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 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[reuellis]

I wouldn't have brought it home. Is it a river stone? where did you find it?

 

[lookingharder]

I posted a rock I found in a river in Kentucky. It wasn't like any other rocks in my area. Everything is flat field stone and my rock was round and weighed 8 pounds. Are there any similar kind of rocks in your are? I don't see were your from but it looks like the same kind of stone my is made of.

 

[civil_war22]

I’d have left it there and saved myself the trouble of carrying back a natural rock.

 

[Charl]

Well, you can start with the fact that it's a quartzite cobble. Where the cortex or skin is broken, it looks more like battering then implement scrapes. IMHO. Are you from a region that was formerly glaciated? Quartzite glacial cobbles are very common where I live.

It's a strong rock, and many of my own hammerstones were quartzite cobbles. A couple shown below, very similar quartzite to what you're showing. The patina on the skin can be tens of thousands of years old, so when there is battering wear, there is usually less patina. Naturally, that would also be the case when struck by a modern implement, but that just resembles battering wear to me. So I think it might have been a hammerstone.

They just picked up such rocks and used them. There are grooved mauls and such, more refined hammers in other words, but most were just picked up and used, and different sizes depending on the job I guess...

In the case of the two hammerstones seen below, both ends show battering, and the skin or cortex of the glacial cobble is unbroken elsewhere. These are nice looking hammerstones. Often, when well used, they'll just end up as rocks beat to hell, but these were not used to that point.

I think you acted on a hunch, recognizing battering, and it paid off.

 

[Charl]

Obviously, you'll get different opinions at times. It is a natural quartzite cobble. The only real question is how did the outer cortex or skin of the cobble end up displaying battering? Implement strikes usually look different then that, in my own experience. In most cases, the only clue that a rock was used as a hammer is the battering wear. Otherwise, the rock is unaltered, since it's just a natural rock put to use for a short term job. It does not have to be a "pretty" tool, and is only a refined artifact when grooved, etc.

i have many hammerstones from the fields I walk. The truth is, some are so crude looking, I do just leave them. If you were collecting a site with a view toward creating as complete an assemblage of the prehistoric activity that took place on that site, you would collect it regardless of whether it was a well made tool, or just a quick pick up tool used for short term work, like a hammerstone. It's up to the collector.

The two I showed in the previous post I thought were very nice hammerstones, that were not used to the point where they were just ugly battered to hell rocks. So I was pleased to collect them.

If it pleases you when you find it, take her home! Lol...

 

[BobGuy]

This is very helpful, Charl! My area was covered by glaciers and many of the creeks are full of glacial till. I’ve become pretty decent at identifying obvious artifacts but I am trying to get better identifying the ones that others would pass over because that will help when scoping out new areas. If I can walk through a new area and identify even the crudest artifacts then I know that I should spend more time searching for the good ones.. there are a lot of times that I am exploring new areas and find a whole bunch of questionable stuff and am not sure if I should spend more time there or not so if I can get better at identifying the questionable ones then that will help me better spend my time. I brought this one home as more of a study piece rather than for displaying in my case!

 

[T.C.]

When in doubt, bring it out...

 

[flinthunter]

I agree that it looks like it's had a small amount of use as a hammer stone or knapping tool.

 

[justonemore]

More than one possible reason for it's condition. My vote, natural.

 

[quito]

It's a natural stone alright,

but sure looks like it has done some hammering.

I agree with Charl, I'd call it a hammer stone no problem.

 

[T.C.]

It's a natural stone alright,

but sure looks like it has done some hammering.

I agree with Charl, I'd call it a hammer stone no problem.

I think Charl's opinion is always "right on."

 

[rock]

Im going to just say no and the reason is the breaks are fresh and the rest of it the cortex doesnt look altered to me. Keep looking. Find any flint?

 

[quito]

Hmmm. You are the First guy I’ve met that can age stone from a photo rock.

You don’t think them marks can be a couple hundred years old? Why not?

Of course the use wear will show up fresher than the original patinated stone.

 

[rock]

Hmmm. You are the First guy I’ve met that can age stone from a photo rock.

You don’t think them marks can be a couple hundred years old? Why not?

Of course the use wear will show up fresher than the original patinated stone.

So here we go again I see. You must still be snowed in? Move on please

 

[Rookster]

I remember my first beer.

 

[Charl]

Im going to just say no and the reason is the breaks are fresh and the rest of it the cortex doesnt look altered to me. Keep looking. Find any flint?

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....

 

[quito]

So here we go again I see. You must still be snowed in? Move on please

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.

 

[civil_war22]

BobGuy can you get some more pics. I’m not exactly sure it’s not been used. I’ve found stones that showed some old marks on it that appeared to be worked but also had to keep in mind in a field most objects in a field that are of significant size usually get hit by a plow or disk. If found in a bluff shelter with no machinery ever touching that area it might be a little easier to guess that those might be breaks and marks from usage and not from machinery

 

[BobGuy]

BobGuy can you get some more pics. I’m not exactly sure it’s not been used. I’ve found stones that showed some old marks on it that appeared to be worked but also had to keep in mind in a field most objects in a field that are of significant size usually get hit by a plow or disk. If found in a bluff shelter with no machinery ever touching that area it might be a little easier to guess that those might be breaks and marks from usage and not from machinery

The fact that it was in a field definitely opens it up to more possibilities but I think that would actually be a good exercise here. It was mentioned that there is more than one way for those marks to have been made so let’s hear from the group what those possibilities are and why they are a practical explanation - That would be beneficial for everyone who is tying to learn.

- Hammer stone - the marks are definitely consistent with Other hammer stones that I have and I have found other nutting stones, hammer stones, points etc right where I found this one.
- farm implement - the edge of the rock could have been hit by a plow and scuffed it up but does everyone think that the smaller area looks like that it was created by a plow?
- glacier - a glacier would have smoothed out the entire side that it was rubbing on, right?
- walking path/game trail - is it possible that it was stuck in the dirt on a well used path? If that’s the case that still wouldn’t necessarily explain the marks being located on two different sections of the rock - same goes with a glacier.

What other ways could these marks have been made?