Freeze Fractured Stone

[Neanderthal]

On the way home from work yesterday I stopped by a low-water dam. The reason I did is because I knew the water level dropped dramatically there in the past few days, and we had a heavy freeze. Good conditions for freeze-fractured stone. I hopped out of the car and took a couple of images with my cell phone. Sorry, the pics suck, but it will give you an idea anyways.

I also picked up some chunks of stone (outside in ditch and from a driveway) that would confuse many people as to being "artifacts". I haven't taken a picture of them yet. For the record..nothing in these images are artifacts. It's mother nature at work. When supersaturated stone becomes exposed to freezing temps quickly, this is what occurs. Even the pieces laying around the fractured pieces are NOT artifacts. The area is not a site and was not used for quarrying. The chert is VERY good quality (Reed Springs), but was not employed by the aboriginals at this outcropping because of all of the hidden faults and healed seams. This scenario is very common.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[uniface]

Valuable information, Neanderthal. Thanks for putting it up !

 

[Tnmountains]

Great Pictures though.
Now If I could just narrow down the time frame when my artifact collection froze!!!!!!!
Just kidding ya'll !!

 

[uniface]

You've convincingly established that it happens, Neanderthal. At least in your area.

In fairness though, the "freeze pops" don't look a whole lot like the debitage (?) we were discussing. They're more like blocks and chunks. (?)

But then again, I've found blocks & chunks that could have come from that.

 

[Neanderthal]

You've convincingly established that it happens, Neanderthal. At least in your area.

In fairness though, the "freeze pops" don't look a whole lot like the debitage (?) we were discussing. They're more like blocks and chunks. (?)

But then again, I've found blocks & chunks that could have come from that.

Sometimes I feel as if I'm spinning my wheels. I know the direction I would like to go, but it's not getting anywhere..lol.

As I mentioned before, this fracturing happens all over (where there is good material in abundance), not just here. You most likely don't notice it in your area for few reasons, but the largest being due to the lack of high quality lithics in abundance. You simply won't see it happen as frequently in your Rhyolites, silicified shales and other materials that dominate the area. Pennsylvania is known as a lithic-poor state, along with a few others to the northeast. I actually have a ton of artifacts from PA, mostly Somerset Co.

When the stone blows apart, they are in slivers that very much resemble spalls. If you look close at the picture, you can see how they split. Also, look at the surrounding rocks. You can not tell me that if someone posted them on here they wouldn't be mistaken for artifacts (less convincing ones frequently are). You can tell them apart if you know what to look for, but sometimes it requires more scrutiny than an internet photo too. I did pick some freeze fractured "pseudo spalls" and other pieces, but haven't taken pics of them yet.

 

[naturegirl]

Hey thanks Matt! We found some Kay county chert at the end of a burnt log last summer,and we able to educate ourselves on what a wild fire will do to chert lying on the top of the ground. Never considered what a sudden hard freeze might do. I guess I thought the busting by freezing was a slower process, requiring several hard freezes over a long period of time. Now we can look for freeze breakage. (is that a word?)

thnx,
ng

 

[*Molly*]

Interesting. I've never seen that in NC/VA due to poor lithics. Least now on my travels I'm aware of this happening.
Thanks for posting this Matt. Educational.

Molly.

 

[Flintfinder of Mo.]

Matt, I see this all the time in our creeks and on the bluffs etc. I always referred to it as raw flint. It took me some time when first hunting to be able to separate it from actual worked pieces. It is a factor that I deal with on a regular basis here in Mo. Our creeks and streams are plum full of it. John

 

[uniface]

Wheel-spinning frustration ? Well, welcome to the world of human (mis-)communication, where failure to read with comprehension makes a travesty of a lot of attempts to communicate even simple ideas. We fasten onto what suits us to "see" and seem oblivious to what doesn't. Selective attention. Then what's being overlooked gets hammered and pounded and tempers start fraying because people figure others are unreasonably denying their "truth." More often than we like to acknowledge, as communicators of any information that doesn't key automatic agreement (that hardly needs communicated in the first place, since it's already agreed on), humans are in the disaster category.

We has met the enemy, and he is us.

So. Do we quit ?

I lived for seven years where there was an outcropping of Upper Helderberg chert 100 yards away, and another (a limestone mine) a quarter mile down the road. While a lot of this wouldn't meet your "high quality" criteria, it was mostly because much of it was full of seams. The best of it, heat treated, equalled anything the Berks-Lehigh Jasper quarries produced or the Onondaga chert that the glaciers pushed down from New York state. So unfamiliarity with decent quality chert doesn't, in this case, apply.

I've already acknowledged, based on what you've said and shown, that frost-splitting could very well happen. Even acknowledged the possibility that some of the chunks and blocks I used to find in abundance on sites (there were a lot of them in the area) might have had that as their shaping force. Then again, whenever I tried to knap them, they'd end-shock into smaller chunks and blocks. So maybe they weren't "high quality" after all. Except that there was no shortage of superb, large points knapped of it in old collections -- one of which was next door. So maybe that's an open question.

Pan the picture out to the wide angle view and maximum depth, and you find that "flakes" (removed from "hand axes") were the principal human tools for hundreds of thousands of years. Look at a Mousterian assemblage. All "flakes." Overall, not only the Clovis strategy, but that of the people who followed them mostly relied on flakes removed from bifacial cores for their everyday jobs. Flakes, whether with re-touched edges (flake tools) or without ("utilized flakes") are arguably the most common tools found from long before Clovis all the way down through to the contact era. Maybe not with some of the richer, the downtown people, but certainly with their poorer relatives out in the sticks.

This seems to be getting lost in the sauce. Flakes may not be tools, absent evidence of use. But, while it's an open question, dismissing them as insignificant in advance is bucking a trend that runs throughout history.

Work beckons. Cheers & High Regards

 

[Neanderthal]

Bill, you are not seeking information, you're seeking validation.

Your first appearances were claiming that core technology was monopolized by the Paleo. I cautioned you that it wasn't, and gave Hopewell as one example. You then touted core technology as being being either paleo OR Hopewell. Again, I cautioned you that more cultures employed it than that. You then proclaimed that it was only paleo OR those examples provided. The exact same thing happened with scrapers and blades. You assume too much, and that's not a good thing. I threw up my hands in frustration because you simply do not get it. You even called one post on here a "trap" (not by me), and got very snippy about it in PM. You are judging things by your knowledge in a very limited area and it's readily apparent that you aren't ready to accept that not everything is the same as it is there in PA. You are very good at posting other peoples work and references, but you aren't showing much of a cognizant ability for reasoning. I could be wrong, it could be that you simply haven't had enough data available to make these interpretations. It's true, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I'm going to give you one piece of information that I really hope you take heed of - any moron that can type a sentence can write a book or have a report published, regardless of truth or accuracy.

Now, you make the assumption that all of the debris in the background is probably just earlier tools. UGGGH!! It's not a site, it never was a site. If I posted the pictures of damaged stone from my driveway or ANY driveway, you would again try to make an argument that it was a tool. Yup, it's possible....it's also possible that I could be the next American Idol.

I didn't even bother commenting on your post about the "Oklahoma Furnaces", because I knew it would fall on deaf ears. They are a joke. Most people who are familiar with the geology around here know they are a joke. I truly was expecting you to bring up Burrow's Cave next.

Fine, we'll go your route. All uniface scraper that has a burin or graver are paleo. Every conchoidal fracture in stone was put there by man, if they're really crude, then it was probably just a hand-chopper from the earliest aboriginals. I'm sorry for even posing the notion that "flaking" along an edge could possibly come from another source than man. Every person on here who has commented and said they have seen freeze fractured stone, fire damaged, or any incidentally damaged stone is wrong. It was all man-made...all of it. Any stone that "looks odd" was man-made, there's no chance of it being a natural occurrence.

I told you I am not a good teacher, this has to be a prime example of it.

I give up, you win. I'm done, no more. Don't bother responding, because I have no intentions of doing it either. You'll end up arguing with yourself.

 

[pickaway]

Bill, you are not seeking information, you're seeking validation.

Your first appearances were claiming that core technology was monopolized by the Paleo. I cautioned you that it wasn't, and gave Hopewell as one example. You then touted core technology as being being either paleo OR Hopewell. Again, I cautioned you that more cultures employed it than that. You then proclaimed that it was only paleo OR those examples provided. The exact same thing happened with scrapers and blades. You assume too much, and that's not a good thing. I threw up my hands in frustration because you simply do not get it. You even called one post on here a "trap" (not by me), and got very snippy about it in PM. You are judging things by your knowledge in a very limited area and it's readily apparent that you aren't ready to accept that not everything is the same as it is there in PA. You are very good at posting other peoples work and references, but you aren't showing much of a cognizant ability for reasoning. I could be wrong, it could be that you simply haven't had enough data available to make these interpretations. It's true, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I'm going to give you one piece of information that I really hope you take heed of - any moron that can type a sentence can write a book or have a report published, regardless of truth or accuracy.

Now, you make the assumption that all of the debris in the background is probably just earlier tools. UGGGH!! It's not a site, it never was a site. If I posted the pictures of damaged stone from my driveway or ANY driveway, you would again try to make an argument that it was a tool. Yup, it's possible....it's also possible that I could be the next American Idol.

I didn't even bother commenting on your post about the "Oklahoma Furnaces", because I knew it would fall on deaf ears. They are a joke. Most people who are familiar with the geology around here know they are a joke. I truly was expecting you to bring up Burrow's Cave next.

Fine, we'll go your route. All uniface scraper that has a burin or graver are paleo. Every conchoidal fracture in stone was put there by man, if they're really crude, then it was probably just a hand-chopper from the earliest aboriginals. I'm sorry for even posing the notion that "flaking" along an edge could possibly come from another source than man. Every person on here who has commented and said they have seen freeze fractured stone, fire damaged, or any incidentally damaged stone is wrong. It was all man-made...all of it. Any stone that "looks odd" was man-made, there's no chance of it being a natural occurrence.

I told you I am not a good teacher, this has to be a prime example of it.

I give up, you win. I'm done, no more. Don't bother responding, because I have no intentions of doing it either. You'll end up arguing with yourself.


I agree..well said matt

 

[latrans]

I have a spot like that here in Iowa. At first I was very puzzled as when I first found it as there is a huge amount of of nodular chert there and virtually everyone of them looks like someone tried to work them but of course that wasn't the answer. I evetually came to the same conclusion as the chert was right on the shore of a reservoir.

 

[uniface]

Wow.

 

[sidmind]

I wish I would have had my camera with me today I saw a 2x2x5 inch chunk of "cherty" type grey rock that had had fractured into three pieces. the ground was frozen so all three pieces were together for the most part.
it looked excactly like Matt's photo.

very interesting stuff, I would never have even noticed it if it had not been for this thread. if the ground had not been frozen and I didn't feel like digging them out, I would have brought home to photo.

 

[uniface]

Just stopping by long enough to un-check the PM & e-mail links, since I'm not planning on being around much (if at all), and I wouldn't want people to think I was intentionally ignoring their messages.

What made (and I hope still makes) this place shine in comparison to other "artifact" boards is the atmosphere of friendliness and acceptance that several people (they know who they are, and you do too) go above and beyond to cultivate. It's worth preserving by any means necessary, and if (or, since) my stepping off the bus at this point looks like that's what it's going to take to restore that, so be it. Nothing lasts forever, and no one here gets out alive anyhow. A time to every purpose under heaven, and all that.

I will point out again (as if it isn't a waste of effort) that anybody can make a discussion impossible by figuring that it's not about information, but about egos, and that what's at stake is who's the Big Silverback in the jungle. Once that starts, if it can't be brought back around, it's no longer a dialogue because people are no longer considering what's being said. At best it deteriorates into a soap opera, diverting energy and attention; at worst it turns into a flame war, with people taking sides and jumping on their guy's bandwagon. Which is where we're at now, as far as my participating is concerned. That kind of dysfunctionality being an acquired taste I don't have, I'm off to whatever's next.

A parting thought (for whatever it's worth -- assuming anything) : there is a right way to disagree. It's the right way because it elicits further information, and consequently, helps everybody.

When you're dealing in information, the name of the game is "Show and Tell." If you disagree that all large blades are (presumably) Clovis, well and good. Show some that aren't, and explain when they were made, and where. One and done. Simple. At that point, you've refined a sweeping, inaccurate generalization into a narrower one, which can be further focused (by more back and forth exchanges) until it's accurate (assuming doing this is the result you're after). That way you're not expecting anybody to take your word for it because you said it, and getting annoyed when someone doesn't automatically accept it as gospel truth. That approach has disfigured "science" ever since it started, turning what should have been productive discussions into dogfights. "Whose side are you on ?" is the lowest common denominator people can function on. Once that starts, it's all over.

You can only share what you have. In consequence of that (and the law of averages), I've been wrong any number of times before I showed up here, and I'll probably be wrong many more times in the future. And cheerfully so. Having been wrong doesn't bother me, so long as it's provoked somebody who knows something I don't into showing me what I didn't know before. As time passes, ideas get revised and refined. That's how "science" has advanced for hundreds of years now (when the prevailing climate has allowed it). Since I'm a people, it's one way I learn, too. And, God willing, will continue to in years to come. Anybody who wants to figure that having been "wrong" (especially when subsequent revisions of an erronious opinion are ignored) is some kind of shame or merits condemnation is, in my opinion, pretty obviously using a show-and-tell forum to play King of the Jungle. Which is, again, in my opinion, not what it's there for. But, having established that my opinion(s) are pretty close to worthless anyhow, this means nothing.

So from this point on, those of us who are never "wrong" will take over what had been my role here. And, I'm sure, will do a better job of it too.

Onward & Upward

Uniface
(a.k.a. "Mr. Wrong")

 

[archer66]

Uniface....

I'm sure my thoughts don't matter much around here since I'm so far down the pecking order here that I'm not worth pecking.....

But.

As an interested reader, newbie artifact hunter, and all around enthusiast I want to say that I have enjoyed your posts and have found them to be very informative. I find it quite a shame that you are willing to let a disagreement cause you to quit visiting this site. I may be a newbie artifact hunter but I am not a newbie in life or in science. You say that the decision to leave....if I read it correctly...is based condemnation or shame directed at you for being wrong. Now I'll admit that I probably don't know the entire story...what went on behind the scenes, etc...but what I do know for sure is that the history of science is full of examples where scientists were condemned, shamed, ostracised, even put to death for being "wrong" whether they were wrong or not. If every scientist who met adversity went into seclusion, I hate to think where our world would be today. So what if you were wrong, so what if you aren't the "king of the jungle"....so what if you are I couldn't care less. This site is all about sharing information and learning about the greatness that is artifact hunting.

I'll leave you with the one thought. If ya go you will be missed. If that's what you want...for us to miss you, then good riddance. But if you somehow feel that you aren't welcome, I for one say you have it wrong.

Chris

 

[joshuaream]

Very well put archer66.

 

[Th3rty7]

Science = man's best guess. Life sure would be boring if you knew everything.

Bill, it's just one opinion, I for one enjoy your interesting dialogue and perspectives and appreciate your help and interest.

 

[sidmind]

I am going to just say I agree with archer66 and thrity7 then add this photo.




Some times you just have to slow down and take a deep breath. it's the Interwebs after all.

 

[Tnmountains]

Wow. I just saw how wrong this whole topic went. Strong opinions and strong personalities do that. No one and I mean no one is right all the time. Each person on here from the person that finds there first point to the guys that are filling up garages all contribute to the collective knowledge. It is just a matter of what or who you want to believe.
Matt has always weighed in with factual knowledge on what seemed to be western style artifacts and material and we looked to him for advice and strong affirmation. Not Gospel truth by any means but good solid advice.
Bill brought to this forum something it did not have. It did not have it at all and that was the study of worked flakes into tools. Hardly anyone ever considered the things and many of us threw them away. Crap we threw away or discarded in the field what is now brought home and studied. Some was good some was not. Not every flake was a tool and I do not think anyone thought that. Secondary work on that flake was a diffrent story and we learned from Uni to recognise it. Time frames are tough and as much as I wish my stuff was Paleo maybe some was maybe some is not but the truth is no one on here can tell me one way or another. Its speculations.
Bill pushed time frames back always wanting to go further back in time reaching and wanting the Paleo tools. That's cool.
Matt brought year of experience from collecting and buying and selling and handling collections. We need that.
Bill gave us many articles to read and make our own decisions. Its not all true because its on the net. Heck I am on the net typing and am wrong all the time.
The topic at hand on Freeze fractures is applicable no doubt where Matt is at. He proved it. I will say and I am one that has covered a zillion miles of land by foot in..Tennessee and have never seen any freeze fractures like what he showed. If I see that I am finding artifacts. Then I am finding in context with that bases tips and blades or the scrapers Uni brought to our attention.
Point is I believe Matt sometimes. I believe Uniface sometimes. But I do NOT believe either one all the time.

Both members and their views are important to us as every opinion should be if someone takes the time to respond. I see a post with 50 views from lurkers before someone with respect speaks out and tries to help. Right or wrong I appreciate the response.
Healthy debates ,facts presented, views expressed and knowledge shared is what we all seek when we post our old worn out rocks. This is where we come as beginners for help and old crusty dogs come to have their knowledge rebuilt.
I say Matt and Bill stay with us. Keep giving advice. Show us similar items and links.
Enough said. TnMountains rest.
Everyone that agrees give a thumbs up and run up the numbers on this post.