chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
 |
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
| 09 May 2008 12:51 AM |
|
quote:
BOING!
I may not have the fastest synapses in the world, but something just clicked.
Charlie found one in situ stemmed projectile point in the gravel cap underlying (older than) fine-grained sediments in which Clovis points have been found by others and dated by them at ca. 12,000 years. Said tool (archaic [not! XXX] 20) has remnants of a carbonate coat covering the flake scars. (flake scars = tool shaping = older than carbonate coat = older than gravel cap = older than Clovis = older than 12,000 years). Other stemmed tools from nearby float (out of context) also have remnants of carbonate coats covering flake scars, as do many other float specimens showing various flaking technologies. He finds other artifacts in the overlying fine-grained sediments, the ones that have produced Clovis points at a nearby site, but none of them have remnants of a carbonate coat. We can assume they are younger than the carbonate coat episode.
But carbonate coats don't start out as relatively thick spots on flake scars; they start out as thin films covering the whole piece and thicken slowly over time. And nature doesn't treat an artifact as an artifact; she treats it as a piece of gravel. So we can further assume that, after these pieces were made, they rested a long time in the place they were dropped, and that the climate at that time was hot and dry, with intermittent moisture (for the carbonate to be moved in solution and later deposited on the tools. Sangamon Interglacial?) Then the climate got a lot wetter (Wisconsin time?) This in order to erode the sediments containing the tools, concentrate them, and move them along in a relatively high energy environment to their current position in the gravel cap, knocking off most of their carbonate coats in the process.
So, these tools Charlie is finding will have to be older than the gravel cap out of which they are now eroding. And they can be of various ages. Two especially, if those chip marks aren't natural, have had flake scars modified by water transport, i.e. dulled edges, before the carbonate coat was added (paleo 20, photo 2010a; preclovis 2019). Others may have been recycled at a later date (preclovis 20190, preclovis 20206...
...So what might be productive for Charlie to do is look for local, thick caliche layers in sediments OLDER than the gravel cap, then look closely for in situ tools there. They will be hard to spot because they will be covered with that caliche coat. Also he should check with the local state soils and geological survey offices for help with potential areas to investigate and, perhaps, background information on caliche formation. (Your state soils office would probably have the most detailed information.)
XXXXX
XXXXX.
Do you think it's possible that what I've been calling Del Rio shale and
Georgetown Formation limestone might actually be hardened caliche.
Here's the strata to which I'm referring:
 |
|
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
| 09 May 2008 2:16 AM |
|
Dear Mr. Hatchett:
Very interesting photos of the artifacts, especially those you
have identified as Clovis type. We have in our area a
"paleo-Indian" culture that is 9000 years B.P., dated by
radiocarbon dates on former shorelines of ancestral Lake
Superior. These artifacts are fairly well crafted, resembling
much more recent material, but made of local cherts derived
from the Gunflint Formation, rather than trade material seen in
more recent materials.
The dating of your deposit is valid as far as it goes, but there is
the question as to whether the artifact-containing alluvium
actually did cover the furnace area after its function. There
are sophisticated means of determining this, but they are not
available from me. If there were pre-Clovis iron production
going on, this would topple all sorts of ideas and,
in fact, would proceed iron production in Europe. I think at
that point others would interested in applying sophisticated
dating methods to the site.
But to the point, if you are agreeable to sending a specimen
of the metals to me, I can see what they are quite readily. I
need only very small samples, ca. 1 gram. If you wish, I have a
loan agreement that I can get
to you.
Dr. Steve Kissin
Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada
From r. Steve Kissin
Date: 01/17/06 12:43:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject ossible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working
Charlie:
It just arrived via DHL. I had a quick look and checked the specimens with a strong magnet. There is no metallic iron in any of them. However, both types of specimens are surprisingly dense, considering the sedimentary rock terrain in which they occur. That brings up a point - could you tell me in which county the site is located? As in big xxx, I know that the counties are relatively small in most cases.
.........
As for the specimens, I am completely mystified at the moment. I will proceed immediately to get small polished thin sections made of bits of them for microscopic and SEM examination.
*********
In any case, the specimens look very interesting whether they are of natural or human origin. I will get right on the case. I do have a break in mid-February and a lot of points with xxx. How far are you from xxx? This is the only place Air xxx flies to xxx aside from xxx.................
"
For this guy to say something like this has definitely got my
wheels spinning....
www.preclovis.com
***
Fromr. Steve Kissin
Date: 01/24/06 16:31:53
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: microscopic examination of materials
Charlie:
I examined the polished surfaces that I just got back today. Both are very strange. The hard material looks like pyrite in terms of both color and some crystal faces that are visible. It is, however, composed of a lot of very small mostly irregularl |
|
|
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
| 09 May 2008 2:18 AM |
|
From: xxxx
Date: 02/09/06 11:11:55
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Latest thoughts
Hello Charlie:
Sorry for the slow response; I have been a bit tied up.
I have attached jpgs of the material you sent. These are relatively
high magnification in reflected light, so as to see opaque materials.
The hard material is clearly pyrite, based on the color and the
cube edges at the margin of the material. The composition was verified
in the SEM.
The soft material contains translucent grains of silicone material
in a matrix of lead. The dark grains are sand.
Your sites do look man-made, but the age is the question. I tend to
think that there might have been some metallurgy going on there ,
but it was likely historic. The pellets you showed in your last
e-mail are interesting. Could they be lead? If so, I wonder if this
was a site where bullets were being cast. Another question, have you
been able to show that the blow holes connect to the pits?
I will show your latest artifact pictures to my archeologist friend,
but he has said that he is not an expert on Texas archeology.
xxxx
www.preclovis.com
www.forum.preclovis.com |
|
|
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|
chacha333
Posts:679
View Profile
|
|