stoneage technology

[pudmuddle]

Are we really so far advance beyond our ancestors?

Just a couple articles to start, more later:

Using replicated tools, some modern knappers have conducted very dramatic experiments. At Front Royal, Virginia, the Smithsonian Institution's resident knapper, anthropologist Dennis Stanford, once organized the butchering, with hand-knapped knives, of a four-thousand-pound elephant. Although modern knappers do, from time to time, kill game with flint-tipped weapons, there was no need in the case of the Smithsonian's elephant; it had died of natural causes.

Knapping can be a bloody business when the splinters fly, but the wounds heal more quickly and cleanly than knife cuts. Electron microscopes reveal to us that a traditionally knapped obsidian blade is many times sharper then the sharpest platinum blade we can forge. An obsidian or flint blade cutting through flesh severs the cells more finely than steel, so the incision heals more quickly and leaves hardly any scar. There's a place for knapped blades in surgery.

When Crabtree himself had to have part of a lung removed, he introduced his surgeon to the knapper Flenniken. Following the surgeon's specifications, Flenniken knapped a set of obsidian blades. The incision they made, Crabtree later insisted, healed quickly and cleanly--and to prove it, he would lift his shirt to show that the scar on his chest was indeed barely visibly.

Since then, Flenniken has knapped hundreds of blades for surgical use. A colleague needing open-heart surgery decided to demonstrate the superiority of obsidian blades, so he asked his surgeon to make half the incision with an ordinary scalpel and half with an obsidian blade knapped by Flenniken. Not only did that part of the incision made with the obsidian blade heal more quickly, but while the scalpel left an ugly visible scar, the obsidian blade left only a faint pink line.



http://www.worldandi.com/public/1991/february/cl4.cfm

[

 

[pudmuddle]

http://www.onagocag.com/weight.html

http://www.onagocag.com/mass.html

Primitive? weopons-were they really primitive?



"Point mass and it's consistancy certainly play an integral role in the mechanics of an atlatl and dart system. But no more so than dart length, dart flexibility, and atlatal weight mass, not tomention the materials that go into the construction of the system. A complete understanding of this impressively complex weapon must be achieved before any single component can be properly analized. So long as it is thought of and referred to a "spear thrower" that will never happen."

 

[armed2010]

Nuclear weapons anyone?

 

[pudmuddle]

Nuclear weapons anyone?

You do know this is the Christians only forum, right?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Speaking of obsidian blades...

Did you know that we can date when a blade was made?

Because obsidian starts to oxidize as a known rate once exposed all you have to do is measure the oxidated layer, which is easy because it changes color slightly from the un-oxidized portions.

http://www.ornl.gov/reporter/no7/clock.htm

Some of the oldest blades found are well over 150,000 years old. So much for people only being around 6,000 years.

 

[pudmuddle]

Speaking of obsidian blades...

Did you know that we can date when a blade was made?

Because obsidian starts to oxidize as a known rate once exposed all you have to do is measure the oxidated layer, which is easy because it changes color slightly from the un-oxidized portions.

http://www.ornl.gov/reporter/no7/clock.htm

Some of the oldest blades found are well over 150,000 years old. So much for people only being around 6,000 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye991117.html

I read a similar article, but this part seems like circular reasoning:
.

"Hydration rims formed on obsidian artifacts can vary in width from less than one micron for those from early history, to nearly 30 microns for prehistoric sites in Africa. Those widths may soon be translated into years. (Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory)

It sounds relatively straightforward, but it’s not all that simple.
The rate of hydration depends on a number of things, including temperature and available moisture. So a chunk of handmade obsidian found in arid Ethiopia that could be 180,000 years old, would have absorbed water at a very different rate than a similar tool found in Northern California or Wisconsin or Oregon.
So scientists need to know the climate history of the area. Obsidian may hold the clues to that mystery as well.
It turns out that hydrogen and deuterium, a hydrogen isotope, are absorbed by obsidian at different rates during hydration. Those rates depend primarily upon temperature. By plotting the absorption rates of the two, the scientists believe they can read the ancient climate patterns where the artifact was found"

They need to know climate history to date the obsidian, and yet they say that the obsidian can tell them the climate history.

 

[lucaspa]

Pudmuddle, you have to start putting quotation marks around what you are quoting. The way you wrote the post it looks like you are the author of the article. Are you David Lampe? You don't list that as your name in your profile.

"Since then, Flenniken has knapped hundreds of blades for surgical use. A colleague needing open-heart surgery decided to demonstrate the superiority of obsidian blades, so he asked his surgeon to make half the incision with an ordinary scalpel and half with an obsidian blade knapped by Flenniken. Not only did that part of the incision made with the obsidian blade heal more quickly, but while the scalpel left an ugly visible scar, the obsidian blade left only a faint pink line."

No one can confirm this. For instance, I posted the only two articles in the National Library of Medicine database. Here's the only comparative study:

Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993 Oct;92(5):884-7. Related Articles, Links

[size=+1]A comparison of obsidian and surgical steel scalpel wound healing in rats.[/size]

Disa JJ, Vossoughi J, Goldberg NH.

Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.

There are several anecdotal clinical articles claiming wound healing and scar superiority using obsidian (volcanic glass) scalpels. In order to determine if skin incisions made with obsidian were superior to those made with standard surgical steel, wound tensile strength, scar width, and histology were assessed in 40 adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. Each rat received two parallel 8-cm dorsal skin incisions, one with an obsidian scalpel and the other with a surgical steel scalpel (no. 15 blade). Data were analyzed by ANOVA. Tensile strength of the two wound types was not different at 7, 14, 21, and 42 days. Scar width, however, was significantly less in the obsidian wounds at 7, 10, and 14 days (p < 0.005). At 21 days, scar width was not different in the two groups. At 42 days, all wounds were barely detectable, thus precluding scar width analysis. A blinded histologic review suggested that obsidian wounds contained fewer inflammatory cells and less granulation tissue at 7 days.

So, no superiority in regard to scars. That blows the claim of superiority away. That "suggested" in the last sentence doesn't count because it obviously wasn't statistically significantly different -- meaning not different.

Now, if you are claiming that the equation technology = intelligence is false, then I would agree. However, the way to prove that is not to have primitive technology be "better" than modern technology. That is a dumb idea. Obviously, if the flint tools were superior in all respects, people would still bge using them. The metal blades and tools do have advantages that the stone ones do not. Holding an edge is probably one.

So, what exactly is your point? That humans 30,000 years ago were just as intelligent as we are? No argument. That the tools worked for the tasks they were designed to do? No argument.

How do you think this relates to Creation Science and Theistic Evolution?

 

[lucaspa]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye991117.html

I read a similar article, but this part seems like circular reasoning:
.

"Hydration rims formed on obsidian artifacts can vary in width from less than one micron for those from early history, to nearly 30 microns for prehistoric sites in Africa. Those widths may soon be translated into years. (Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory)

It sounds relatively straightforward, but it’s not all that simple.
The rate of hydration depends on a number of things, including temperature and available moisture. So a chunk of handmade obsidian found in arid Ethiopia that could be 180,000 years old, would have absorbed water at a very different rate than a similar tool found in Northern California or Wisconsin or Oregon.
So scientists need to know the climate history of the area. Obsidian may hold the clues to that mystery as well.
It turns out that hydrogen and deuterium, a hydrogen isotope, are absorbed by obsidian at different rates during hydration. Those rates depend primarily upon temperature. By plotting the absorption rates of the two, the scientists believe they can read the ancient climate patterns where the artifact was found"

They need to know climate history to date the obsidian, and yet they say that the obsidian can tell them the climate history.

Not quite. The thickness of the hydration rims is dependent on humidity in the climate. So, calculating time depends on knowing the climate.

But a different parameter: rate of deuterium absorption depends on climate. So, you measure the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in the hydration layer to get the climate, then you measure the thickness of the layer to get the age.

Got that? No circle. Two different parameters to measure. Yes, age is dependent on climate, but ration of deuterium:hydrogen is only depedent on climate, not on age.

 

[pudmuddle]

Pudmuddle, you have to start putting quotation marks around what you are quoting. The way you wrote the post it looks like you are the author of the article. Are you David Lampe? You don't list that as your name in your profile.

The link is listed above the article. All my other quotes have quotations marks, and no, I'm not David Lampe, whoever he may be.

"Since then, Flenniken has knapped hundreds of blades for surgical use. A colleague needing open-heart surgery decided to demonstrate the superiority of obsidian blades, so he asked his surgeon to make half the incision with an ordinary scalpel and half with an obsidian blade knapped by Flenniken. Not only did that part of the incision made with the obsidian blade heal more quickly, but while the scalpel left an ugly visible scar, the obsidian blade left only a faint pink line."

No one can confirm this. For instance, I posted the only two articles in the National Library of Medicine database. Here's the only comparative study:

No one? I would think they people who were operated on could confirm it. But I will find more info.

Typical. 40 lab rats?

"Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993 Oct;92(5):884-7. Related Articles, Links

[size=+1]A comparison of obsidian and surgical steel scalpel wound healing in rats.[/size]

Disa JJ, Vossoughi J, Goldberg NH.

Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.

There are several anecdotal clinical articles claiming wound healing and scar superiority using obsidian (volcanic glass) scalpels. In order to determine if skin incisions made with obsidian were superior to those made with standard surgical steel, wound tensile strength, scar width, and histology were assessed in 40 adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. Each rat received two parallel 8-cm dorsal skin incisions, one with an obsidian scalpel and the other with a surgical steel scalpel (no. 15 blade). Data were analyzed by ANOVA. Tensile strength of the two wound types was not different at 7, 14, 21, and 42 days. Scar width, however, was significantly less in the obsidian wounds at 7, 10, and 14 days (p < 0.005). At 21 days, scar width was not different in the two groups. At 42 days, all wounds were barely detectable, thus precluding scar width analysis. A blinded histologic review suggested that obsidian wounds contained fewer inflammatory cells and less granulation tissue at 7 days.So, no superiority in regard to scars. That blows the claim of superiority away. That "suggested" in the last sentence doesn't count because it obviously wasn't statistically significantly different -- meaning not different.

Now, if you are claiming that the equation technology = intelligence is false, then I would agree. However, the way to prove that is not to have primitive technology be "better" than modern technology. That is a dumb idea. Obviously, if the flint tools were superior in all respects, people would still bge using them. The metal blades and tools do have advantages that the stone ones do not. Holding an edge is probably one.

So, what exactly is your point? That humans 30,000 years ago were just as intelligent as we are? No argument. That the tools worked for the tasks they were designed to do? No argument.

How do you think this relates to Creation Science and Theistic Evolution?

But, according to scientists dating methods, this technology goes back way farther than 30,000 years. As far as flint tools being superior, it's probably a toss-up, but the skill in making them can not be compared. We are not using them, because we now go with the easiest and cheapest way to manufacture everything.
Talked to an excellent flintknapper last week. He too mentioned that obsidian scapels were being used in New York hospitals. BTW, certain kinds of primitive leathers were far superior to what we use now. I'll get into that when I have time.

 

[lucaspa]

Typical. 40 lab rats?

That's the standard model to study wound healing. 10 wounds per time point. Enough to do reliable statistical analysis. What's the problem? You question the data? At least it's published instead of the anecdotal "hundreds of people". Why don't we have a clinical retrospective study of all those hundreds of people?

But, according to scientists dating methods, this technology goes back way farther than 30,000 years.

Yeah, but Cuozzo's use of "human" doesn't. I was trying to stay within your context. So how far do you think it has gone back? The first primitive stone tools are associated with H. habilis and over 2 Mya. That puts intelligence back 2 species from H. sapiens. Kind of destroys the Creation Science argument, doesn't it?

As far as flint tools being superior, it's probably a toss-up, but the skill in making them can not be compared.

Don't flint tools fracture easier than metal tools? Can you sharpen a flint or obsidian knife or do you have to make a whole new one? Which takes more time: sharpening or making?

You see, "superiority" involves a lot of parameters, not simply sharpness.

As to skill, it takes just as much skill, at least, in making a good steel knife as it does an obsidian one, doesn't it?

Talked to an excellent flintknapper last week. He too mentioned that obsidian scapels were being used in New York hospitals.

I work in a New York hospital and have colleagues in several more. No one knows of any use of obsidian scalpels. Can your source be more specific?

BTW, certain kinds of primitive leathers were far superior to what we use now. I'll get into that when I have time.

Leathers, maybe. But then you get into the whole thing about woven fabrics.

You didn't answer my questions: what is your point? What does this have to do with Creation Science and Theistic Evolution?