Bannerstone Discussion

[caveman2533]

All just theory, not documented proof.

[JackCrafty]

I looked for the papers for about an hour.  To get the actual hard copies, it looks like I would have to spend some money for Pepper's comments and his other writings, for example.

Usually it takes me about 20 hours to locate a free source of information for topics as obscure as these.  That's 20 hours for EACH author, if they are still in print and/or if I can locate someone who will give them to me.  I did this type of thing with Texas Clovis finds and data concerning actual weights and dimensions for Texas arrow points  (bird points) and associated debitage.  It was a bottomless pit of goose-chasing fun.  I did learn something, though.  With enough determination, tenacity, and money, you can create quite a splat on a brick wall.... 

I'll continue searching.  I may not find documented proof from these particular authors but there is documentation for the early interpretations of the finds from the various mounds.  It's hard for archies to keep silent about their opinions.   

[JackCrafty]

Ok, I found a google book on the subject.  Published in 1916.  I will post links to the books and to clips of some of the pages.

Link to book  (see pages 165 to 176):

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kb7OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA178-IA29&dq=banner-stone&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t1ipVLDgNsKjNoy0g6gE&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=banner-stone&f=false

Links to pages:

page 165

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kb7OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA178-IA13&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0PwwazFdKty3cUes0_TzQl6aistA&ci=67%2C136%2C838%2C1270&edge=0

partial clip page 171

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kb7OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA178-IA33&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0zU7qyYaGJO_IygM_yUdAI8h1cqA&ci=95%2C234%2C750%2C232&edge=0

[JackCrafty]

Now that I know the links work (at least for me) the book is called:

NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM
70th Annual Report
1916.

The author of the bannerstone section:  Arthur C. Parker, Archaeologist

The report describes various hypothetical uses for bannerstones including spindle whorls, pipe stands, helmet ornaments, and atlatl weights.

I'm not on my MAC so I can't cut and paste pictures of the pages.  If someone needs them I will try to take screen shots when I'm able.

[caveman2533]

My point is that there is no "proof" of anything, the "documents" you are giving me are putting forth ideas and theories, are no more or less valid than any other I have seen including what Larry K has put forth, most recently. It seems to me that nearly every idea can be made to sound sensible and proven. Sure it could be drill spindle, or a head dress, or a platform to hold up my pipe when I set it down, but none of these theories is proof because there are anomalies in the designs of known banner stones that preclude these theories from being all encompassed by one theory. A flat bottomed D shaped banner will not work very well as a spindle whorl, gonna wobble pretty badly. All I have seen is "proof" that there where probably many many uses for them.

[JackCrafty]

I'm not sure anyone could answer you, Steve.  To show you "proof" would require a time machine.  And even then, when you come back, you would not have any "proof" to show the rest of us.   

Honestly, I thought you wanted proof of the statements being made, not proof of the actual use.  The actual use of any artifact is difficult to prove, even when we have eye-witness accounts from explorers and settlers from back in the day.

[caveman2533]

Don stated there was "documented proof" of use a ceremonial objects, I guess to me that means there is something written down by the original users.  Drawings or written manuscript would be "documented proof", or actual intact artifacts. Anything written about what we think it was is not documented proof, just documented theory. We may never know for sure.

[JackCrafty]

OK, gotcha.

[Zuma]

Good to see the desire for knowledge alive and well. The time and effort Patrick and others have put into
 this subject is staggering.
Steve, if you are refering to me about documented proof, I only wrote (Documented) (in original papers).
 I don't know if you read all the links on these bannerstone threads.
Some are really worth reading.
I am a stickler and always try to read between the lines. I wrote technical manuals for the military and
areo space support companies. Things have changed these days. Archaeology has become a free for all and no longer a discipline. If Webb did his job he would have just reported what he found and where.
The job of what the objects were should have been left in the lap of anthropologists. ( known speculators)
I think I'll do a little rant. lol 
How the heck do all these archaeologists ever expect to be taken serious
about Pre Clovis hype if there is not as yet solid information on such more recent artifacts
as georgets and bannerstones. Perhaps the old school has clues in reports that are  buried or only for sale.
 I have reached saturation in the research dept.
Not saying I won't try a different avenue now and then.
 Bannerstones are really not that rare in the areas where I hunted artifacts back in NJ
 and PA. But they would be very rare compared to atatls that must have been in use.
That is if every archaic atatl  hunter was equipped with one.
The one major thing that keeps me in the drilling aide mode is----
I don't think the average Joe (hunter) back then could drill a stone.
The task must have been cutting edge. More difficult than striking flutes in finished Clovis points.
Sure most banners are made of relatively soft stone but some are quartz and granite.
There was much attention given to aesthetic value also. (competitiveness)
Perhaps because of a competitive nature between the drill masters?
No matter how these objects were employed they originated in the hands of the Drill Master.
A guy/gal in that day and age that may have been buried with a bannerstone or other drilled object.
Sure just my speculation, no different than the rest of the field.
Zuma

[Zuma]

This is a good link. No dates unfortunatley. The Jackson Island workshop link
 is posted in the early pages of this thread.
Zuma
     
Get PDF (1511K) - Wiley Online Library

[JackCrafty]

Bump.   

And I was thinking...  What if bannerstones found with women and children (in burials) was a way for a man to identify his family?  Regardless of what the bannerstones were used for, assuming it was a "man" thing, burying your loved ones with something that is obviously personal to you, and identifies you as an individual, makes more sense to me than the idea that women and children actually used the bannerstones.  Just a thought.

[Buckeye Guy]

Isn't that kinda the meaning of ceremonial ?
At least it is a big part of what I think of when they say ceremonial
I have a lot of things that have a special meaning to me 
As I sit here thinking about it most of those things are from those that have gone before me and may well end up buried with me or my children
No real spiritual aspect just a part of what makes me me I guess

[JackCrafty]

Exactly.