26 January 2007
Just drop it, will you?
I feel irked that the Star Tribune is still running stories about the "14,000-year-old artifacts." I will now try to explain why.
1). None of the artifacts found are diagnostic. A diaganostic artifact is an artifact with a datable "style." Automobiles have changed styles over the past hundred years, and I wager most people could guess a car's date to within a decade or so by how it looks. Similarly some stone artifacts--mainly spear and arrow points--changed styles over time. When a site contains an in situ (in it's original location) artifact with a datable style--a diagnostic artifact--you can be fairly certain the site is within a given date range. When I told you I found a 9,000-year-old artifact (give or take), that artifact was diagnostic. It was a portion of an Angostura or Agate Basin spear point.
2). I didn't see the title "geologist" listed with any of these experts' names. Since they didn't find any diagnostic artifacts, it appears they are trying to date this site based on it's geologic context--i.e. that these artifacts were found underneath material deposited by a glacier. While archaeologists have a decent understanding of geology and some are trained as geologists, most archaeologists would not have enough knowledge to determine whether or not something is a glacial deposit. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone involved with this project is qualified to make that determination. While I'm no expert on geology, I was able to use my basic knowledge of Minnesota geology to help date the 9,000-year-old site. It could not have been inhabited prior to that time because it would have been covered over by a huge river of glacial meltwater.
If you've managed to read this far, thank you for letting me vent.
1). None of the artifacts found are diagnostic. A diaganostic artifact is an artifact with a datable "style." Automobiles have changed styles over the past hundred years, and I wager most people could guess a car's date to within a decade or so by how it looks. Similarly some stone artifacts--mainly spear and arrow points--changed styles over time. When a site contains an in situ (in it's original location) artifact with a datable style--a diagnostic artifact--you can be fairly certain the site is within a given date range. When I told you I found a 9,000-year-old artifact (give or take), that artifact was diagnostic. It was a portion of an Angostura or Agate Basin spear point.
2). I didn't see the title "geologist" listed with any of these experts' names. Since they didn't find any diagnostic artifacts, it appears they are trying to date this site based on it's geologic context--i.e. that these artifacts were found underneath material deposited by a glacier. While archaeologists have a decent understanding of geology and some are trained as geologists, most archaeologists would not have enough knowledge to determine whether or not something is a glacial deposit. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone involved with this project is qualified to make that determination. While I'm no expert on geology, I was able to use my basic knowledge of Minnesota geology to help date the 9,000-year-old site. It could not have been inhabited prior to that time because it would have been covered over by a huge river of glacial meltwater.
If you've managed to read this far, thank you for letting me vent.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
