Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
Citation: Peacock, E (1991) Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England. Journal of Field Archaeology (RSS)
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Distinguishing between artifacts and geofacts: a test case from Eastern England
Download: http://www.maneyonline.com./doi/abs/10.1179/009346991791548645
Tagged: Artifacts;Geofacts (RSS)
Summary
There has always been debates over the differences (or similarities) between geofacts – naturally occurring lithics which resemble man-made tools – and actual man-made lithic artifacts. This paper discusses a study done to determine the characteristics of artifacts vs geofacts that can be applied to a site in Kirmington eastern England containing possible artifacts. The age of Kirmington has been debated and is located in an interglacial site with deposits starting at 64 feet above current sea levels to top deposits 90 feet above current sea levels. The authenticity of Kirmington artifacts have been questioned so a test study was completed using samples of known artifacts and geofacts from other sites. A random sample of 50 artifacts from two known archaeological sites and a random sample of 50 geofacts from another site were used for the study. Peacock argues that there are general characteristics and local characteristics which can be used to determine an artifact from a geofact. A chi-square value was given to each characteristic to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis.
The general characteristics studied were: prominent bulb of percussion, ripple lines, radial lines (or fissures), bulbar scars, differential weathering of flake scars, faceted platform, cortex on platform, cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Peacock found the characteristics which can be attributed to authenticate artifacts are the prominent bulb of percussion, radial lines, bulbar scars, absence of cortex on dorsal surface, two or more flake scars on dorsal surface, dorsal flake scars parallel with medial axis, and negative dorsal bulb. Local characteristics are used to determine the differences between geofacts and artifacts at a site. Peacock took into account the raw materials at a site – whether it was exotic materials carried in by man from other sites of origin; if the possible artifacts show any signs of rolling – battered edges and water-worn and patinated surfaces; if the possible artifacts exhibit edge flaking – man-made patterned flaking vs random naturally occurring flaking; if the possible artifact flake surfaces are scratched – man-made flakes could be redeposited allowing for scratching making it hard to distinguish them from geofacts. Scores were assigned to general and local characteristics then combined to create a composite score for the Kirmington samples and Peacock found a large difference between the scores for geofacts and artifacts indicating that a high number of flakes found at the site were indeed artifacts.
Theoretical and Practical Relevance
This study established the criteria needed to distinguish the differences of man-made artifacts from naturally occurring geofacts. I found the results persuasive as the combined scores of the general and local characteristics created a composite score used for the Kirmington site where the researchers found that almost all of the flakes were artifacts. The sample sizes of the artifacts and geofacts were relatively small (50 each). Would a larger sample size indicate the same results?
