The Tools
Stone, It's Use
There are several features to stone tools, besides being stone.
Most notably, how they are worked. There may be evidence to be seen on stones,
that demonstrates if and how they have been altered. This evidence can
be caused by several events. Common is water as it wears a
stone in the flow of a river. Or it may be the damage to a
stone as it rolls down the side of hill, bumped by others that
may pass it as they roll. Then there is the poor stone that lies
in the path of a wandering animal, such as a cow.
All of the above will or can leave damage to the surface of a stone.
But we are only interested in stone that man damaged. And yes we
can tell the difference.
It is this difference between a nature damaged stone and a man
"worked" stone we need to learn. Once we can pick up a stone at
a site and declare the stone has been altered by man, the total
of the artifacts we will recover will increase dramatically.
I guess the easiest lesson is to state that nature is not picky.
A simple example of a stone tool that demonstrates this lesson is
on display in the fishing display. Recovered from a small river in
Canada, hundreds of river worn rocks have been recovered and
identified as tools. To be more practical, they are called sinkers.
For many generations and centuries, this river had been a fishing
site, one where nets had been used. To hold the nets to the bottom rocks
were attached to the bottom of the net. Using common river stones,
about 5 or 6 inches long, with an oval shape to work as sinkers. Here man
found he needed to alter them, as our display shows.
To aid the retaining of the sinker, small chips were removed so
the cord used would have a surface to "grab".
The question, were these chips the work of man or caused to the
stone as it trailed the river bottom. Naturally we have the fact
that hundreds of stones were recovered from the same location, all
having the same chips, but we need to look at what the river can or
will do, and the actions of man.
The river or nature is not selective, that is to say it will not just
bounce a stone along one area and spare others. With the sinker,
nature would not just scar midway along two sides of the stone and
spare the ends. Well, maybe once it could happen, but not hundreds
of times. This scaring or chipping was "selective", or the work of
man. Our display offered here, is not one of random but selective
to fit man's needs.
Visit a sinker.
This makes it much easer to identify a common tool recovered at habitation sites. Even if it may be the common river pebble. Only now it has hundreds of small scars at one end. No doubt man caused these, how and why? Well we have recovered man's earliest and most important tools, a hammer.
Recovered at the Texas sites were several hammers that could easily
be mislabelled. Round disks, about 5 inches in diameter,
that would have a small pit placed in the center of each side. The
outer rim of each is evenly scarred the full 360 degrees of the stone.
It would be easy to call these "nutting stones". This is the term
used for stones that have a similar pit, used to hold nuts needing
to be cracked. But such stones are random in shape, not requiring
a man made round shape. Nor are stones with their matching pits placed
in the center, had a use other than cracking nuts.
You take a similar size stone and try splitting material like flint.
It takes several
hard blows to shape our raw material, gripping the hammer stone in our
claw like hand,
can subject us to an occasional damaged knuckle. But take our round
stone and grasp it
by the pits, thumb tip on one and an finger tip on the other and try
hammering. Note
the stone does not fly from the hand, due to the two pits. We should
also mention this
action would also give the hammer an even scaring 360 degrees of
the
tool. Let's visit a few hammers.
It would seem our most valuable lesson has been to identify need.
Fishermen needed sinkers, and skilled flint workers needed a
hammer, one he was accustomed to.
But let's turn to the common flint at the site, here is where most of
the tools are overlooked.
There are several divisions we can place each bit of stone we encounter in. Most basic are, "worked" and "unworked". Looking at each bit of scrap we need to ask, "random" or "intended". A little hint, man seldom discarded a bit of stone he could use. The term "use" is our new keyword. With this term we can start our new directory of worked stone.
It may be easy to place aside points, even the novice can spot a Langtry point.
But the remainder may be more of a challenge. First the worked and the unworked.
Any scrap flake of flint will show some scaring, due to it's being given a blow by the hammer during the shaping of a core of flint. In general there are two ways material is removed from the core or the item being formed, the heavy blows are referred to as "primary" as they shape the raw material, and "secondary" at the edge or where the working surface is applied.
Primary blows cause the discarded flakes we find, while the secondary
chipping gives that nice sharp edge to our points and the working edge
to tools. It's the secondary chips we are now looking for. Again we
need to decide "random" or "intentional". With flint any small blow
can cause a small chip to be removed from the edge. A discarded flake
is going to have a very sharp edge and small chips are not uncommon.
But look close, are there 5 maybe 6 small chips or more, all lined up.
If yes, we have a worked edge. But why would man take a sharp bit of
flint and work it? As you may have experienced in the past, a natural
sharp flint edge can give you a nasty cut. To make a knife was solved,
just a sharper edge needed, or was it?
It is here we learn that early man was thousand of years ahead of our
modern day machine shops. A tool maker in todays shops will tell you
that a razor sharp edge will not last. If we look at our drill bits we may use daily, we will note that the leading edge has been ground back. A edge of approximately 65 degrees will cut and survive. So it was with early man, he knew a naturally sharp edge on flint would not last, so he reduced it. Fortunately for us this removing the keen edge on flint helps us identify our tools.
As we stated there are many steps in identifying tools. Or maybe it
should be said there are several qualities of tools. Not all tools
will be recovered by noting the obvious features of a well made knife
or other commonly used tools. Man of prehistoric times was not always
in need of a tool that he was willing to invest the time and effort
it required to make the classic artifact we are expecting to recover.
This brings us our first category of tool, the random used stone. As
we noted a flake of flint can be very sharp, and will cut with ease.
But man wanted tools that would last, so he altered the edge to give
a cutting edge that would not be damaged by use. But let this not
suggest, that had he only need a cutting tool for a major task, that
a fresh, sharp edge stone could not be employed.
A name common for these tools is "unimproved" or a used stone that
saw only use and not convenient to make it a tool. It remains a
tool regardless of the degree of chipping applied, it's only harder
to separate this tool from the random damaged flint we recover. Here
again the term random is employed, and here again this is the
evidence we will use.
Now the big big
tools?
The Tools
Stone, It's Use
There are several features to stone tools, besides being stone. Most notably, how they are worked. There may be evidence to be seen on stones, that demonstrates if and how they have been altered. This evidence can be caused by several events. Common is water as it wears a stone in the flow of a river. Or it may be the damage to a stone as it rolls down the side of hill, bumped by others that may pass it as they roll. Then there is the poor stone that lies in the path of a wandering animal, such as a cow. All of the above will or can leave damage to the surface of a stone. But we are only interested in stone that man damaged. And yes we can tell the difference. It is this difference between a nature damaged stone and a man "worked" stone we need to learn. Once we can pick up a stone at a site and declare the stone has been altered by man, the total of the artifacts we will recover will increase dramatically. I guess the easiest lesson is to state that nature is not picky. A simple example of a stone tool that demonstrates this lesson is on display in the fishing display. Recovered from a small river in Canada, hundreds of river worn rocks have been recovered and identified as tools. To be more practical, they are called sinkers. For many generations and centuries, this river had been a fishing site, one where nets had been used. To hold the nets to the bottom rocks were attached to the bottom of the net. Using common river stones, about 5 or 6 inches long, with an oval shape to work as sinkers. Here man found he needed to alter them, as our display shows. To aid the retaining of the sinker, small chips were removed so the cord used would have a surface to "grab". The question, were these chips the work of man or caused to the stone as it trailed the river bottom. Naturally we have the fact that hundreds of stones were recovered from the same location, all having the same chips, but we need to look at what the river can or will do, and the actions of man. The river or nature is not selective, that is to say it will not just bounce a stone along one area and spare others. With the sinker, nature would not just scar midway along two sides of the stone and spare the ends. Well, maybe once it could happen, but not hundreds of times. This scaring or chipping was "selective", or the work of man. Our display offered here, is not one of random but selective to fit man's needs. Visit a sinker. This makes it much easer to identify a common tool recovered at habitation sites. Even if it may be the common river pebble. Only now it has hundreds of small scars at one end. No doubt man caused these, how and why? Well we have recovered man's earliest and most important tools, a hammer.
|
Recovered at the Texas sites were several hammers that could easily be mislabelled. Round disks, about 5 inches in diameter, that would have a small pit placed in the center of each side. The outer rim of each is evenly scarred the full 360 degrees of the stone. It would be easy to call these "nutting stones". This is the term used for stones that have a similar pit, used to hold nuts needing to be cracked. But such stones are random in shape, not requiring a man made round shape. Nor are stones with their matching pits placed in the center, had a use other than cracking nuts. You take a similar size stone and try splitting material like flint. It takes several hard blows to shape our raw material, gripping the hammer stone in our claw like hand, can subject us to an occasional damaged knuckle. But take our round stone and grasp it by the pits, thumb tip on one and an finger tip on the other and try hammering. Note the stone does not fly from the hand, due to the two pits. We should also mention this action would also give the hammer an even scaring 360 degrees of the tool. Let's visit a few hammers. It would seem our most valuable lesson has been to identify need. Fishermen needed sinkers, and skilled flint workers needed a hammer, one he was accustomed to. But let's turn to the common flint at the site, here is where most of the tools are overlooked. There are several divisions we can place each bit of stone we encounter in. Most basic are, "worked" and "unworked". Looking at each bit of scrap we need to ask, "random" or "intended". A little hint, man seldom discarded a bit of stone he could use. The term "use" is our new keyword. With this term we can start our new directory of worked stone. It may be easy to place aside points, even the novice can spot a Langtry point. But the remainder may be more of a challenge. First the worked and the unworked. Any scrap flake of flint will show some scaring, due to it's being given a blow by the hammer during the shaping of a core of flint. In general there are two ways material is removed from the core or the item being formed, the heavy blows are referred to as "primary" as they shape the raw material, and "secondary" at the edge or where the working surface is applied. Primary blows cause the discarded flakes we find, while the secondary chipping gives that nice sharp edge to our points and the working edge to tools. It's the secondary chips we are now looking for. Again we need to decide "random" or "intentional". With flint any small blow can cause a small chip to be removed from the edge. A discarded flake is going to have a very sharp edge and small chips are not uncommon. But look close, are there 5 maybe 6 small chips or more, all lined up. If yes, we have a worked edge. But why would man take a sharp bit of flint and work it? As you may have experienced in the past, a natural sharp flint edge can give you a nasty cut. To make a knife was solved, just a sharper edge needed, or was it? It is here we learn that early man was thousand of years ahead of our modern day machine shops. A tool maker in todays shops will tell you that a razor sharp edge will not last. If we look at our drill bits we may use daily, we will note that the leading edge has been ground back. A edge of approximately 65 degrees will cut and survive. So it was with early man, he knew a naturally sharp edge on flint would not last, so he reduced it. Fortunately for us this removing the keen edge on flint helps us identify our tools. As we stated there are many steps in identifying tools. Or maybe it should be said there are several qualities of tools. Not all tools will be recovered by noting the obvious features of a well made knife or other commonly used tools. Man of prehistoric times was not always in need of a tool that he was willing to invest the time and effort it required to make the classic artifact we are expecting to recover. This brings us our first category of tool, the random used stone. As we noted a flake of flint can be very sharp, and will cut with ease. But man wanted tools that would last, so he altered the edge to give a cutting edge that would not be damaged by use. But let this not suggest, that had he only need a cutting tool for a major task, that a fresh, sharp edge stone could not be employed. A name common for these tools is "unimproved" or a used stone that saw only use and not convenient to make it a tool. It remains a tool regardless of the degree of chipping applied, it's only harder to separate this tool from the random damaged flint we recover. Here again the term random is employed, and here again this is the evidence we will use.
|
Now the big big
tools?