Stray finds

pueblo

My question relates to stray finds, but first considering the current climate on this forum I want to say the following.

I walk the river, I keep my eyes down, it's relaxing and while I am no expert I have a fair idea what worked flint looks like. Consequently, I have come across the pieces (mentioned below) sitting on the river bed among a million other stones and pieces of river detrius. I don't metal detect or dig, ever.

I do however want to try and find the source of these flints..
I have* 6 flints (4 of which have been confirmed as worked flint by an archaeologist. The six pieces are a flake/blade, a core or possible bann flake, a core, a piece of debitage, a possible thumbnail scrapper and a scraper.

I also have appprox. 5 more flints possibly natural but possibly worked/discarded cores/debitage etc

So the question is this, at what stage do the various stray finds from within a 500m stretch become clearly indicative of some type of site or deposit in close proximity? When do stray finds become related finds?

Fries-With-That

pueblo wrote: »

My question relates to stray finds, but first considering the current climate on this forum I want to say the following.

I walk the river, I keep my eyes down, it's relaxing and while I am no expert I have a fair idea what worked flint looks like. Consequently, I have come across the pieces (mentioned below) sitting on the river bed among a million other stones and pieces of river detrius. I don't metal detect or dig, ever.

I do however want to try and find the source of these flints..
I have* 6 flints (4 of which have been confirmed as worked flint by an archaeologist. The six pieces are a flake/blade, a core or possible bann flake, a core, a piece of debitage, a possible thumbnail scrapper and a scraper.

I also have appprox. 5 more flints possibly natural but possibly worked/discarded cores/debitage etc

So the question is this, at what stage do the various stray finds from within a 500m stretch become clearly indicative of some type of site or deposit in close proximity? When do stray finds become related finds?

In short I have no idea, but I will say that I personally think what you are doing is not breaking any laws, and would find it ludicrous if anyone suggested otherwise.

You report what you find, and more so you actually go to the trouble of publishing photographs on a website frequented by archaeologists.

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

My question relates to stray finds, but first considering the current climate on this forum I want to say the following.

I walk the river, I keep my eyes down, it's relaxing and while I am no expert I have a fair idea what worked flint looks like. Consequently, I have come across the pieces (mentioned below) sitting on the river bed among a million other stones and pieces of river detrius. I don't metal detect or dig, ever.

I do however want to try and find the source of these flints..
I have* 6 flints (4 of which have been confirmed as worked flint by an archaeologist. The six pieces are a flake/blade, a core or possible bann flake, a core, a piece of debitage, a possible thumbnail scrapper and a scraper.

I also have appprox. 5 more flints possibly natural but possibly worked/discarded cores/debitage etc

So the question is this, at what stage do the various stray finds from within a 500m stretch become clearly indicative of some type of site or deposit in close proximity? When do stray finds become related finds?

That's an interesting question and not one you can answer without data.
In the first instance, you need spatial data i.e. a visual representation of what was found where.
There is GIS software available - similar to the Archaeology.ie website, see here (not Mac compatible).
Working with GIS can be quite a specialised skill. For a less technically accurate but much simpler representation you could plot the finds on a paper map. Alternatively, you could use the placemark/pushpin facility on either Bing or Google Earth.
Plotting the site of finds using different coloured placemarks for different classes of artefact would at the very least, show if there is clustering.

Explaining clustering is a whole different matter. This is where the river makes drawing conclusions extremely difficult.
Take for example the recent flint nodule you found. Let's assume that it has been on the river bed since it was first worked sometime before 1,500/2,000 BC. There have been a lot of heavy floods over the past 4,000 years. Some have been heavy enough to alter the course of the river, gouge out the river bed and cause banks to collapse.
There is really no telling where the object was first deposited or how far it has drifted downstream. Just about the only thing we can state with certainty, is that it didn't drift upstream!

If clusters of a similar class are identified, it does not necessarily follow that these clusters indicate proximity to a depositional source.
Clustering could be a function of the topography of the river. It could be that objects of a similar weight and shape are deposited in areas of the river which have a consistent rate of flow, areas like riffles and bends etc.. So objects of a similar weight and size would tent to be found in areas with a similar structure. You probably already have a 'sense' of the areas that are likely to hold material. In all probability, this 'sense' is a recognition of the structure of the river and how and what might be deposited at that spot.

To sum up, in all but exceptional circumstances, rivers (like other activities) destroy archaeological context and without context the object can tell us very little.

For balance, we need to examine the possibility that clusters are distributed in a pattern that might indicate proximity to the site of deposition or a site of human activity.
This is difficult.
It would have to be shown that the river did not cause the cluster and that would be an enormous undertaking. Such an enquiry would need to show the topographical history of the river to demonstrate that the finds are in their original position, or close. Proving that the objects were not carried down from some unknown site upstream would be exceptionally difficult and complex, if at all possible.

It could be worthwhile to correlate the location of known areas of prehistoric sites contemporary with the objects.
Say for example, there was a cluster of debitage or something similar downstream of the known location of pre Bronze Age monument/s. That could be significant.
And this is where the statistical analysis of the data could become useful. It was never my strong point, but there are tests of significance which evaluate the probability of an event (like clustering) being due to chance against the probability of causality. The correlation coefficient between known sites and find sites in the river could also be demonstrated.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of how the application of statistical analysis might be applied could help on this.

There is one other factor which can be applied but it is very subjective.
Obviously, the longer an object stays in the river, the greater the amount of wear or water rolling. It would be reasonable to assume that an object which is markedly water rolled, has been present in the river for a longer period than an object with clearly defined edges.
If there are variations - water rolled v. distinct edges - can we assume these come from different periods? Not really, both might have been eroded out of a bank at different times. They may have been used/worked in the same period but entered the river at different times. To complicate matters even further, some objects may have been on the bed of the river for x number of years where they were subject to the forces of the river and then deposited on the bank after a flood event.

All in all, it is a highly complex area of enquiry but if it shows one thing, it is the importance of context.

pueblo

Thanks SB for all that, I think I could manage to plot the finds on a map showing relation to known nearby sites.

My own feeling is that these are coming from a land deposition somewhere nearby and are entering the river due to erosion, bank subsidence, flooding etc, I don't think these have been knocking around in the river for thousands of years, but again that's just a feeling!

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

Thanks SB for all that, I think I could manage to plot the finds on a map showing relation to known nearby sites.

My own feeling is that these are coming from a land deposition somewhere nearby and are entering the river due to erosion, bank subsidence, flooding etc, I don't think these have been knocking around in the river for thousands of years, but again that's just a feeling!

Sometimes these feelings are an unconscious way of processing data

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

Sometimes these feelings are an unconscious way of processing data

I wonder are you implying my subconscious already knows the answer??

Do archaeologists ever use mediums, spirit guides, crystals, diviners (not my bag btw :rolleyes:) to help with site/artefact location etc?? Certainly would be non-intrusive ...but probably non productive too!

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

I wonder are you implying my subconscious already knows the answer??

Do archaeologists ever use mediums, spirit guides, crystals, diviners (not my bag btw :rolleyes:) to help with site/artefact location etc?? Certainly would be non-intrusive ...but probably non productive too!

Eh no. Archaeology is a science.
Divining rods etc. have no place in science.
However, I have known several instances where archaeologists have had an intuition about the existence of something on site.
I have also known many instances where the intuition was hopelessly wrong.
I don't mean to imply anything about your observations really, it just that I believe we often absorb information from our surroundings before we add it all together and consciously process it.
You might well have formed impressions about the distribution of your finds. Add this to your interpretation of why they ended up where they did, and you begin to form an opinion.
The next step is to form a hypothesis and then to test it.
In this case the hypothesis could be something along the lines of: 'if flint deposits in river X can be shown to be significantly different in their distribution patterns to standard fluvial depositional patterns of similar material recorded in similar catchments, we can conclude that the patterns in river X are not the net result of fluvial action'.
...Or something equally catchy.
If you were to test the hypothesis, you would have to show a comparison.
It's like any field work - it's a relative waste of time unless it's put down on paper (or digitally recorded).

wayoutwest

Einstein,who was a keen dowser said "I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing to be a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is,however unjustified.The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown at this time.

I have had successfully located many underground electric wires,water streams,water pipes etc by both on-site,and map dowsing.

Pueblo -I know that its [presently] not very scientific, but if you want some help in locating the source of your finds- I am willing to give it a go for you. [I wont be offended if you don't PM me]:)
Best o'luck with futher solving the puzzle and I eagerly await pictures of further finds - wayoutwest.

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

Eh no. Archaeology is a science.
Divining rods etc. have no place in science.
However, I have known several instances where archaeologists have had an intuition about the existence of something on site.
I have also known many instances where the intuition was hopelessly wrong.
I don't mean to imply anything about your observations really, it just that I believe we often absorb information from our surroundings before we add it all together and consciously process it.
You might well have formed impressions about the distribution of your finds. Add this to your interpretation of why they ended up where they did, and you begin to form an opinion.
The next step is to form a hypothesis and then to test it.
In this case the hypothesis could be something along the lines of: 'if flint deposits in river X can be shown to be significantly different in their distribution patterns to standard fluvial depositional patterns of similar material recorded in similar catchments, we can conclude that the patterns in river X are not the net result of fluvial action'.
...Or something equally catchy.
If you were to test the hypothesis, you would have to show a comparison.
It's like any field work - it's a relative waste of time unless it's put down on paper (or digitally recorded).

Thanks for that .., it seems like a fairly logical approach.Would be an interesting project. If anyone has links to any info/resources in this area that would be great.

Could the frequency/distribution patterns of my finds be measured against something like the Barrow Valley Project? They did a lot of river bank/field walking and I believe their finds data is easily available.

Just pulling the other end of the argument on the psychic/archaeology thing but I did find the article below on the use of psychics in archaeology, but I stress I have no idea about the article's veracity or the author's credentials!

Psychic Archeology
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mario Varvoglis, Ph.D.[/FONT]

The use of clairvoyance was behind the discovery of the Edgar Chapel in the Abbey of Glastonbury. As Bligh Bond recounts in his book The Gate of Remembrance, there was no mention in any document of the exact location of this chapel, nor of its size. Over the course of several sessions of automatic writing, Bond obtained precise guidelines as to its location. The following year, 1908, work was begun, leading to the excavation of the chapel- most of the "channeled" instructions were exactly correct.

A number of archaeologists have used psychics in their digs, with considerable success. Dr. Norman Emerson of the Univ. of Toronto, for example, reported systematically being assisted by a businessman named George McMullen, who had a sharp talent for locating ruins and reconstructing their associated history. Following the path laid by such "psychic archaeologists", Stephan Schwartz, founder of the "Mobius Group", launched the Alexandria Project.

Its objective was to locate nothing less than the ruins of the famous Library of Alexandria, and the tomb of Alexander the Great, also presumed to be in Alexandria (which he had himself designed and founded). In the early phases of the project, eleven mediums in the U.S. were put to work on maps, and an analysis was made of all the places they found. Their "map dowsing" converged upon three sites. Accompanied by two of the psychics and a team for research and filming, Schwartz left for an onsite investigation in Egypt. The psychics were Hella Hammid, distinguished for her remote viewing at SRI, and George McMullen, who had earned quite a reputation working with archaeologist Emerson. Once onsite the psychics led the search like bloodhounds, practically overwhelming the team with all the information they were providing.

While still in the U.S., the late Hella Hammid had already described a landmark which would determine where to excavate for the library. Now that she was in Alexandria - a city she had never visited - she literally guided the car directly to that site. The landmark was found as envisioned. She had described "A narrowing street or alley with high walls on each side... support beams crumbled... Large... Wood... an underground sewer or canal with daylight at the end." On her drawing, she had also put a column on the left. Everything was there, exactly as she had envisioned: the narrowing passage, the crumbled wooden beams, the column on the left.

As for George McMullen, he psychically located an ancient Byzantine ruin on unexcavated terrain outside the limits of the digs of ancient Marea, and showed the placement of walls on the ground. He also spoke of mosaics, cornices, steam baths, and gave other details on materials and depth. Hella, led blindfolded to this area after George's departure, found the same place and described the' layout of a corner, a broken, round column isolated in the middle, small wall tiles, and got an image of steam baths or a pool. Digs were undertaken during the following days and weeks at this desert site, leading to the excavation of the exact outlines, with the walls placed as indicated.

It's worth noting that the presence of Byzantine ruins was considered highly improbable in this context; nevertheless it was confirmed by drawings of red crosses in known Byzantine style.

Both the cornices and the round column, broken and isolated, were found. The small tiles (round, rather than square) though indeed belonging to the baths, were found further away. In fact, George had predicted the general layout of the baths, and subsequent digs uncovered them.

Although this first mission failed to excavate the originally intended sites, it nevertheless demonstrated the soundness of the method: significant archaeological discoveries were achieved while working with talented psychics.

pueblo

wayoutwest wrote: »

Einstein,who was a keen dowser said "I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing to be a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is,however unjustified.The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown at this time.

I have had successfully located many underground electric wires,water streams,water pipes etc by both on-site,and map dowsing.

Pueblo -I know that its [presently] not very scientific, but if you want some help in locating the source of your finds- I am willing to give it a go for you. [I wont be offended if you don't PM me]:)
Best o'luck with futher solving the puzzle and I eagerly await pictures of further finds - wayoutwest.

Thanks for that.

slowburner

Comparable data from a sister catchment would be manna from heaven.
If you can access that data you have to go for it.
It's a win win situation: either you produce a work that makes people sit up and take notice or you create a new database, probably both.
I hope you follow it through.
And thanks for sharing your work.