Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reliable Information

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reliable Information

    I know many of you here have already passed through the learning curve that I’m currently in. The main problem I’m having is contradictory information. I normally use projectile points as my holy grail for typing points but while reading archeological reports from state archeologists the info is very different. I will say the reports are 10 and 15 years old and this could make a difference. ONE example, Two merom points typed by a team of archeologists. One point very much inline with projectile points but the other has a ground base and a very concave base on it. It doesn’t look anything like what I would consider to be a merom point. Very frustrating when trying to learn my local points. Just wanted to vent and any suggestions from those who have been there and done that are welcome. Thanks .
    Attached Files
    Last edited by KyChipStone; 02-18-2020, 04:22 AM.
    North Central Kentucky

  • #2
    projectilepoints.net is not the holy grail to me. Multiple sources and some definite LOCAL sources are needed to ID some points.

    Professor Shellman
    Tampa Bay

    Comment


    • KyChipStone
      KyChipStone commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks Tom. I will just keep reading about my local points and I’m sure things will become clearer as time goes on.

  • #3
    I feel ya, as time goes on the frustration never goes away... Just got to keep reading and asking questions.
    Lubbock County Tx

    Comment


    • KyChipStone
      KyChipStone commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks JJ. That’s my plan for now..😉

  • #4
    Professionals offer opinions. It does mot make them right. A couple of anthropologists in CT went and looked at a perceived stone mortar in a very large rock. one called it ancient the other said historic. Both of them very highly respected by me and the people of Connecticut both studied for a life time. However their opinions differed. I went with more modern because I had returned to the area and had discovered a quarry 100 yards away where they had quarried stone to build a dam nearby. Probably a working quarry in the early 1900's . I also found iron rods driven into the rock about 25 feet away from the carved stone mortar bowls. I do not know if I still have pics of it . It just always struck me that they both just gave an opinion based on years of study and observations and neither agreed with the other on this feature.
    TN formerly CT Visit our store http://stores.arrowheads.com/store.p...m-Trading-Post

    Comment


    • KyChipStone
      KyChipStone commented
      Editing a comment
      Hoss, I totally agree with you on that . I’m very appreciative of both archeologists and PPs knowing we would all be in a world of hurt without this knowledge but I think differences in option certainly exist. I will continue my studies and when something looks fishy I will make a note of it and move on...I must remember to enjoy the journey. Thanks!

  • #5
    Mammals: have hair and produce milk
    coconuts: have hair and produce milk
    is a coconut a mammal?
    Thus we discover the flaws in morphological phylogeny.
    Stagger Lee/ SE Missouri

    Comment


    • Broken Arrow
      Broken Arrow commented
      Editing a comment
      That's pretty neat JJ.

    • KyChipStone
      KyChipStone commented
      Editing a comment
      You can say that again... I’m really starting to see the need for all the Archeological programs to get TOGETHER. It seems to me they stay focused on local content and I’m sure this has a lot to do with where the money is coming from...Just have to remember these studies are still in there infancy in my opinion..

    • Broken Arrow
      Broken Arrow commented
      Editing a comment
      Yes, american archaeology is still very young.
Working...
X