Artifact?

[BobGuy]

At first glance you’d think that this is just a rock but there seems to be some pecking marks on two spots. It does fit nicely in your hand, which definitely doesn’t mean that it’s an artifact, but the two spots that seem to have different color and texture leads me to believe that someone could have used this rock at some point to hammer on something.

It’s also worth noting that this was found in a field where I have found other artifacts and many rocks with implement marks on them. These marks could be from a plow but it looks like pecking to me..

What do you think?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[quito]

I am in the heart of farm country and there are numerous sites that I hunt that have been farmed for a century or better.
The damage on the piece in question is absolutely not from an implement strike or multiple implement strikes. I’d bet dollars against dimes on it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[quito]

There is probably a hundred years worth of implement strikes on this piece I found a few years ago.


It’s a Celt for them that are wondering and there are some fresh scars too!

 

[IAMZIM]

Just FYI the "brown" streaks on the stone are staining from iron inclusions, which are natural and very common in that particular type of quartzite.

 

[quito]

Just FYI the "brown" streaks on the stone are staining from iron inclusions, which are natural and very common in that particular type of quartzite.

And note the beat up areas aren’t showing rust staining/ metal deposits that are typical from implement strikes either.

 

[rock]

You know I respect your opinion, rock, but the breaks are not necessarily fresh. Look at the battering on the larger of the two hammerstones I posted. The patina is much less then the patina on the cortex. That's the thing about glacial cobbles. The unbroken skin or cortex may have had tens of thousands of years to develop what patina it does have, and surfaces battered much later, say hundreds or a few thousand years ago, because they were used as hammers, will often appear much lighter and display a strong contrast with the cortex or skin. Those light colored battered areas are not necessarily as fresh as contrast with the cortex might suggest.

I can get a better photo of the smaller hammer I posted last night that will display how the battered area appears much fresher then the skin. And it's because it is much fresher then the skin, even if used as a hammer a long time ago. This won't be the case with every single such tool. I do have tools where contrast between battered areas and skin is not as great. I assume it depends in part on the type of rock itself....

View attachment 1542938

I have to say there is no question on your example just by the preferred shape of your artifact

 

[rock]

I guess so, since you aren't able to answer my simple question again rock?

No, not snowed in here at home, and ain't gonna get snowed here either.

If there was ever anyone here who I thought would be able to recognize a stone that did some hammering by now, it for sure would have been you rock.

But, unlike you it seems, I can be wrong.

Don't listen to me then, listen to Charl.

I have to ask why are you picking me out of the group of others that have said natural after all my response was way down the list that have already response of natural on this post? I was late to the party.

 

[rock]

I guess so, since you aren't able to answer my simple question again rock?

No, not snowed in here at home, and ain't gonna get snowed here either.

If there was ever anyone here who I thought would be able to recognize a stone that did some hammering by now, it for sure would have been you rock.

But, unlike you it seems, I can be wrong.

Don't listen to me then, listen to Charl.

I asked you to move on that means leave me alone in plain words

 

[rock]

He does have 14,000 posts so he obviously knows something right?

And move on goes for you as well stop stalking me

 

[rock]

The post was a question as to if anybody thought it was an artifact. I see a natural worn rock with fresh damage on it. Now if you would of posted look at my Hammer Stone I wouldnt of responded cause I would of still thought of it as natural and wouldnt of disagreed with it so it wouldnt start a fight due to me disagreeing. But that wasnt the case it was a ? in the title. If the original poster wishes to believe it is a artifact then that is his choice. I wouldnt of brought it home I have plenty of Hammers now and know what they look like in my area. Im not saying I am correct in saying it isnt but you did ask and I responded to your question. Nobody and I mean nobody is ever correct 100% of the time. So there is my answer to your post believe what you like but dont hate me and violate Tnet rules and that isnt directed to the OP. I am referring to rule #7 in case you would like to read them, rock

 

[BobGuy]

The post was a question as to if anybody thought it was an artifact. I see a natural worn rock with fresh damage on it. Now if you would of posted look at my Hammer Stone I wouldnt of responded cause I would of still thought of it as natural and wouldnt of disagreed with it so it wouldnt start a fight due to me disagreeing. But that wasnt the case it was a ? in the title. If the original poster wishes to believe it is a artifact then that is his choice. I wouldnt of brought it home I have plenty of Hammers now and know what they look like in my area. Im not saying I am correct in saying it isnt but you did ask and I responded to your question. Nobody and I mean nobody is ever correct 100% of the time. So there is my answer to your post believe what you like but dont hate me and violate Tnet rules and that isnt directed to the OP. I am referring to rule #7 in case you would like to read them, rock

I respect and appreciate your opinion as I do everyone else’s.. great debate!

 

[NCPeaches]

I'm a little late in but it looks natural to me too, also fitting well in the hand doesn't mean anything as a lot of rocks will fit well in hand. Not saying it wasn't utilized as a tool since I've been told that cobbles were often used for spur of the moment tools. I would have brought it back too and put it with all the others I find that are unique around one of my herb garden beds.

 

[quito]

Oh brother.

On that note, let’s mark this solved!

 

[quito]

The post was a question as to if anybody thought it was an artifact. I see a natural worn rock with fresh damage on it. Now if you would of posted look at my Hammer Stone I wouldnt of responded cause I would of still thought of it as natural and wouldnt of disagreed with it so it wouldnt start a fight due to me disagreeing. But that wasnt the case it was a ? in the title. If the original poster wishes to believe it is a artifact then that is his choice. I wouldnt of brought it home I have plenty of Hammers now and know what they look like in my area. Im not saying I am correct in saying it isnt but you did ask and I responded to your question. Nobody and I mean nobody is ever correct 100% of the time. So there is my answer to your post believe what you like but dont hate me and violate Tnet rules and that isnt directed to the OP. I am referring to rule #7 in case you would like to read them, rock

Op appreciates the debate, stick with it rock.

 

[arrow86]

I think it falls into the category of what you believe it is. Even if it was a hammer stone there isn’t enough shape to it or signs of it being altered by man to classify it as an artifact. So it falls on you to decide if it’s a keeper or not.

 

[quito]

I think it falls into the category of what you believe it is. Even if it was a hammer stone there isn’t enough shape to it or signs of it being altered by man to classify it as an artifact. So it falls on you to decide if it’s a keeper or not.

Sounds sweet arrow86, reminds me a little of a bathroom issue the nation recently faced.

did you read Charls informative posts? Look at his examples of hammer stones? Look at my examples of implement damage?

Hammer stones are merely natural stones someone picked up and did some hammering with, there is no set shape to them. The only evidence is use wear. Often right on an edge, or protruding portion if there is one, JUST LIKE where the wear on the one shown is.

The piece in question shows way more signs of being a hammer stone than not being one.

 

[quito]

I have to ask why are you picking me out of the group of others that have said natural after all my response was way down the list that have already response of natural on this post? I was late to the party.

Well since I do answer questions posed to me, (unlike you) here goes.

I didn't single you out, i commented after other posters, even one before I responded to your post too.

I didn't comment on some of the earlier posts because from what I have seen, some don't know any better, and probably don't recognize many other artifacts.

The reason I responded to your post is, You made it sound like you could know the cause of, and age the wear on a stone from a picture, and I know you can't.

Then, the rest of your original comments on the piece were way below par for you........And I know you know better.

Now, this thread was/is turning educational and the op and charl were making some good points, the op was asking some good questions. You didn't need to get all confrontational just because someone asked you a question.

Most know you like to show off your knowledge, so after making comments, explain yourself instead of asking people to move along.

Why would you expect more of the cortex to be modified on that simple hammer stone?

 

[redbeardrelics]

In looking closely at the pictures posted of this item, I think it is plow or implement damage, rather than hammering or grinding marks. As stated by others the areas in question do look much fresher or more recent than I would expect to see, even if it were a hammerstone from only 300 years ago, instead of 3000. I see a very clear difference between the marks on the hammerstones posted by Charl, and the marks found on this item. Along with a clear difference in patina, there is a big difference in the size of the chips made by hammering, as opposed to the chips I believe have come from implement damage. Those dark streaks on the exterior of this stone I believe are rusty streaks from the implement damage rather than from iron inclusions in the stone. From what I see the chipped areas on this stone are probably less than 50 years old. IMO. HH

 

[quito]

Oh brother, another that can age stone from a pic.

Did you compare the actual damage from implement strikes that I clearly showed to the damage on that piece?

Obviously not, there is no comparison.

 

[quito]

More implement strikes.

Funny how most seem to think that the farm equipment just busts things up so terrible. I also find it Interesting that I have found 4 complete celts, 3 with many strikes, and only 2 partial celts. A bit off one site and a poll end off another. Whole celts to brokes for me run 2 to 1. One celt shows it has been stuck about 24 times.

 

[redbeardrelics]

Oh brother, another that can age stone from a pic.

Did you compare the actual damage from implement strikes that I clearly showed to the damage on that piece?

Obviously not, there is no comparison.

Actually there are many, many people that can easily tell fresh chips from flint, or quartzite from photos. Many have done so on here over the years to help newbies identify recent reproductions or fakes.

No I did not compare the implement gouges in the hardstone pieces you posted, to the implement chips on the quartzite piece posted by the OP. There is an easily seen difference between plow gouges made in hardstones and sandstones, compared to what the same strikes do when contacting flints, cherts, quartzites, and chalcedony, etc. You generally will not get plow gouges in flints, cherts, quartzites or other cryptocrystalline rocks like you will in hardstones or sandstones, those type strikes usually leave the dark metallic rust stain on cryptocrystalines, and if the forces are applied in certain ways, you will get rock breakage or chips as I believe I see on the original posters piece.

Obviously, there is no comparison.