Indian tool found *Unsure about what it is*

[indianajaune]

Hi everyone,

I found this thing a couple months ago while digging somewhere in Canada (10-20 cm deep underground). That's my first find ever! I'm sorry for the bad photo angle, I'm currently traveling and it's the only photo I have...

More details: Dug in the woods at a spot where chert flakes were found.

More photos as promised:





Length: 5-7 cm
Width: 3 cm
Height: 2-3 cm

I would really appreciate if someone could give me more information about this "tool" (I guess). It seems too big and too wide to be an arrowhead. My current guess is that they tried to make a "tool" out of it, it broke and they threw it away. Finally, I think it's made in chert, but I still don't know what kind of chert they used? (green, blue, etc.) Also, when was it made?

Thanks and I hope you all have a wonderful day.

Note to reader: my English is pretty bad since it's not my primary language. Sorry for any typos you may find above.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

I get you TH. It’s up to the individual to determine what has value to their pursuit of collecting or education (keeping it simple here).
When you think about archeology and anthropology the main thing is the study of these things, these are details that can tell us something. Whether they’re valuable to you or me (or not) doesn’t really matter.

Case in point, are clam shells artifacts? Many times they are. I find a lot of ancient examples, I could fill bags with them, but I don’t collect them. How about nut shells or tiny broken bone fragments?

Every once in a while I’ll take home a nice chunk of a colorful local lithic that’s been chipped at. It’s not always a tool and I’d be hard pressed to make a post here to show it off.

But, regarding this post, I think its ok to encourage the finder, and let him know that he’s getting close and to keep looking.

That said, there have been a bunch of broken rocks posted here that I couldn’t be bothered to comment on.

Great points.

Many times, an experienced surface hunter will find crude biface/casual tools on a site. And some will not collect these, because they are not frameable, or they're just not attractive in anyway. This is a form of collector bias. This type of bias can occur a couple of ways: the reasons I have just mentioned, or because the collector actually does not recognize the artifactual nature of such a piece.


This collector bias is not a crime. It's OK. But, it does lead to a site collection that is not as complete an assemblage of a site as it might be if all collector bias was eliminated. Some collectors, in contrast, want their site collections to reflect a more complete assemblage, if only to better fully document the activities taking place at a site, and perhaps a more complete picture of the culture levels, the time frames, present at the site.


Often, when reading about archaeological digs, we may see that thousands of artifacts were recorded. The reason for this is because professionals, in a dig, count even flakes as artifacts. After all, flakes do result from human activity. And flakes can yield info, as many will be flake tools upon closer examination, and the lithics involved may yield info on lithic procurement by the inhabitants of the site, etc.


In the case of the piece seen in this thread, if it's a lithic material known for the area, then it likely has some value in documenting the complete assemblage from the site being collected/documented.


It's all up to the individual. Approach a site with a view towards collecting absolutely everything that might reflect prehistoric procurement, prehistoric activity at the site, and one is collecting with a view toward eliminating as much collector bias as possible, in order to produce a more complete site assemblage. In a professional dig, the pros are not going to toss anything that has the potential to provide info about the site. Including many things we collectors ignore, for whatever reason we chose.


It may come down to why you hunt a site: to get as complete a picture as possible, or to collect the more formal artifacts that collectors value, like points and other flaked artifacts, hardstone tools, sherds, etc. I "practice" some degree of bias. I may leave particularly crude and unwieldy hammerstones right where I find them, for example. But I will collect a graphite paint stone. It's only a manuport, and nothing to look at, but it was used to paint, and I will collect it. Others may leave it, a form of collector bias.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[quito]

Notice the number of times that's been percussively impacted. Also the number of plane surfaces where flakes were removed.

FWIW

i noticed that as well.
Also, I have never seen that type of damage from tillage on any material, and ive hunted farm fields in South Dakota for over twenty years.

 

[indianajaune]

Thank you for your comment and I couldn't have said it better. I like to understand the context of a site and to understand the "why" of things. Of course, I would like to find beautiful arrowheads and tools, but sometimes the smaller things that don't look relevant can give you much more info on a site. I was mainly interested to make a post here to know: a) If this rock had been flaked and b) What kind of chert it was. Those might be easy to recognize for experienced hobbyists, but I'm not there yet. So I appreciate the answers that I receive, and I will keep looking at the documentation to refine my knowledge.

I will keep on digging next summer and I'll share my discoveries here.

 

[A2coins]

Al;ways smart to get an opinion and be open minded and learn. looks like it could have been a good rock for a tool but looks chipped and broken naturally just my opinion. Not all Indians were good craftsman I dont think anyone would recognize a tool I made if I was an Indian lol Im sure you will find some artifacts if there were some in the area good eye finding that but doesnt look like its a tool

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

i noticed that as well.
Also, I have never seen that type of damage from tillage on any material, and ive hunted farm fields in South Dakota for over twenty years.

I have seen it Missouri on the farm fields I hunted than had a lot stone and flint in the fields. I had area surrounded by bluffs on 3 sides and spring fed streams. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[GoldieLocks]

I am an artist and I could make that with ceramic clay in a juffy. So I'm going to call it totally fake!