Stone artefact materials

[Gary Vines]

I have been grappling with the dilemma of recording stone artefacts according to my own level of knowledge and skill. One area where I struggle is in identifying the type of stone when it is no the usual silcrete/quartz/quartzite assemblage.

 

We have recently resolved Tachylite in Victoria. This is very distinctive (with its fine grained black interior and usually highly patinated grey-brown powdery surface that darkens when it is touched) that it should be recognised in site cards and artefact catalogues. It is not mentioned in Holdaway & Stern and the VAHR has no category for it on the LDAD spreadsheet or guidelines. However, you can manually add something other than the listed materials in the artefact scatter component form. So this got me thinking about the other materials and I compiled the following for my own reference. The following deal with the categories in the VAHR -

 

• Quartz – crystalline structure, very common material –difficult to distinguish from natural broken stone or introduced gravels – generally the less veined or fractured white material appears to have been selected

• Chalcedony – a microcrystalline form of quartz possibly only distinguished from other quartz by being a finer texture or colour (usually blue) (same for agate which is the banded form) – does not seem to be recorded in archaeological contexts in Victoria. May be more commonly recorded in NSW and other states – (cite needed)

 image from Whincop Archaeology Qld.

• Quartzite – silicified or metamorphosed sandstone where the quartz sand grains are evident and refract light – possibly an occurrence of silcrete where the underlying sediment is course grained sand rather than silt

• Crystal Quartz – very much like glass – often mistaken small flakes of glass

• Hornfels – a metamorphosed mudstone/siltstone/shale. It appears to be a stone identified in Tasmania and Western Australia, but I cannot find an actual archaeological occurrence in Victoria – (cite needed)

• Silcrete – fine-grained silicified sedimentary stone, most common material found around Melbourne – sources at interface of sedimentary rocks and overlaying basalts – exposed in sides of deeply cut valleys, ranges from pale grey to deep burgundy sometimes banded.

• Coastal Flint – I am told that flint only really occurs in Victoria from nodules that are carried to shore by kelp attaching to them out to sea.

• Chert – microcrystalline fine-grained sedimentary rock found as nodules in limestone and similar sediments. Sometimes referred to as “chert hornfels”. My understanding is that is can be distinguished from other fine-grained siliceous stone by its ‘soapy’ or glossy surface.

• Basalt – basic volcanic rock on the lava plains. Fine grained components may be distinct stone types (see below) the coarser material, including highly vesicular forms, may have been knapped, but as it is ubiquitous west and north of Melbourne, and often indistinguishable from blue metal and aggregates used for road construction, it may be overlooked as artefactual.

• Greenstone – one of a number of dense igneous/volcanic rocks known from the Mt William and several other Cambrian greenstone belt quarries - Mount Camel, Howqua River, Cosgrove, Jallukar, Berrambool and Baronga on the Hopkins River; and Ceres and Dog Rocks near Geelong (McBryde & Watchman, 1976:166). 

• Andesite – see Greenstone

• Trachyte – see Greenstone

• Phonolite – geological texts seem to lump this with andesite, while Blandowski, (1855:56-57) used the term for Mt William Greenstone. Other sources refer to “phonolitic trachyte” – see Greenstone

• Rhyolite – see Greenstone

(It is pretty clear, that without specialist geological knowledge it is not possible to distinguish these volcanic rocks. The tachylite, however, is so distinctive in archaeological assemblages that it should be separately identified. The others would be better given a generic classification to account for uncertainty in identification)

• Sandstone – coarse grained sedimentary rock only really used for grindstones - pretty easy to be sure about this one.

• Slate – in its normal state probably too soft to be of much use unless for engraving or as a plate. When more extremely metamorphosed it should probably be identified as hornfels

• Other – well, what could it be?

 

What I would like to see, is a type-specimen collection of stone types as found in archaeological contexts in Victoria. I believe the old VAS used to have such a thing, and there are certainly vast collections of provenanced artefacts at various RAP offices, but being able to see good collections of material for comparison is very difficult.

Gary Vines

Senior Consultant Archaeologist

M: 0428 526 898

D: (03) 8686 4814

E: gvi...@biosis.com.au

Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

The information transmitted including attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain copyright material, or information that is confidential or is exempt from disclosure by law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of Biosis Pty Ltd. Biosis Pty Ltd does not represent that this email is free of errors, viruses or interference. When using email to communicate with Biosis Pty Ltd, access to that information by Biosis Pty Ltd personnel is strictly limited and controlled.

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello Gary,

 

Good work, just waiting to see where to put the Randwick 22,000 in your classification.

Anyone want to punt on that?

As you say, not heaps of flint in Aus -- so unlike Britain/Europe where they had most impressive ancient mining for flint.

I am pleased to see you have remained protected from things like mookaite and 'variants' that could lead onto.

Cheers, John

 

~~~~

 

 

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

"oza...@googlegroups.com" <oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:08:26 +0000

Subject:

{OzArch} Stone artefact materials

I have been grappling with the dilemma of recording stone artefacts according to my own level of knowledge and skill. One area where I struggle is in identifying the type of stone when it is no the usual silcrete/quartz/quartzite assemblage.

 

We have recently resolved Tachylite in Victoria. This is very distinctive (with its fine grained black interior and usually highly patinated grey-brown powdery surface that darkens when it is touched) that it should be recognised in site cards and artefact catalogues. It is not mentioned in Holdaway & Stern and the VAHR has no category for it on the LDAD spreadsheet or guidelines. However, you can manually add something other than the listed materials in the artefact scatter component form. So this got me thinking about the other materials and I compiled the following for my own reference. The following deal with the categories in the VAHR -

 

• Quartz – crystalline structure, very common material –difficult to distinguish from natural broken stone or introduced gravels – generally the less veined or fractured white material appears to have been selected

• Chalcedony – a microcrystalline form of quartz possibly only distinguished from other quartz by being a finer texture or colour (usually blue) (same for agate which is the banded form) – does not seem to be recorded in archaeological contexts in Victoria. May be more commonly recorded in NSW and other states – (cite needed)

 image from Whincop Archaeology Qld.

• Quartzite – silicified or metamorphosed sandstone where the quartz sand grains are evident and refract light – possibly an occurrence of silcrete where the underlying sediment is course grained sand rather than silt

• Crystal Quartz – very much like glass – often mistaken small flakes of glass

• Hornfels – a metamorphosed mudstone/siltstone/shale. It appears to be a stone identified in Tasmania and Western Australia, but I cannot find an actual archaeological occurrence in Victoria – (cite needed)

• Silcrete – fine-grained silicified sedimentary stone, most common material found around Melbourne – sources at interface of sedimentary rocks and overlaying basalts – exposed in sides of deeply cut valleys, ranges from pale grey to deep burgundy sometimes banded.

• Coastal Flint – I am told that flint only really occurs in Victoria from nodules that are carried to shore by kelp attaching to them out to sea.

• Chert – microcrystalline fine-grained sedimentary rock found as nodules in limestone and similar sediments. Sometimes referred to as “chert hornfels”. My understanding is that is can be distinguished from other fine-grained siliceous stone by its ‘soapy’ or glossy surface.

• Basalt – basic volcanic rock on the lava plains. Fine grained components may be distinct stone types (see below) the coarser material, including highly vesicular forms, may have been knapped, but as it is ubiquitous west and north of Melbourne, and often indistinguishable from blue metal and aggregates used for road construction, it may be overlooked as artefactual.

• Greenstone – one of a number of dense igneous/volcanic rocks known from the Mt William and several other Cambrian greenstone belt quarries - Mount Camel, Howqua River, Cosgrove, Jallukar, Berrambool and Baronga on the Hopkins River; and Ceres and Dog Rocks near Geelong (McBryde & Watchman, 1976:166). 

• Andesite – see Greenstone

• Trachyte – see Greenstone

• Phonolite – geological texts seem to lump this with andesite, while Blandowski, (1855:56-57) used the term for Mt William Greenstone. Other sources refer to “phonolitic trachyte” – see Greenstone

• Rhyolite – see Greenstone

(It is pretty clear, that without specialist geological knowledge it is not possible to distinguish these volcanic rocks. The tachylite, however, is so distinctive in archaeological assemblages that it should be separately identified. The others would be better given a generic classification to account for uncertainty in identification)

• Sandstone – coarse grained sedimentary rock only really used for grindstones - pretty easy to be sure about this one.

• Slate – in its normal state probably too soft to be of much use unless for engraving or as a plate. When more extremely metamorphosed it should probably be identified as hornfels

• Other – well, what could it be?

 

What I would like to see, is a type-specimen collection of stone types as found in archaeological contexts in Victoria. I believe the old VAS used to have such a thing, and there are certainly vast collections of provenanced artefacts at various RAP offices, but being able to see good collections of material for comparison is very difficult.

Gary Vines

Senior Consultant Archaeologist

M: 0428 526 898

D: (03) 8686 4814

E: gvi...@biosis.com.au

Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting

The information transmitted including attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain copyright material, or information that is confidential or is exempt from disclosure by law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of Biosis Pty Ltd. Biosis Pty Ltd does not represent that this email is free of errors, viruses or interference. When using email to communicate with Biosis Pty Ltd, access to that information by Biosis Pty Ltd personnel is strictly limited and controlled.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Lever]

Thanks for this Gary,

Couple of questions though:

1) What are your thoughts about aligning archaeological material descriptions more closely with geological ones (I'm sure John will have something to say) 

2) I've often heard (anecdotally) that flint was often used as ballast by British ships, and jettisoned around the Australian coast. have you seen any more empirical evidence of this & how it might affect e.g. perceptions of sources available to Aboriginal people pre-invasion?

Cheers

[Iain Stuart]

The flint story is one of those furphys. Lots of items were used as ballast – pig iron for example. Ballast was discharged near harbours and often incorporated into harbour works as fill. No all stone used in this way was actually flint, I cannot recall seeing any for example in Newcastle where the “dyke” was filled with ballast from ships in the coal trade.  I have heard that the Discovery Bay flint was ballast but this ignores the amount (heaps), location (no harbour)  and nature of the flint (different from the UK, I believe). Doesn’t Michael Godfery’s thesis deal with this issue?

 

Clearly Non-Australian flint would have been used  for things like flintlock firearms, strike-a-lights and such items and some of these are found on historical sites.  

 

Cheers

 

Dr Iain Stuart

 

JCIS Consultants

P.O. Box 2397

Burwood North

NSW 2134

Australia

 

(02) 97010191

Ia...@jcis.net.au

 

[john.p...@bigpond.com]

Hi Michael,

 

While I realise that your questions were directed  at Gary, and that I’m not the John you referred to, here’s my two cent’s worth:

 

Why would you NOT follow “standard” geological / mineralogical descriptions / names for archaeological materials? 

 

Geologists and mineralogists describe rocks. Metallurgists describe metals and alloys. Wood technologists describe wood. Taxonomists put names on plants and animals (and let’s not forget that many people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, have their own names for plants and animals, and these can vary regionally. But that’s not a problem because most of these are recorded against the scientific names of the organisms)

 

Archaeologists describe OBJECTS made of MATERIALS named and described by specialists in the particular field.

 

What is so special about archaeology that you would even contemplate erecting a different system of naming MATERIALS? Don’t archaeologists have enough problem naming their OBJECTS?

 

I’m obviously not speaking for Gary, but it is pretty clear that he is looking for a robust and stable nomenclature of materials from the specialists in whatever discipline is relevant.

 

Perhaps the problem isn’t the nomenclature, it’s the difficulty in distinguishing between varying materials. But in fairness, rocks, like the objects made out of them, have a nasty habit of intergrading. And if you think that’s difficult, you should try identifying the various types of iron alloys found in rusty fence wires and posts. Essentially impossible without an elemental analysis.

 

Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com

[Andy Orr]

Hi Gary,

I'd strongly support an accessible reference collection too, for similar reasons. Maybe with an online version for those in the regions?

Would love to see an expert analysis of the 'greenstone' axe quarries around Inverloch. Have heard the stone described locally as diorite. Presumably there's a basic non-destructive geological technique that could help differentiate locally produced axes and axe-blanks from those that have been imported to the region. 

Cheers,

Andy

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello Gary, Andy, anybody out there ........

 

 

Naturally it is a great idea .... and it most definitively must be "on-line".

Bravo, Gary --- you've done it again !!

Almost all ideas about stones are great I think and simply cannot get too much of (albeit that Dennis has some most severe reservations about Slater's "Australian Stonehenge" near Brunswick Heads, and thinks all that along with Kariong/Bambara and "Out of Australia" theory is just a big pile of pseudoscience ~~ yet even pseudoscience can prove great fodder for at least one major study, methinks).

So I am a massive fan of stories and descriptions about stones or rocks (even though I still don't know the difference sometimes between stones and rocks and the two terms seem to be used by some almost interchangeably).

Where are the reference pieces going to be kept?

Some museum in Melbourne?

Have you asked the Museum yet will they keep them?

It would be an extremely unusual museum that said NO, I think.

But I think we do all know that Australia's first museum has now had to say no to storing most of the never-ending 'more' Aboriginal artefacts .... very unfortunate, but apparently there are just too many millions of the critters likely to be coming out of the ground  ... and to top that off along comes the biggest-ever find at one single spot about Sydney at the stabling yard.  That turns up another 22,000 of more of the blighters (that all look like the same stuff, albeit EXACTLY what stuff nobody yet has bothered to try and find out with a thin section?) - oh where can it all end?

Maybe they should just build a single dedicated big "stones" building or shed somewhere way out on the edge of the Sydney suburbs where land is cheap,  that could house endless millions of little bits of stone?  If so I would also (if they wanted them) donate my big bits of silcrete held significant (plus I am currently the keeper for some of the best bits from others that are seeking a good PERMANENT home as some might be aware - including probably the last still-known-to-exist bits from the "Newtown silcrete" find).

But the problem with that could be one of "WHERE" could anyone find any cheap land still within an easy drive of Sydney?    If the Government knew of any such land I think it would immediately declare it an ACCELERATED GROTH zone (one of their favourite new bits of terminology in recent years) and send out there all currently not-busy cranes to start erecting residential towers for the increasing population.

Drave concerns with where to put bits of stone in general, you'd only be talking of three dozen bits tops, wouldn't you?

Cheers,

 

John Byrnes

 

~~~~

Sent:

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:58:18 -0800 (PST)

Subject:

{OzArch} Re: Stone artefact materials

 

~~~

 

[[ REFER to Gary's earlier post for all his suggested rock types to go in the reference set ~ John .... ]]

 

 

 

[Michael Lever]

Hi John (Pickard),

Actually you were the John I had in mind.

My question comes from an awareness that existing archaeological nomenclature may not always match geological.

Take Silcrete and Quartzite.

The most recent paper I know of as an example on the topic is :

Taylor, G & R.A. Eggleton. 2017: Silcrete: an Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences Vol 64, No.8, 987-1016.

In which the authors list Silcrete and Quartzite as synonymous, and note that a wide range of very different materials can be referred to as Silcrete.

Thoughts?

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello,

 

Re "In which the authors list Silcrete and Quartzite as synonymous" ... goodness me, silly authors if they did that.

I'll have to look into that paper I guess.

There's another critter in God's creation, wriggly today in places but maybe straighter in the past .... called Deerubin or the Hawkesbury Nepean or futher back in time to some "
The Great Lost River".

In working out how that formed it is critical to know the difference between silcrete and quartzite ... and if they were synonymous then the cause of working out how the Great Lost River, Sydney, the Cumberland Basin and the Blue Mountains all formed is lost I think.

The critical factor I think is the premise so far that Rickabys Creek Gravel holds no silcrete (despite numerous people saying they are finding silcrete in the Rickabys Creek Gravel) ... for if so then silcrete formation (and the 'uplift' of the Blue Mountains and major diversion of the River post dates the RCG (not everyone would go for such a young elevation of the Blue Mountains Plateau and based on consideration of the diatreme at Mulgoa John Pickett (another JP and yet another of the numerous "Johns" around) even published pre-"Jurassic" for the westwards uplift .. Phew.

Where the creek crosses the road to Penrith north of Mulgoa is a massive face of Ashfield Shale .. biggest natural exposure anywhere and I nominated that as heritage to the (uninterested) Penrith Council.

Atop of the Ashfield Shale there is some RCG where one of the authors (or authoress) of the GSNSW published Geological Notes found a sizeable boulder of silcrete in RGB (which is the sole source for silcrete being said to be in RCG in the Notes.

She ran an establishment for dogs at Wallacia but decided to leave a neigbours complained about dog barking.  She said she was not going to take the big silcrete -- come and save it.

I did.

It's in my backyard.

But it is not silcrete.

It's fine-grained Lambian quartzite.

The difference IS important.

Re " a wide range of very different materials can be referred to as Silcrete" the latest 'local' type for the Cumberland Plain is 'big-booferite' as being so-called until a better name can be dreamed up.   First bit was found DSCA at Riverstone cemetery.   Next bit - virtually identical - turned up at the Sewerage Works at Vineyard.

Both bits are about the size and shape of a small head.

Because of all the "ACCELERATED GROWTH ZONE" happenings out that way they are having to did the sewerage treatment plant's retention pond much deeper now.

Hence massive digging happening now at the place where decades ago (when the first retention basin was dug) they hit 'hundreds' or pieces (according to descendant of a man then on the job) of fossil wood (silicified).

So I went out there and a workman said besides wood they'd found this thing they tried to cut into but failed with anything they had on hand and gave up for fear of hurting themselves.   He said it was "like grass laid upon grass".

It was the second known "Big Boofer".

The "like grass laid upon grass" appearance is because it is virtually silicified swamp/peat .. full of compressed vegetation.

Yes .. very broadly/vaguely this is like silcrete.

But a better name is pending.

Even more recently I have noted that exactly the same material is at Maroota.

A friend who I think is also on this discussion list has also found more of the same stuff now at the end of a street in Riverstone.

Anyone want pics of the Big Boofer (which I currently have "on loan" from Dominic .. unless he's donated it to me?) contact me off-list and I will commence sending such.

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

"OzArch" <oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:14:45 -0800 (PST)

Subject:

Re: {OzArch} Re: Stone artefact materials

[Steve Corsini]

Portable XRF for starters

 

 

Stephen Corsini

SJC Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd

042 993 7071

--

[Gary Vines]

I am against a geological alignment of Aboriginal stone artefact material classification if that is all that is used. The qualities sought by stone tool makers may have been particular, but were not determined by geological formation processes, mineral composition, sedimentation or metamorphic process, but by the visual and physical qualities of the stone, its mechanical properties, and factors around its procurement. If thin section analysis, PXRF, or other techniques can match the artefact material to the geological location, this is great, but for most classification, we do not have access to this level of data, and are left with describing the rock in a way that is meaningful to the level of analysis we are undertaking. 

Some examples

grain size often distinguished different silcretes within a site (although both variables might be found in a wide range within the same source outcrop - in fact quartzite may just be the silcified  sand layer between the silicified silt or clay layers, so yes is another form of silcrete).  

cortex might be a distinguishing feature - whether the rock has come from weathered outcrop or river/sea-rolled pebbles. 

patina is also a variable that might be useful - either to distinguish types of stone that might be procured from different sources, or potentially dating artefacts, even if just relative ages of flake scars, such as the reworked heavily patinated artefact with fresh flaking exposures.

colour is such a basic variable. Even if we didn't know where it came from, the black tachylite would have been more readily recognised on site cards if the colour was recorded.

However, none of these can variables be recorded on the current Aboriginal Victoria system, and since most archaeologists default to the regulated recording, we end up being unable to say anything meaningful about comparisons between assemblages based on these criteria.

[Jeannette Hope]

I’m not a geologist nor a stone-tool expert, but I’m surprised that Taylor and Eggleton equate silcrete and quartzite (“the authors list Silcrete and Quartzite as synonymous”).  However I can only read the abstract because of the pay-wall.

 

I have always understood that quartzite is a metamorphic rock (from older geological periods) formed from sandstone under hear and pressure, where the sand grains are melted and fused together; while silcrete(s) are younger (Cainozoic), pedogenic, formed when siliceous rich fluids percolate through sandy soils glueing the sand grains together  (from the abstract, this seems to be what the paper is about).  The result being that in field samples, the sand grains in silcrete can often be seen individually, or sometimes even felt.  In my admittedly limited experience, in western NSW, quartzite seems pretty obvious – usually found as large blocks – mortars, or large flakes, with a crystalline glassy appearance; while silcretes come in all sorts of colours, textures and graininess, but on the whole as smaller blocks or flaked from smaller.  There are distinctive differences geographically, for example, between the silcretes formed on the shoreline sandridges left in the Murray-Darling Basin by the retreating Tertiary ocean, and the massive (and older?) stuff near Tibooburra which is more similar to the material I’ve seen on the old mesas near Innamincka.  I’ve also seen some silcretes used only as specific tool types. 

 

What has puzzled me is why no stone-tool person has pulled this together: the geographic outcrops-quarries/time/rock type/tool type pattern within a region.  Perhaps it’s been done for other areas, but not where I work! In fact I’m often disappointed that stone tool analyses in contract reports in my region don’t include the rock type details I see so I can’t compare my results. Reduction sequence analysis seems a bit pointless if you don’t distinguish between  the varieties of rock, whether silcrete /quartzite or whatever. 

 

As a general response to the question, yes, we should follow geological terminology, but there is room for sub-units where there is local variety within a particular rock type that may be relevant to cultural eelection and use.   

 

Regards

 

Jeannette

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hi Gary,

 

Your idea, so entirely up to you.

Whatever you select as the types should have value.

A guide with fixed (selected) type is exactly what is needed.

One does have to have something pinned down which is physical.

Descriptions alone do not suffice (even though essential too).

 

Cheers, John

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

"OzArch" <oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:13:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject:

{OzArch} Re: Stone artefact materials

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello Jeanette,

 

One of those dreaded "Pay Walls" seems to be badly affecting my computer too.

Whoever invented those things?

Your ideas as usual are spot on and excellent I think.

Re "Reduction sequence analysis seems a bit pointless if you don’t distinguish between  the varieties of rock, whether silcrete /quartzite or whatever" .. haa ha, too true.

I am still trying to study (or even completely find -- there were at least three trials all up, eh ??)   the 'notorious'  HISTOLLO CASE .. that some think directly spawned revision of NPWS Act towards immensely heavier fines being stipulated.

In that case the 'defence' calls inter alia a geologist, or maybe some sort of mining engineer.

And its not at all hard to find geologists who think archaeologists are bonkers to believe broken up stone can result from Aborigines messing around with it .....   rather than just natural disintegration or other means of breakage.

In the remembered Mines Department (where is it now pray tell?) we would do a tour at least once a year around all the current major exploration sites in the State.   This 'artefacts' matter was not infrequently discussed when chatting on about things in general.   I have probably said this before but I distinctly remember one geo in the exploration industry who would brag that anywhere out mid to far west he could get out of the car and bring us one of those "so called artefacts" within five minutes.

The trial transcripts of all the witnesses .. for or against pieces of broken silcrete being human-broken, or otherwise having originated, are well recorded.

But exactly WHAT were they talking about ....? ...... where are the specimens, and even if existing there are no (or extremely few, I suspect) specific ties to actual objects .. or photographs.

Without such it runs the risk that it can all end up a gigantic but largely unfathomable pile of words .. yet this is a common fault in the legal system overall, unfortunately .. ..  Not to mention occasional transcribing errors.   Re the latter,  I once gave evidence, concerning the Mrs Rose murder .. about 'garnet' .. but it ended up in the record as 'granite', not garnet.

Never corrected .. still there as such in the trial transcripts .. so far as I know.

I think the Histollo case is fascinating .... wish I could find anyone else interested in it or in that area.

 

Cheers, John

 

~~~~~~

[Gary Vines]

Two problems with the geological terminology, is that it does not sufficiently distinguish, describe or name, the distinct types of stones found in archaeological sites, and archaeologists rarely have the skills, resources or data necessary to properly determine the geological classification of the artefacts they found. This discussion seems to prove this point. 

What I would like to see is a way of measuring and recording attributes in the field, so that artefacts and assemblages can be categorised and compared with confidence.

[tessa corkill]

I'm  in agreement with John & Jeannette about silcrete & quartzite definition. Don't think it is necessary for me to add more at this juncture.

Tessa C

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

Virus-free. www.avg.com

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[john.p...@bigpond.com]

Hi Michael,

 

I’ve downloaded the paper, and I’ll have a read before I get back to you on this. Despite your implication that I’m some sort of expert on this stuff, I’m as clueless as everyone else! My understanding is that silcrete is a precipitate and quartzite is a metamorphic rock. Completely different origins. But I’ll read the Taylor and Eggleton paper to see what they say. There’s a few terms in the abstract that I’ve never even heard of. My favourite is glerp which sounds like some sort of petrochemical by-product sold by fast-food places as soft-serve ice-cream.

Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com

From: Michael Lever

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 1:14 PM

To: OzArch

--

[Michael Lever]

Thanks John,

I was also puzzled at "Glerp" which defied all attempts at google identification.

I have to admit, I'm of a mind with Gary, that archaeological descriptors should primarily focus on the material properties relevant to the human uses of said material, while geological descriptors are best suited to study of geological processes and large time-spans. 

In principle I dont think it differs to artefact nomenclature in historical archaeology - where there are any numbers of ways to skin the same cat, but amost all are categories that inform on use, more than they do on production.

E.g. I've never seen the term 'ferrous oxide enriched vitrified silica' to refer to dark green bottle glass, it doesnt really tell me anything about the likely use of the bottle that the term 'dark green' doesnt. 

Similarly for ceramics - "earthenware / white ware"  (among many other terms) tells me pretty much where the artefact belongs. While there are  production-oriented differentiators such as 'bone china' - this too would be of main interest re: the perceived value & different uses the item may have had.

I anticipate Iain may have something to say on this & will brace myself - and will say thanks for the debunking of the flint ballast myth. I'd actually come across it among bottle collectors who claimed english ballast flint was the source used in making local flint glass.

Cheers,

Michael

[john.p...@bigpond.com]

Hi Michael,

 

“'ferrous oxide enriched vitrified silica'” for dark green glass. I love it! It definitely belongs in the same group of polysyllabic multi-word descriptors as “post-processed male bovine feed”.

 

“Glerp” I think I’ll stick with soft-serve petroleum by-products sold by fast food places.

 

The term is first used and defined in Taylor, G. & Buxton, B.P. (1987) A duricrust catena in south-east Australia. Zeitschrift fur Geomorpologie 31, pp. 385-410. I haven’t worried about looking for this paper as I’m not particularly interested in structures of silcrete. But in the Taylor & Eggleton paper, they say “[Taylor & Buxton] chose this unusual term to give a sense of movement and flow such as one sees in a thixotropic mud or a gel that moves and flows.”  Looks like I was right with my suggestion of soft-serve pseudo ice-cream!

 

Silcrete and quartzite: I’ve read the Taylor and Eggleton paper, and it’s fairly clear that silcrete is a precipitate.

Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com

 

From: Michael Lever

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 7:53 PM

To: OzArch

Subject: Re: {OzArch} Re: Stone artefact materials

 

[Gary Vines]

The Silcrete/Quartzite problem may in fact be due to archaeological mis-identification and mis-naming. perhaps what we call quartzite is silicified sand, but what the geologists call quartzite - looks similar, but is formed very differently. We would be wrong.

As for Michael's bone-china - it is also notoriously difficult to distinguish between bone-china, fine-china and porcelain. The guides tend to revert to the base stamp or 'feel', 'ring', 'shining a light through it', or other sort of alchemy.

[john.p...@bigpond.com]

I never have to worry about china, but my method of distinguishing between iron, steel and high-tensile steel wire is based on bendability. Rough as guts, especially as some of the newer high-tensile wires are quite ductile. And it’s all complicated by the diameter of the wire and the degree of rusting / pitting. It would be relatively straight-forward with the right machine to identify the alloy (how much Fe, C, Mn, etc), but the heat-treatment is also critical and probably not identifiable outside a proper metallurgical lab. For items made of cast iron, there is a choice between several grades including malleable and chilled.

 

Obviously there’s no easy solution to any of this. Perhaps part of the problem is trying too hard to put a precise label on something. It may be to get a correct class of material rather than an incorrect more precise label.

 

Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com