Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:51:15.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Third Interglacial Artifacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

William B. Roosa  and
Stewart L. Peckham
William B. Roosa
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
Stewart L. Peckham
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following is a discussion of Carter's (1952) third interglacial artifacts. Carter's conclusion that he has found third interglacial artifacts is based on two hypotheses: 1. The objects found are artifacts; 2. The layer in which they were found dates from the third interglacial. These comments are limited to a brief discussion of the first hypothesis.

The pictures and descriptions furnish no concrete proof that the finds are artifacts, although the burden of proof must rest with him. We contend that these “artifacts” are well within the range of naturally chipped stone. This conclusion is based on Barnes’ (1939) discussion of natural and artificial flaking of flints which is based on his own work and that of the Abbe Breuil, S. H. Warren and others. Barnes and Breuil have shown that natural forces can produce flaked flints, many of which are far more convincing “artifacts” than those Carter reports.

Type
Facts and Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 280 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, Alfred S. 1939. The Differences between Natural and Human Flaking on Prehistoric Flint Implements. American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuil, Henri 1910. Sur la présence d’éolithes á la base de l’Êocéne Parisien. L’Anthropologic, Vol. 21, pp. 395–408.Google Scholar
Breuil, Henri 1934. De l’importance de la solifluxion dans l’etude des terrains quarternaires du Nord de la France et des pays voisins. Revue de Géographie Physique et de Géologic Dynamique, Vol. 7, Ft. 4, pp. 269–391 — as cited in Barnes (1939).Google Scholar
Carter, George F. 1952. Interglacial Artifacts from the San Diego Area. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 444–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar