What do scientists who work in archaeology use to determine, when they look at an object, whether they’ve got a triangular-shaped rock in their hand vs. an arrowhead?
When digging around ancient Roman ruins and finding a bit of old leather, what does she use to determine whether she’s just got a scrap of leather or, say, a woman’s sandal?
This has significant ramifications for what John Eddy and I are currently working on with Book 2 of Methuselah’s Daughter, so I’m looking for serious answers:
Is there any significant checklist an archaeologist uses to look at something and say “yes this is a probable artifact constructed by human hands” vs. “this is just some random bit of scrap I’ve found that’s sort of shaped like something?” There must be some set of common standards those working in this field work with. Or so I think. Does anyone know what it might be? Or if there’s more than one checklist, where they might be found?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments }
Of course, IANAA, but I think with triangular rocks versus arrowheads, one way you could tell is by any chip markings along the edges from where the arrowhead was formed by being hit with another rock or other implement.Â
While fictional and speculative, Jean Auel’s "Earth Children" series (Clan of the Cave Bear, etc x5 so far) is based on findings from different archeological sites (neanderthal and cro-magnon). If you haven’t read those, some of the info therein or from her sources might be helpful.Â
Dean:
Usually it is toolmarks that are the determining factor in whether something was fashioned or randomly took on a shape. In the case of arrowheads, specific designs are actually common and recognizable in many ancient cultures. With a powerful enough microscope you can fairly easily tell if an object was shaped, or just broke that way. In many cases you can tell by the naked eye.
This is also how they tell if a bone was from a meal eaten by humans or animals. Knife marks in the bone are quite distinct from teeth marks. Many archeologists actually use something very much like a jeweler’s loupe for close examination of objects.
And, on occasion, they make determinations based on context. WHERE was the object found?
In fact archeologists can tell if a culture made stone tools from the rock chips left behind even if they can’t find an actual arrowhead, spearhead or axe. The chips themselves are distinct from "naturally occuring" rock fragments. Plus I believe they are almost always made from a relatively few number of materials, most commonly chert, flint or obsidian. And they are frequently found in places such rocks don’t appear "naturally".
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Full Moon News
Don’t know if they will answer queries, but why not ask a the Gears. Both well known archaeologists as well as authors.
Kathleen O’Neal and W Michael Gear
Unfortunately, whatever ‘checklist’ an archeologist has is a mental one. It’s limited by the specific area of interest to that specific archeologist.
It’s not unheard of–also unfortunately–for an archeologist to plow through stuff that doesn’t interest him personally, to get to the ‘good’ stuff that is of interest. For some, pot sherds are just junk, an encumbrance that needs to be swept out of the way. To somebody who studies pots, though, they are the meat and potatoes, the whole point of the excavation.
Some archeologists, for example, have been known to simply toss away Islamic artifacts when they’re trying to get to Byzantine or Greek or Roman stuff underneath.
This leads, parenthetically, to arguments about excavations of multi-leveled sites. Whose priority becomes the priority. Schleimann’s rape of Troy stands as the prime example. He figured the ‘real’ Troy would be the bottom-most one. He overshot by three ages of Troy, doing irreparable harm along the way.
As CC notes above, you learn to recognize what you’re looking for. After seeing examples (or at least pictures), holding them in your hands and turning them over and around, you have a mental image through which you filter what you’re observing. If it doesn’t pass through the filter, it tends to be ignored–just like for ordinary people!
Archeologists can become extremely specialized. I sponsored archeologists in the Middle East who worked on things like the marks left on teeth by different grains in the diet and on the sludge left in the bottom of pots or other containers. These both needed to use equipment in the lab to complete their work
Mistakes can be and are made. Seeing something from the wrong angle can make it invisible if you don’t recognize the piece from that angle.
John_B’s last blog post..Caught in the Middle
For the scrap of leather, I think a lot of it comes from comparing ambiguous scraps to things you learned from better-preserved samples. She’s seen several things that are actually Roman sandals and recognizes key features (shape of the leather, what kind of seams are used to join pieces into a curved shape, holes punched in certain places for rivets or ties to assemble the sandal, etc).
Why not ingratiate yourself to an actual archaeologist? Here is a link to the staff of the Department of Anthropology at U of M. Why not call someone up that knows what they’re talking about and make an appointment? Tell them it’s research for a book and have a list of questions ready to go.
Their answers will be even more satisfying and may well lead you down avenues of inquiry you hadn’t considered.
When possible ask the expert, not people what they think the expert would do.
Ask experts? Like doing research? What the heck do you think we are, authors or some such?
Asking experts won’t work because reality is unrealistic.
Sorry, John. I forgot.
Offer to acknowledge the expert in your book. That helps get them to do most of the research and spend a little more time with you. That works no matter the expert, so long as the book is somewhere in their field and wouldn’t otherwise embarrass them.
John_B’s last blog post..Caught in the Middle
I’ve given your question some very careful thought.
In olden times when I grew up viewing the cartoons in the Saturday Evening Post — you know the ones where the missionaries were always being boiled in a big pot by some natives somewhere in Africa —
Okay forget that part.
If you could have the scientist in your book put a few bones in his nose or ears — I’m sure the scientist will intuitively know whether he’s looking at arrowheads or triangular rocks.
I hope this helps.
Dr. Livingston
Book 2????
um, more details please. NOW!
(and I second Kevin. Call up teh archeo faculty at UM)
Aziz-
Yeah, Book 2. In all seriousness it should have all been Book 1, but then that would have been more than 300,000 words- a bit pretentious for a first novel.
So, just a hint: think Battle of Tours
Well…. in addition to my aforementioned spider collection, I also have a pretty decent arrow head collection too.  And I’ve participated in a couple "professional†Indian artifact digs.Â
 Hey, I’m a well rounded nerd…
 I just got back from the office Christmas party, so I’m not completely cogent now.  But I can help you dudes out with some more background info tomorrow if you’re interested.
Aziz: Well as you have probably guessed we worked our asses off on Book 1. We always–and I do mean ALWAYS–thought there would be a book 2. Creatively, we suddenly and despairingly ran out of steam at the end of Book 1. Not because we ran out of ideas (we have a TON in the can) but because we could not agree on where we were going with it.
I think Jaymaster put his finger on it when he complained that we had a great idea but we didn’t finish it in Book 1. He’s not the only one who said so. More than one person has said it to me.
I have to acknowledge all such complaints with some psychic pain: "yeah I know."
I thought I knew where we were going. John did too. Then we suddenly had a big fight and we no longer agreed where we were going.
Now, a few years later, I think we’re both on the cusp of agreeing where we’re going. But we need some help.
In my mind, you cannot construct a story worth reading if you do not have a beginning, a middle, and an end. And, as a storyteller, you MUST have "the end" in mind almost before you begin, otherwise all you’re doing is creatively masturbating.
Well, it’s how >I< work anyway. How can you do foreshadowing, how can you make a point early in the plot structure, if you don’t know what you’re finally pointing to in the end? Otherwise all you’re doing is telling vignette after vignette after vignette, with no end in sight like your typical Soap Opera.
In my mind, Zsallia’s story is nothing but one long plaintive whine unless we build to something. And that SOMETHING has to be an ANSWER as to why she’s such a mess, WHY her personal situation is both a tragedy and a strength.
It’s what John and I have been fighting over for the last few years. I thought we had an ending in mind, and then I was wrong. So now we have to fix it.
WHY is she this way? WHY?
Oh, and, "a werewolf bit me" is no answer.
And, as a storyteller, you MUST have "the end" in mind almost before you begin, otherwise all you’re doing is creatively masturbating.
Why is creatively masturbating bad? I think Jordan (and now Martin) have proven that it can be very profitable.
I have no idea who Jordan or Martini are.
What I generally find is that among authors who’ve never really finished a project–which there are endless numbers of–it’s almost invariably because they’ve created a cast of characters they like, or an interesting story opening that’s exciting, maybe even some vignettes they like–but they have no idea where they’re going so they eventually peter out and stop.
More to the point, I’ve certainly found that I cannot finish a bloody thing if I don’t have a planned trajectory. If I don’t have that, my brain locks up and I can’t keep going.
I think "Jordan" is the late Robert Jordan of The Wheel of Time series. Don’t know who Martin is.
As for, "must have an end in mind," that’s total rubbish. Sure, some writers may need one or they go bonkers but to say those that don’t need one to write are "creatively masturbating," that’s just absurd.
You can’t write without seeing an end point. That’s your issue. Don’t rag on people that don’t suffer from that hangup. It’s petty.
Kevin-
Just about every study I’ve done of writing firmly recommends you have the end in mind when you start- it’s a target to aim for and nothing more. some stories end far from where you expected them to, but if you start a project with no end in sight you are either writing poetry or Sci-Fi Channel screenplays (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Really, though, there are exceptions to the rule. There ALWAYS are exceptions when we’re talking about human creativity, but Dean’s assertion is certainly not ‘rubbish’. I know everything I’ve ever written that I finished, I had the ending in mind when I started. Everything I’ve never finished, all I had were characters and scenes I liked. Methuselah’s Daughter would never have gotten as far as it did had there not been an ending in site, even one I hated with such passionate fury.
An exception I’m familiar with is Stephen King, who claims he never knows where he’s going to end. And, obviously, he’s been successful. But you know, there are people who are successful steering their cars with their feet, too (seriously, people with missing arms and such), but that doesn’t mean it’s usually a good idea. ;-)
Honestly, how many projects did YOU start that you never finished? I did a ton. I finally realized that it was pretty much exactly as John said: oh, I have some characters, a setting, some rough ideas, but I really don’t know where I’m going with this. And so I just peter out and lose interest in the project, or wind up with something halfway sorta finished that I’m just frustrated with.
Most that I’ve read of successful writing points to the fact that most successful creators DO know where they’re going. That makes foreshadowing easier, it makes non-linear storytelling easier, and it even makes making changes easier. At first it seems restricting but really I think even John agrees with me at this point that it’s not restrictive at all, it’s a discipline that actually frees you to create effectively.
As the saying goes in the military, no battle plan ever survived contact with the enemy, but nevertheless, planning is absolutely essential. Same concept applies here.
Your mileage may vary and all that, but, I’m not the only one who’s said it. ;-)
OTOH, I usually fail in my projects (art, writing, construction, automotive, etc.) because I can see the end clearly and am unable to put the right skills together to bridge the gap between the parctical aspects of beginning the project and the clear, unambigous vision of how it is supposed to end-up. I always thought this was pretty common.
Comments on this entry are closed.