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 👍

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

[Charl]

Sometimes I'm reluctant to continue a debate because it can seem like all a person is trying to do is "win" somehow. I'm certainly fine with varying opinions, but do want to point out a couple things. Actually it's good, because it "forces" a person to think harder and present more evidence if that is possible.


So, first, just to reiterate what quito pointed out. A simple hammerstone is classified as an artifact, even if it was not worked into a tool form. It still qualifies. See below for the description and illustrations from the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. To the description there, I would only add that they do come in all shapes, though the ones I showed are a common "egg" shape for such tools.


It was suggested that we should go natural, because the damage could have been caused by means other then use as a hammerstone. True, but I honestly believe it would be unusual. Look at the battering again. The battered surfaces are the result of repeated banging, not simply a singular event, like a 50 lb. rock landed on this small cobble. Those flattened battered surfaces got that way from repeated blows. So, you have to envision a natural environment where, 1, the rock is hit in just those 2 places repeatedly, and 2, enough force is applied to produce the damage seen.


An aside, to illustrate just how much force would be required. We like to go to a beach on the Atlantic coast in RI. Called Moonstone beach after the particular type of quartz cobbles found there. This is not an artifact beach. It's our fun in the Summer sun beach. The entire surf zone is a carpet of glacial cobbles from pebble size up to football size. Fist size might be average. Every day those rocks are battered against each other by the waves of a very high energy, turbulent surf zone. Yet they are all smooth and polished. You would be there all day looking for one rock that had been broken by another rock. The fact is, it does take a great deal of directed force to produce the damage seen on the OP's quartzite cobble. And it is not easy to picture a natural environment where it is being hit repeatedly, just in two places, in order to create the flattened and battered surface seen. It does not happen in that carpet of cobbles in a high energy surf zone. And it's hard, for me anyway, to picture a natural environment where you would get both enough directed force and a force directed repeatedly on just two areas of a relatively small cobble.

And, remember, quartzite is a very hard, durable rock in cobble form. Some varieties of quartzite would have been better then others in that respect. There was a reason it often was used as a hammerstone. And, as well, a much less hard and durable cobble, like a friable chunk of shale for example, would require much less force to shatter naturally.


Finally, consider that it was found on a site that does produce artifacts. The appearance of the rock, showing the typical repeatedly battered surface seen on hammerstones, and present where prehistoric activity took place, does lean me toward a hammerstone. They are the simplest, the most basic, of artifacts. But, by definition, they are indeed artifactual because they are a rock used as a tool in a human directed activity.

Again, please don't think this is about "winning" a debate. I always appreciate the opportunity to put more thought into my opinion, and simply point out a few things I believe favor that opinion. I guess if I could think of something else, pro or con regarding my position, I'll add it. But likely not. If you find enough hammerstones, and they are very common in all my field sites, you just come to recognize them.
Which I thought was the case here. Would I have taken it home? Maybe. They are common, they are seldom sexy, it's a judgement call. Some I collect, some I leave behind.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[quito]

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.

Umm i understand all that. I’m talking aging damage like the old damage on the piece in question. The damaged edge on the piece in question is far from fresh imho. Fresh damage is easy to spot. Like the fresh stuff on the first Celt with all the strikes

like charl, I see damage from repeated strikes only.

The force required to break that hard of a material would likely move the stone in worked soil before it could break it. Consider all those celts from softer material I have found that have been pushed around the field for a hundred years or better. The repeated strikes are all over the place and not congregated like the hammer stone shows.

 

[quito]

Don’t look at it that way charl, you, like I, are just trying to straighten out bad information and educate. You just have way more patience and time than I do.

 

[redbeardrelics]

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?

View attachment 1542723View attachment 1542724View attachment 1542725View attachment 1542726

Howdy BobGuy, this is an interesting, and nice example for the questions you've raised, and the discussions we are having regarding quartzite cobble hammerstones. The telltale signs I see that make me believe this is most likely not a quartzite hammerstone are thus. Charl has posted some very nice photos of classic quartzite hammerstones. On those examples you can see the difference in patina between the smooth and very ancient cortex of the cobble, and the also ancient patina showing on the rough surface where the hammerstone tool was used by pre-historic peoples. Even where the tool was used it has a duller looking patina, as opposed to the fresher and much brighter yellowish patina that shows where the cortex was removed from your example. On Charl's nice examples you can also see where all the little use/wear chips are about 1/4" diameter or considerably less. This was intentional as the pre-historic peoples took due care not abuse their hammer and grindstones, especially on food applications where stone dust & chips are not desirable in foods. On Charl's fine examples you can also see how there are no sharp angles or edges produced by the use wear, as found on your example. Your example shows sharper angles and evidence of fingernail size or larger chips removed from the cortex. Large flake removal like this can be found purposely made on large stone chopping tools, but shouldn't be there on hammer or grinding stones unless as signs of unintentional damage. I do not believe that anyone has been suggesting that your example is a chopping tool.
I do agree with you and others that the chips as shown on your example could be produced by people hammering your stone against another stone, or by hammering another stone against yours. I believe I could pick up a quartzite cobble of similar shape and size and remove similar chips my humble self. The significant part I believe is in why they were doing it, what was the possible purpose for chips being removed the way they are? I believe it more plausible that chips like that were due to a person picking up that quartzite cobble and hitting it a few times to check it suitability for flake removal, or chipped tool production, rather than use wear from a hammering or grinding job, but again the lack of any significant patina where the flakes have been removed, preclude me from going too far down that path.
The other thing that I believe needs to be strongly considered are the telltale brown implement scraping marks that seem to point directly to the implement scraping along the edge of this rock until it got near enough to the edge that a chip would break off, They look to lead right to it from each angle the chips were made.

We all make up our own minds on whether or not items are artifacts or not, and what meets our own collecting passions, that is half the fun of it, and the way it should be IMO. You did the right thing by asking for opinions and thoughts, and we are all just happy to chime in, it is all good. HH

 

[BobGuy]

Howdy BobGuy, this is an interesting, and nice example for the questions you've raised, and the discussions we are having regarding quartzite cobble hammerstones. The telltale signs I see that make me believe this is most likely not a quartzite hammerstone are thus. Charl has posted some very nice photos of classic quartzite hammerstones. On those examples you can see the difference in patina between the smooth and very ancient cortex of the cobble, and the also ancient patina showing on the rough surface where the hammerstone tool was used by pre-historic peoples. Even where the tool was used it has a duller looking patina, as opposed to the fresher and much brighter yellowish patina that shows where the cortex was removed from your example. On Charl's nice examples you can also see where all the little use/wear chips are about 1/4" diameter or considerably less. This was intentional as the pre-historic peoples took due care not abuse their hammer and grindstones, especially on food applications where stone dust & chips are not desirable in foods. On Charl's fine examples you can also see how there are no sharp angles or edges produced by the use wear, as found on your example. Your example shows sharper angles and evidence of fingernail size or larger chips removed from the cortex. Large flake removal like this can be found purposely made on large stone chopping tools, but shouldn't be there on hammer or grinding stones unless as signs of unintentional damage. I do not believe that anyone has been suggesting that your example is a chopping tool.
I do agree with you and others that the chips as shown on your example could be produced by people hammering your stone against another stone, or by hammering another stone against yours. I believe I could pick up a quartzite cobble of similar shape and size and remove similar chips my humble self. The significant part I believe is in why they were doing it, what was the possible purpose for chips being removed the way they are? I believe it more plausible that chips like that were due to a person picking up that quartzite cobble and hitting it a few times to check it suitability for flake removal, or chipped tool production, rather than use wear from a hammering or grinding job, but again the lack of any significant patina where the flakes have been removed, preclude me from going too far down that path.
The other thing that I believe needs to be strongly considered are the telltale brown implement scraping marks that seem to point directly to the implement scraping along the edge of this rock until it got near enough to the edge that a chip would break off, They look to lead right to it from each angle the chips were made.

We all make up our own minds on whether or not items are artifacts or not, and what meets our own collecting passions, that is half the fun of it, and the way it should be IMO. You did the right thing by asking for opinions and thoughts, and we are all just happy to chime in, it is all good. HH

This has been an awesome debate and I have learned a lot. I didn’t know what quartzite was, didn’t think to consider the hardness of this type of rock and the process of going through all possible scenarios for these wear marks has been enlightening. I have gone from maybe, to definitely a hammer stone back to not so sure again. I think it’s difficult for anyone to know, and especially difficult for the folks on the forum to know for sure since you don’t have it in hand.

I was inspecting a little closer and you can definitely see implement marks that have scuffed the surface. There is even one on the upper left side of the image that seems to have broken through the cortex. It seems that the larger mark in question could have been created by a plow based on the chipping that you are suggesting and the fact that we know it has been hit by plows. THe larger spot even feels different than the others. It’s smoother and doesn’t have the same dimpled texture as the other two.



Here is the larger “spot”


I have also since noticed a third spot on the rock that looks like it could have done some hammering. Now, at the risk of starting a new debate as to whether or not this new rock is a hammerstone, I wanted to post another item that I think is made of quartzite and is a hammerstone as comparison. I think we can agree that this rock has been hit by a plow, a plow was definitely able to break through the cortex and was even likely the cause of the larger “break” on the side of the rock.


But, what about these two smaller spots that seem to have a tighter and smaller pecking pattern that seems more consistent with a hammerstone? The patina on the second spot is also darker and more consistent with the rest of the cortex.. in fact, the patina on the second spot is so consistent that I didn’t realize that spot was there until I was looking even closer.

The rock on the left is the one in question btw.



What do you think?

I am supposed to be working right now but can’t focus! Who would have thought that a junky old rock that might or might not be a hammerstone could be so interesting! My wife saw me looking at it with an eye loupe last night and she just rolled her eyes!

 

[quito]

I’d say the main diff between them is their size for different usage. Your big one did one job the smaller did another. Use wear would very likely be different. Maybe a knapper will chime in.

 

[quito]

Lol, don’t knock yourself out contemplating a hammer stone with some implement scars. Forget what we say for a bit, what does the rock say?

 

[quito]

Ok redbeard

Here is a piece of very similar material that I have. It has many more implement scars clearly showing and not one area of damage. It must take a lot of banging to obtain slight damage, let alone anything as severe as the original posters piece.

I’ll stick with my theory that the larger harder stones in worked soil more often than not, move, instead of break. And that was and is, a hammer-stone.

 

[pickaway]

I remember my first beer.

Lol

 

[pickaway]

And move on goes for you as well stop stalking me

You might try the ole saying . Agree to Disagree...

 

[tnmudman]

The marks look pretty fresh to me I agree with rocks assesment on this one just my opinion it doesn't appear to be an artifact from the pictures.

 

[quito]

The marks look pretty fresh to me I agree with rocks assesment on this one just my opinion it doesn't appear to be an artifact from the pictures.

You can go right ahead and do that, and I will happily agree to dis-agree.

Maybe you, rock, or redbeard would explain how the similar material I showed with more implement strikes suffered no damage whatsoever, and the original posters piece is all beat up from less of the same treatment?

I gotta say though, I think it's pretty amazing you and rock think you can age damage on stone from a picture.

Maybe the owner of the piece wouldn't mind smacking it with a hammer and showing us a REAL fresh break.

I am going to go out on a fat limb here and say if you want to see some fresh damage on the piece in question, look at the little white scratches on the piece.

 

[quito]

So you think its funny? What about the rock posted lets hear from a expert

rock, the likes he gives just may mean something. ;-)

 

[NCPeaches]

4 pages over a cobble is bordering on ridiculous

 

[fishstick]

4 pages over a cobble is bordering on ridiculous

View attachment 1545093

AMEN too that!!!!!!!

 

[civil_war22]

 

[quito]

4 pages over a cobble is bordering on ridiculous

View attachment 1545093

whats ridiculous is the amount of people who post their often un-educated opinion and run, with absolutely nothing to back up their reasoning.

Remove all those posts and leave it among the 4 that post something that actually shows something and this thread would be half its size, and somebody just may learn something.

 

[quito]

AMEN too that!!!!!!!

How many of the original posters questions did you try to answer?

Thanks for lengthening the thread and helping prove my point.

Isnt there a rule rule about staying on topic?

 

[arrow86]

4 pages over a cobble is bordering on ridiculous

View attachment 1545093

whats ridiculous is the amount of people who post their often un-educated opinion and run, with absolutely nothing to back up their reasoning.

Remove all those posts and leave it among the 4 that post something that actually shows something and this thread would be half its size, and somebody just may learn something.

I think that’s why it’s called an opinion people post stuff and ask for an opinion nobody claimed to be an archeologist just folks that enjoy hunting and finding artifacts. I think sometimes people get too worked up at the end of the day your gonna believe what you want and so is everybody else.

 

[quito]

I think that’s why it’s called an opinion people post stuff and ask for an opinion nobody claimed to be an archeologist just folks that enjoy hunting and finding artifacts. I think sometimes people get too worked up at the end of the day your gonna believe what you want and so is everybody else.

There's the problem, people believing what they want, instead of what is. And mere opinions alone prove absolutely nothing and teach absolutely nothing of value.

That's why we, (well some of us) show evidence, have debate, and discuss things, trying to figure out what actually is, instead of what we, or someone else wants something to be.

I'll add this, from what I have seen here, I would love to hunt a lot of peoples sites to pick up all the artifacts they are leaving behind. Seems many here have the "if it isn't grooved or notched, or look like a picture I've seen in a book", it isn't an artifact attitude.