- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How big can an arrowhead be? Asking because these are pretty big.
Posted on 5/25/25 at 10:18 am to deeprig9
Posted on 5/25/25 at 10:18 am to deeprig9
quote:
In my anthropology classes at UGA (I minored in it), they were saying 10-12,000 years. I called bullshite. Now they are saying maybe 20+ thousand years. I think it's closer to 100,000 than 10,000.
There is more evidence of a pre Clovis period popping up all the time. They claimed to have found some really old stuff at the Topper site on the SC side of the Savannah River below Augusta. It’s disputed, but they claim to have found artifacts from 50,000 years ago.
ETA my dad used to look for arrowheads on clear cuts in GA. He has a whole box of them. Mom found the oldest one though…a legit Clovis point. Dad is still pissed to this day.
This post was edited on 5/25/25 at 10:24 am
Posted on 5/25/25 at 10:20 am to WarCamEagle88
quote:
But there’s no evidence to support that date!” they say. Yeah, no shite. Do you know how far down in the dirt that kind of evidence would be? Archeologists don’t even think to dig that far down because they don’t think there is a reason to
That’s what I was referring to above. The Clovis first archaeologists fight anything older tooth and nail. And to your point, if you don’t look for it you won’t find it.
Posted on 5/25/25 at 3:29 pm to bbvdd
I’ve seen some online that were a spear that were 5 to 8” or so.
Posted on 5/25/25 at 4:17 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
The Clovis first archaeologists fight anything older tooth and nail.
This is what has soured me on the "scientific community" in general. I've always been a skeptical personality since childhood, I'm naturally that way. And I'm proud of it, the world absolutely needs skeptics and assholes and naysayers to provide balance to the Force.
But if someone is an objective scientist, new information discovered by newer younger scientists shouldn't be met with the kind of hostility that I've seen in anthropology, and I'm sure in many other fields of science.
It might even be because they feel like they've climbed the mountain, achieved everything they ever wanted to achieve, then find out that mountain goes much higher than what they've climbed, and can't accept it. All the papers I read were wrong? All the papers I wrote were wrong?
Ego?
Posted on 5/25/25 at 6:58 pm to deeprig9
Thanks for all the info on these.
I was excited to find these to say the least. I was shocked to find arrow heads a couple of years ago in the same place. Not something I ever expected to find in this area. It absolutely fascinates me.
I was excited to find these to say the least. I was shocked to find arrow heads a couple of years ago in the same place. Not something I ever expected to find in this area. It absolutely fascinates me.
Posted on 5/25/25 at 8:29 pm to deeprig9
quote:
All the papers I read were wrong? All the papers I wrote were wrong? Ego?
Ego, money, tenure, stubbornness, the human flaw of not believing what you don’t want to be true. The usual suspects.
Posted on 5/26/25 at 9:14 am to bbvdd
One of the guys that works for me is a bonafide flint knapper and makes them the old fashioned way.
He's made some beautiful stuff.
He's made some beautiful stuff.
Popular
Back to top
