See examples of real artifacts, for now!

[TheTh3rd]

Not bad fora 20 min hunt. Found today after work. I'm in a strange but awesome spot.



First time finding this material, not sure if they are even stone... The last one looks like chard wood and the first one is VERY strange..bone maybe..




Those lines remind me of ivory




Some possible bone and Straight edges



I also found near 20 more tools and some brokes.... But they are probably natural

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[BagLady]

Again, I'm not a professional anything. Just my opinion here, but I don't see anything in the first 3 pic's that indicate they were worked pieces.
The square pieces might be a different story.
I don't know much about geology, but two of those in the first pic's that show striation marks, were probably some kind of compressed/layered stone.

 

[TheTh3rd]

Again, I'm not a professional anything. Just my opinion here, but I don't see anything in the first 3 pic's that indicate they were worked pieces.
The square pieces might be a different story.
I don't know much about geology, but two of those in the first pic's that show striation marks, were probably some kind of compressed/layered stone.

Huh?

 

[BagLady]

Chips and chunks is all i see. I see no serations. (SP?)

 

[BagLady]

I have reading glasses on, and my eyes are 55 years old...maybe someone else will see something I don't see.

 

[quito]

I have reading glasses on, and my eyes are 55 years old...maybe someone else will see something I don't see.

LOL, the only thing I see is a wild imagination and some debitage at best.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Same as Quito, just creek rock not artifacts...

 

[reuellis]

if debitage then they are in fact artifacts.... that being said i wouldn't have picked up any of them other than the square pieces for my "cool rock" garden

 

[Charl]

When I look at comment #3, a couple of those pieces look like flakes. And sometimes flakes are retouched, or have work that suggests they are flake tools. However, if that is the case, then you need to learn to take closeup photographs. These photos simply won't do. If you find a flake you think may be a flake tool, and therefore qualify as artifactual, it's your responsibility to get real close photos, describe and show those parts of the flake you believe have been retouched, or some aspect of that flake that demonstrates it is at least a utilized flake, with utilized flakes being one of the very simplest types of stone flake tools; namely flakes not altered further, but showing evidence they were utilized in an expedient fashion.

At best, I am seeing only flakes. If you are convinced some are actual artifacts, it's up to you to provide the evidence of that by taking much more detailed close up photos of those flakes and show us why they are artifacts in your opinion.
You have not done that at all.

If people don't agree based on the photos you provide, the correct response is not "huh?". The correct response is a photographic study of the piece in question that proves your case. If you can't do that, then there's nothing to be gained replying with "huhs?" If you cannot demonstrate that they are artifacts, it's nobody's fault on this side of the discussion.

And yes, from an archaeological perspective, debitage is considered artifactual. That's why an archaeological dig may report they found thousands of "artifacts". They count flakes. Actual flake tools? You have not proven it with these photos....

 

[Get-the-point]

I agree with Quito...debitage and the other pieces just rocks. However you are close to something. More investigating in that area. Go up and down the river if that is where you are hunting until you start finding more and more and soon you will have that arrowhead. Study stone tools which hardly deviate from basic form so a template is laid by previous finds. Study that before picking up oddities. Could save your arms a bit.

 

[Get-the-point]

That square stone is a oddity and might have a purpose other then artifact based. You might want to post that in the "what is it" forum.

 

[Charl]

Allow me to show you how it's done. These are photos of a flake tool made of hornfels, a metavolcanic. Do the first two photos demonstrate it's a tool? Maybe not, hey? Hence the photos, taken in the right light and the right angle, to prove my case, that this is indeed a flake blade.......

You want to prove a flake is also a flake tool? Provide the kind of photos that prove your point. The responsibility of identifying something is not all on us. You have a responsibility to prove your point.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

LOL, the only thing I see is a wild imagination and some debitage at best.

.....And the debitage is a guess at best as there are no signs to say it is 100% debitage.... I would have left it in the field personally, but that is just me others may collect it. I only kept artifacts when I hunted....

 

[jmaschal]

I am new to this as well but have been learning so much in the last couple of months. At first I would get excited about everything and try to twist things in my mind on how a piece was used. I have learned if I have to think about it too much probably not an artifact. Native Americans were so deliberate in crafting their tools that it should not be up to the imagination to determine if you found an artifact. I probably would have kept the top middle piece but a piece of flake at best. Don't get discouraged keep at it.

 

[rock]

if debitage then they are in fact artifacts.... that being said i wouldn't have picked up any of them other than the square pieces for my "cool rock" garden

Dead on they are broken pieces and debitage. The white pieces and square pieces are natural as far as I can tell. The disc in the fields will cut those babies rite in half. You are in the rite spot and a good one will pop out every once in a while just keep looking it will come. Same type of material I find.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

if debitage then they are in fact artifacts.... that being said i wouldn't have picked up any of them other than the square pieces for my "cool rock" garden

Debitage is not actually an artifact. Debitage is the waste material created from making an artifact, but unless those flakes are picked up and flaked so it can be utilized as a Tool of some kind then they are just waste flakes and not artifacts.

 

[BagLady]

I have a rock garden, so I pick up larger chunks and flakes like these;

 

[joshuaream]

From the pictures provided, I see one piece that looks like an artifact to me. The rest looks natural.

Debitage is not actually an artifact. Debitage is the waste material created from making an artifact, but unless those flakes are picked up and flaked so it can be utilized as a Tool of some kind then they are just waste flakes and not artifacts.

There are multiple definitions of artifact in the archaeological sense. The broadest definition includes anything modified by man. Break a stick to pick some mud out of your boots, the stick is an artifact. Swat a mosquito on your arm, the bug becomes an artifact. A bulldozer crushes a bunch of rocks, it creates thousands of artifacts. Most collectors include intent or purpose into the definition of artifact: An item intentionally modified for a purpose.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

While some may consider them an artifact, this isn't the forum for them...There is no proof man has ever touched them so not right for this forum.......

 

[TheTh3rd]

While some may consider them an artifact, this isn't the forum for them...There is no proof man has ever touched them so not right for this forum.......

Good thing I got those out of the way then, wonder if these have ever been touched?