Maybe I have something now...

[CL_Pino_MarineSGTVet]

Hello everyone! I was out digging in my same ole spot and found this piece that resembles a crude axe... It does have obvious human alteration... I already sent pics of my other stuff and this one and this guy works for the National Park Service, Culture Resource Specialist and Specializes in Archeology and Museum Collections... I was just given his info yesterday and after looking at the pics I posted on here he concurred with most of you but wants to see several in person because he sees some things that do indeed look thay may be altered by human hands.... The said the Crudeness of some of them and the look of the newest piece I'm about to post look very old possibly
"Arcaic" or earlier. Here goes the pics... This piece came from the top of the clay layer like some others... HE said that is odd too.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[The Grim Reaper]

I have heard lots of people, including "archaeologists", say that pieces are crude because they are older. I'm not trying to be a smartelec here so don't take it this way, but if you Google Paleo or Archaic Point types and look at the pictures you will see some of the finest Flint knapping this planet has seen. I honestly don't see any alteration by man on that stone, but I don't have it hand and can just go by what I see in your pics. I think it too is natural. But keep at it. You definitely have the passion for the hobby and you will find something if you keep at it.

 

[CL_Pino_MarineSGTVet]

Does everything have to be highly polished, smooth, ideal, and museum quality to be qualified as an artifact.... I'm sure some were concerned more with utility than looks. And Yes I agree Native American accomplished outstanding accomplishment and works of art that would be hard to impossible to duplicate today but there had to be some tools that already looked and were shaped close to fit the bill as to what they needed so they altered them sometimes even to a small degree to get them to function as needed. And if you could see the notches in person I think you'd agree with me that they were put there to aid in securing it to something.... They are in ideal places to aid in the leather/cord/whatever in wrapping around to get a secure fit... I put it on a stick and wrapped 550 cord in the way I thought it would have been wrapped and it made a tight fit around the stone in the way in which I wrapped it.... Those groves and the notches and straight lines would have been hard to develop I feel in a dry spot buried in clay under a overhang cliff....

 

[The Grim Reaper]

If it had been used as you are describing you would see battering on both ends and these is no evidence of that. Even the crudest pieces I have ever found show some evidence of use on them somewhere and I'm sorry but that piece doesn't.

 

[Buckleberry]

I just went through a gallon bucket of "waste flakes" from one of my fields...I also like to pick up and keep the pretty ones to look at later...well almost 50% of them have been worked to some degree for quick use as knives, hide scrapers, shaft scrapers, even a hand axe.
You wouldn't believe the micro pressure flaking on some of these, it's almost all I can do to see it without a magnifying device...I have no idea what they would've used to do such small edgework.
That being said, there is No Doubt, what I'm looking at, just six years ago I wouldn't have been able to identify hardly any of them as use- artifacts, but experience ( especially the advice from this and another artifact forum) and knowing WHERE to find them has changed all that.

Like Reaper said, keep looking and maybe expand your search into other areas, they are out there.

 

[quito]

Like Buckleberry said, I'm going to say. Even the smallest flakes show plenty of evidence of modification and sometimes use, and I have picked up pails of them too.

Like Grim said as well, IF that were a halfted anything, it would show signs of use wear, or at least somewhere show it has done some pounding.

 

[Charl]

Does everything have to be highly polished, smooth, ideal, and museum quality to be qualified as an artifact.... I'm sure some were concerned more with utility than looks. And Yes I agree Native American accomplished outstanding accomplishment and works of art that would be hard to impossible to duplicate today but there had to be some tools that already looked and were shaped close to fit the bill as to what they needed so they altered them sometimes even to a small degree to get them to function as needed. And if you could see the notches in person I think you'd agree with me that they were put there to aid in securing it to something.... They are in ideal places to aid in the leather/cord/whatever in wrapping around to get a secure fit... I put it on a stick and wrapped 550 cord in the way I thought it would have been wrapped and it made a tight fit around the stone in the way in which I wrapped it.... Those groves and the notches and straight lines would have been hard to develop I feel in a dry spot buried in clay under a overhang cliff....

Well, in general, yes, you are correct. There are some artifacts that only required a native to modify a natural rock to only a slight degree. Notched weights, which some collectors call net weights to denote their assumed use, are often unmodified except for notches ground or worked into the stone. A recent example from RI below. The other artifact is a pottery dentate stamp. I knew the tiny notches at one end of a small, unaltered pebble were deliberate. So I picked it up and collected it; no idea what it was however, or why a native would put tiny notches at one end of a flat pebble and I only recently realized it was a pottery dentate stamp. Years after finding it and collected at the time only because I knew nature didn't put those notches in that pebble. Once you are very experienced seperating artifacts from geofacts, you may eventually get to the point when you can determine when a stone has witnessed even the slightest alteration at human hands. That takes time. As others have noted, I don't see deliberate work on your rock.

 

[Charl]

Two notched weights, field find on left, water worn beach find on right. Simple notches are the only modifications by man.
And a hammerstone. No modification by man at all. But the battering wear at one end proves it was used as a hammer. So these are examples of artifacts barely modified and artifacts altered only through using them(hammers). And anvil stones, altered only though usage, not by design, are also shown.

 

[Charl]

One more example of a artifact even experienced collectors might walk by. Early Archaic tie on atl-atl that had a wing- like shape to start with, so the native decided "why not?" The smaller example in first photo shows same thing: native notched a natural rock that already had the desired shape. One wing end broken on shale example from my collection. Notch on bottom and working on a notch at top are the only human made alterations. So, again, you're observation regarding artifacts with minimal alteration at the hands of man is correct; but you need experience to seperate geofact from artifact.

 

[rock]

Nice example Charlie

 

[jamey]

hello cl pino,a lady from west virgina wanted to sell me a paint rock see had.she showed it to me and i thought she was making it up.as it looked like a rock with small craters in it.well it came from a mound there somewhere her son got it doing a dig,hes a archy.found out later.you will find some that stand out but i think your doing fine with the ones that do not,not saying the ones you have shown are artifacts but i like your thinking,this rock looks like it would have good sanding traits though,got a good bunch here to learn from so keep at it,maybe you could teach us a thing or two soon