Posted: Jul 25, 2010 2:44 pm
by Shrunk
Largenton wrote:Actually, as an archaeologist I would look for a bulb of percussion present when people work stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_applied_force

In general it is the key identification feature for a worked tool. However, the picture isn't good enough (and my area of expertise is also not in lithics) for me to deduce which one. Calli could you pm me to tell me btw, I've forgotten since last time.


And, of course, as I said above, that wouldn't demonstrate that ID is a valid idea. Using your archaeological method to identify the "designed" stone would require already knowing the process by which such artifacts are produced and looking for evidence of that process. That is not what ID assertionist claim they are able to do: Detect design without any knowledge of the process by which the "designer" works. As we all know, ID assertionists don't even make the slightest attempt to hypothesize a mechanism by which their "designer" operates.

So, willhud9, you're actually going to try answer this question?

:popcorn: