1.0 Introduction
Archaeologists’ relationship with the public is often strained or distant, but this dysfunction is even more apparent between archaeologists and non-academic flintknappers. Archaeologists are frequently guilty of stereotyping this group of people due to their connection to site plundering and destruction, stone resource depletion, and the buying and faking of artifacts. Archaeologists often think that if they associate with or support non-academic flintknappers that they are also supporting this behavior. This is however a flawed argument because many of these problems would still exist and would be likely to get worse if archaeologists totally cut off the public. The public and archaeologists will both reap many benefits from…show more content… Both replicas and fakes are made to resemble ancient artifacts, he difference between them is in the intent: replicas are made to teach and learn and fakes are made with the intention of deceiving someone (Whittaker and Stafford, 1999). It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between these three products though due how they all mix together. For instance, antiquing is a tool some flintknappers, such as George Eklund, use for artistic flare. George Eklund uses Old English and sometimes a rusty piece of iron to mark it up. Antiquing from the Old English “brings out the color patterns in the stone, makes the piece look old, and accentuates flake scars” (Whittaker 2004). Antiquing is often an esthetic choice that flintknappers even use on pieces that have no prehistoric artifact…show more content… In other words, these are not frivolous activities to entertain bored individuals; they have significant positive impacts worth measuring against the negative side effects, which will be discussed shortly. Non-academic flintknappers help archaeologists greatly. Experimental flintknapping has given archaeologists intensely valuable insight into the meaning of the lithic artifacts found at sites (Werner, 1997). By understanding how artifacts are produced, archaeologists can answer many questions about a site, in particular site formation. For instance, if there are a large number of long, slender flakes with thin edges we know through experimentation that they were likely produced while the individual was making a blade. What is interesting however is that the majority of archaeologists originally learned how to flintknap from modern flintknappers of the time, and they continue to learn from the techniques of today’s modern flintknappers (Whittaker 2004). Non-academic flintknappers further help archaeologists understand the archaeological record by aiding archaeologists in the discovery of new sites. However, if members of the public are afraid that archaeologists will take their land or collection from them, they will not report these valuable findings and so archaeologists will never benefit from said data. Also,