Questionable Headlines

[Gravdigr]

Yeah that's----wait.

Whut?


ETA: Nevermind. Chevy-Ford, I get it, now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Someone send me a link to the latest issue of Lone Star Outdoor News, telling me to check out the arrowhead story. I found the site a pain in the ass to navigate and screen shotted the story.
I'm having a hard time believing, but an ex-cop, from Texas, on the internet... must be true.

[DanaC]

It's totally cool that it was in a skull. But seriously, 100 year old arrow head is museum worthy?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sure, it's lost technology from a group/lifestyle vanquished vanished. Archie Bunker's chair is museum worthy.

[DanaC]

I suppose.

I just got really excited reading the story, thinking it was going to be thousands of years old or something and was a little disappointed with the reveal :p

[Undertoad]

Well yeah this is 'Murica. 'Murican history only goes back so far. Texas only goes to like 1835. For the white man.

[DanaC]

Ha!

No, but bruce made a fair point. We have recent stuff in museums too. Just - arrows seems like an old technology. For an arrowhead to be remarkable (beyond being inside a fucking skull!) I'd have thought it would need to be very old.

Y'know, there a place about a half hour drive (I think) from here that used to be a neolithic flint production site. Thousands upon thousands of shavings, and chips and discards.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We have locations here where the natives found the particular type of stone they preferred for knapping arrowheads and spear points. Tribes would camp there while the artisans knapped the tribes needs. No sense it carrying the whole stone when you only need a little of it, and hunter/gatherer tribes could easily camp about anywhere, for awhile. Over thousands of years these locations accumulated not only considerable knapping debris, but a lot of artifacts discarded or lost by succeeding cultures using the site, which made archeologists say, heap good spot find stuff.

[DanaC]

Those places fascinate me. The idea that stuff that was handled by humans thousands of years ago, are just lying about loose on the ground.

which made archeologists say, heap good spot find stuff

hahahaha.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Ha!

No, but bruce made a fair point. We have recent stuff in museums too. Just - arrows seems like an old technology. For an arrowhead to be remarkable (beyond being inside a fucking skull!) I'd have thought it would need to be very old.

Y'know, there a place about a half hour drive (I think) from here that used to be a neolithic flint production site. Thousands upon thousands of shavings, and chips and discards.

Vacuum the dog fur off the couch, I'm on my way!

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But seriously, 100 year old arrow head is museum worthy?

No.

But - a 130-400 year old (or older, remember it's the the skull that is 130-400 years old) arrowhead still lodged in the skull of the animal it killed is museum-worthy. IMHO, anyway.

[glatt]

I've seen regular old acorns in a museum as a demonstration of what native americans would grind up to make a sort of flour they could use to cook shitty tasting cakes. Museums can have pretty low standards. Depends on the museum.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It depends on what they are trying to teach. Museums shouldn't be about bragging rights for the oldest, largest, most of or best example. A lot, maybe most, museums limit what they collect to a category. It might be a time period, or geographic region, or really narrowed down like Indians of Eastern MA, or cowboys post civil war. There's no reason for them to exist unless they teach you. Grinding acorns was an important part of that culture, so acorns it shall be.

[glatt]

I agree. But if you just look at an acorn by itself, it's not museum worthy. You need that context to make it worthy.

[Sundae]

And wine to wash down the shitty cakes