Re: Artifact or geofact? Opinions?
Just another 2 cents worth, and I am probably just talking out loud to myself but the context of the comparison would seem to be "A natural minerial formation" and "a natural mineral formation that has been intentionally modified by human activity".
Or when does something in a natural form become an artifact? Per the dictionary ;when it has been intentionally modified by humans at a much earlier time then later recovered by an archaeological endeavor".
The term geofact is defined as "(from a combination of "geology" and "artifact") is a naturally-formed stone formation that is difficult to distinguish from a man-made artifact".
From the picture provided I interpret the shape of the rock as being natural, but as others have pointed out only one side is viewable. The consistency of the patina would seem to indicate the base of the rock is natural and not modified by humans. Based on this I would not categorize it as a geofact only a rock formation.
The top of the item is subjective particularly when you can not see the back side, If it were essentially the same on both sides then one may tend to think it was natural. If it is a solid patina on the back and the front patina has been etched or incised then you may conclude it was intentionally modified and could be categorized as an artifact.
If the markings on the front are superficial (not incised) but only a discoloration that could have been the result of natural chemical interactions (acidic solutions) or abrasion, then it would probably just be a rock with odd weathering patterns.
From a distance it can not be accurately determined.
You Must Tell US! PLease, I can't take it anymore...
