Get-the-point said:Nice nutting stone!!! The difference between the two is the clear evidence of impact chips off the nutting stone verse the paint pot which has none. That is the difference between the two...........Nice find...........................GTP
SRV said:Get-the-point said:Nice nutting stone!!! The difference between the two is the clear evidence of impact chips off the nutting stone verse the paint pot which has none. That is the difference between the two...........Nice find...........................GTP
The difference in the two is that one show obvious work on the corners and the indentions, while the other one shows no discernable work whatsoever. This one is no doubt a Pitted Stone. The other is more than likely a natural stone that may or may not have been used, but since it was found on the river and not a site it's hard to say whether or not it actually is anything at all.
SRV said:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I can see the obvious work on the two Pitted Stones on this post, but the one is this picture has no discernable peck marks on it anywhere and I still say natural.
Sorry, but I don't understand the root/stone scenario. Are you saying that a root wrapped around a stone would result in a grooved stone. It would seem that for that to occur, the stone would have to grow, and I don't think that happens.Get-the-point said:I agree with your analysis on certain natural aspects. Due only to the fact that I have seen quite a few natural formations like a root around a stone would make that stone look 4/4 grooved but in essence it is not.