flake. Drove me nuts!

originally posted by: punkinworks10
You are correct, that particlular point is basalt.
tremoundous amounts of skill to produce that

Really? I'd better watch the video, then. It looked too glassy for basalt.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Basalt according to Punkinworks, and that was one of my two guesses.

Obsidian wouldn't be so heavily grainy, plus you would have proper conchoidal fractures unlike the flaking shown.. i dont think it has a technical term afaik, but it's only "partially" conchoidal. The force need to make flakes on that basalt would need some serious control and and a heap of experience not to break the piece.

Chert is tough stuff indeed, most folk nowadays (and many in history etc) cook Chert to make it more glassy before it will flake the way they want to with out permanently damaging their wrists and elbows from repeated shock

ETA: i'#m referring to the long point in the pic in the OP, maybe we are at crossed purposes?

a reply to: skalla
It is for sure basalt,
The grainy surface is a give away, but if im not mistaken most of the hasket points are basalt, it seems to have been a favored stone in that area. I dont know the geology of that part of utah very well, but basalt is every where a little futher west in nevada.

a reply to: skalla
Basalt must be hard to work, because many local groups chose to trade for or travel to get obsidian or chert from sources hundreds of miles away, rather than use local basalt.

a reply to: Granite
Thanks for posting those vids
neat stuff

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: skalla
It is for sure basalt,
The grainy surface is a give away, but if im not mistaken most of the hasket points are basalt, it seems to have been a favored stone in that area.

The photos might be of basalt...I get what you see about the grain... but if you go to 7:30 in the first video, he confirms that he is using obsidian for the point that he is working on. Even the sound is like that of breaking glass. Beautiful work, either way!

...or were you talking about anti72's post? I was talking about Granite's.

a reply to: punkinworks10

IMO it's a proper PITA. Doesn't behave quite like Flint/Chert/Obsidian etc. It's (Basalt) one of the stones (along with Quartzite and Argillite) that skilled knappers move onto flaking when they get all jaded with "how easy" flint and Chert are. Imagine that

I can just about make an edge on the stuff, but i couldn't make a biface from it if my life depended on it

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I did n't watch the Humboldt vids yet (i have a knapping vid habit already), but even without the maker stating it i'd have bet my house on it being obsidian

I was referring to the OP re basalt, then the multi part vid that Granite posted, we have been talking about different stuff for a few posts now it seems

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I did n't watch the Humboldt vids yet (i have a knapping vid habit already), but even without the maker stating it i'd have bet my house on it being obsidian

It was the Humboldt I was referring too...couldn't understand the debate!

I just got this haskett site report fom the comments of the original article, its very informative.

content.lib.utah.edu...