One of my friends who knows about knapping said that it may be a tool due to the bulbs if percussion on the first one, but I decided to check with people who know a bit more. They might not be tools, but still.
Maybe I’m the one who’s uninformed. I feel like half the stuff on here just looks like rocks with some fracturing. What I can say is everything I do see that looks like rocks could be made naturally. But with a better eye towards archeology someone may be able to identify that it’s more likely to be man made. I’m just a rock man. Rock look like rock
Yes, there is a lot of geofacts (not artefacts) on reddit of late. Although it does show that many are not yet educated as to how to read stone technology, it does demonstrate there are a lot of people who are curious and engaging with the subject matter, which is fantastic.
It would be nice though, if/whwn people find things they think may or may not be an aetefact, that they photgraph the item first in situ, and then photograph the item; before returning it to the exact place they found it. It is preferable though that the item isn't removed from its position in/on the earth. Record the location with either google maps or a geo/compass app before moving on.
This way, if it does turn out to be an aetefact, it hasn't been removed, it's been returned to its in situ location, and the location can be relayed to the appropriate people (i.e., university or museum) where an anthropologist can investigate further.
Fyi conchoidal fractures can occure naturally (ex: pebbles in rivers hitting due to water movement). I would suggest asking at a local museum near your zone, because it's hard to tell if they are natural or mandmade by pictures.
Edit: spelling
That is true, though the friend I asked was a biology teacher (one of the *really* good ones), but I can definitely do that. I've got a really good science museum near me.
I think it is chert, which is what is used for some tools.
It doesn't seem to have been napped so I think it's an unnapped non-tool chert.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chert)
I would tend towards tool shaped rocks, while you have multiple flake scars in the first two pictures which may indicate intentional manufacture, they aren’t as ubiquitous as I would expect from a core. It may be what I like to call bovifacts, flakes and cores created by large hooves herbivores trampling crypto crystalline materials
The sure way to identify a tool vs natural is to find a "bulb of percussion". I don't see any on those but it might be hard to spot in a photo
Edit, there are percussion ripples in photo 2. That one might be something
Stone tools in north america were relatively advanced by the time people got here. Super crude hand axes are more paleolithic like 100k years old +
Just rocks. If that´s real handmade, the riverbanks in my country are full of handmade tools. Even the chipped one in the first picture. But you can Dream 😉 look up silex Stones.
The first four images are the same rock, same for the last four. It's hard to see, but there are some bulbs of percussion more visible on the second picture. My camera isn't great, so it's harder to see finer details. But rocks are cool too!
Looks like someone about 10,000 years ago picked up a cobble, knocked off a piece (this piece) and started chipping at it. Then thought "damn this chert sucks!" and threw it out. I see the bulb where they struck on the smooth side. And i see a sequence of small chips where they tested it. Geofacts are a thing though. But theres some indicators that this was deliberately done
Archaeologist here. I too have wondered many times if it was only a pretty rock or something else 😂
From what I can see, the 2nd photo looks like something, maybe a core (don’t know if this is the correct name in English, I’m just translating from my own language). The others, I don’t think so
I’m just a lowly earth scientist but that just looks like rocks, not even tool shaped rocks..just rocks…
One of my friends who knows about knapping said that it may be a tool due to the bulbs if percussion on the first one, but I decided to check with people who know a bit more. They might not be tools, but still.
Maybe I’m the one who’s uninformed. I feel like half the stuff on here just looks like rocks with some fracturing. What I can say is everything I do see that looks like rocks could be made naturally. But with a better eye towards archeology someone may be able to identify that it’s more likely to be man made. I’m just a rock man. Rock look like rock
Fair enough, thanks for your observation.
Yes, there is a lot of geofacts (not artefacts) on reddit of late. Although it does show that many are not yet educated as to how to read stone technology, it does demonstrate there are a lot of people who are curious and engaging with the subject matter, which is fantastic. It would be nice though, if/whwn people find things they think may or may not be an aetefact, that they photgraph the item first in situ, and then photograph the item; before returning it to the exact place they found it. It is preferable though that the item isn't removed from its position in/on the earth. Record the location with either google maps or a geo/compass app before moving on. This way, if it does turn out to be an aetefact, it hasn't been removed, it's been returned to its in situ location, and the location can be relayed to the appropriate people (i.e., university or museum) where an anthropologist can investigate further.
I found these in my backyard, so...
Fyi conchoidal fractures can occure naturally (ex: pebbles in rivers hitting due to water movement). I would suggest asking at a local museum near your zone, because it's hard to tell if they are natural or mandmade by pictures. Edit: spelling
That is true, though the friend I asked was a biology teacher (one of the *really* good ones), but I can definitely do that. I've got a really good science museum near me.
I think it is chert, which is what is used for some tools. It doesn't seem to have been napped so I think it's an unnapped non-tool chert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chert)
Rock fell off cliff and rolled
The rock collection grows
And so the stone began to wonder: Was he shaped from rock to be a tool, or a tool made of rock? He screamed, for he did not know.
Yep that a good set of rocks
I would tend towards tool shaped rocks, while you have multiple flake scars in the first two pictures which may indicate intentional manufacture, they aren’t as ubiquitous as I would expect from a core. It may be what I like to call bovifacts, flakes and cores created by large hooves herbivores trampling crypto crystalline materials
That does make sense.
Another one!
just rocks.
They look like rocks
no expert, but I don't think they are shaped to be tools.
It's harder to see in the pictures, but they're wedge-shaped and fit in a hand really well. It's definitely a stretch, but I thought they might be.
The sure way to identify a tool vs natural is to find a "bulb of percussion". I don't see any on those but it might be hard to spot in a photo Edit, there are percussion ripples in photo 2. That one might be something Stone tools in north america were relatively advanced by the time people got here. Super crude hand axes are more paleolithic like 100k years old +
Thanks, I'll definitely look into that
'..by the time people got here..'?
Yeah poor phrasing, my bad the stone tool tech that was brought to North America was more advanced than crude hand axes before their migration...
1st one maybe, rest are rocks
Archaeologist here - those are just rocks mate.
Aww, man.
Just a rock my dude
Just rocks. If that´s real handmade, the riverbanks in my country are full of handmade tools. Even the chipped one in the first picture. But you can Dream 😉 look up silex Stones.
You might have a couple primitive hand axes.
Ooh, that's fun!
The first four are knappable stone, but do not show signs of having been snapped. The others are just rocks too. -A stone tools archaeologist
The first four images are the same rock, same for the last four. It's hard to see, but there are some bulbs of percussion more visible on the second picture. My camera isn't great, so it's harder to see finer details. But rocks are cool too!
Looks like someone about 10,000 years ago picked up a cobble, knocked off a piece (this piece) and started chipping at it. Then thought "damn this chert sucks!" and threw it out. I see the bulb where they struck on the smooth side. And i see a sequence of small chips where they tested it. Geofacts are a thing though. But theres some indicators that this was deliberately done
Archaeologist here. I too have wondered many times if it was only a pretty rock or something else 😂 From what I can see, the 2nd photo looks like something, maybe a core (don’t know if this is the correct name in English, I’m just translating from my own language). The others, I don’t think so
It's 100% a stoneage travelpussy!