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.

 

[arrow86]

It’s hard to tell from that one pic , when you get a chance a few more pics would really help

 

[indianajaune]

Alright, I'll get you a few more pics, should be coming in 8 to 24 hours. Also will try to get the exact dimensions of the object.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Nothing in picture suggests it is indian artifact. Why do you think it it is native american tool?

 

[indianajaune]

a) Found at a spot in the woods where other artifacts such as old Indian pottery and tools were found (and documented).

b) Also, we do not naturally find chert in the wooden area that the "tool" was found.

c) Finally, it looked to me like the top part of the "tool" was flaked (but the sides were not touched).

Perhaps it's not a tool but just a flake. However, I'm pretty sure that it was brought there by the Indians that occupied the site.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Going to need more pictures as nothing in picture posted shows signs of being worked.

 

[indianajaune]

Alright thanks for helping out, more pics are coming soon!

 

[RGINN]

I don't think it's a tool, but a piece of the material they made tools from. Sounds like a good site to keep looking, too.

 

[uniface]

Self-evidently a core, from which flakes were struck as needed -- for as-is informal tools, or to be modified into formally made tools.

 

[indianajaune]

Thanks for the heads up! Yes, currently winter and snow so can't search there but will do in a couple of months for sure.

 

[indianajaune]

Thanks for the comment!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Sorry, still not seeing any thing in pictures that suggest it was worked on by man, no size reference either. Are you thinking it is because it is pointed?

 

[indianajaune]

Alright. No, I don't think the point was worked since it's way too large and isn't sharp. However, what's highlighted in blue on the screenshot below made me think it had been worked on a little bit.

Also, the context of the finding (spot where other Indian artifacts were found + same depth that they were found as well) makes me think it is related. Finally, the material (chert) corresponds to what they were using as well.

 

[MAMucker]

You are right on to consider the context. Is that enough to call it an artifact? Sure. Tool? Maybe, maybe not.
But, when I come across something like that, in the context you describe, I slow waaay down.
As a surface hunter (I know you dug it up), that’s a stop sign!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Just being found in area of other artifacts doesnt make it an artifact. I hunted several areas that were former camp sites with spring fed streams, hundreds of artifacts and thousands upon thousands of rocks that were just rocks. Just me but personally I was never into collecting "maybe it was touched", I collect artifacts that had signs of be worked. I collected buckets of debitage before I stopped collecting it, broken points went into my rock garden which stayed when I moved to Florida.

 

[MAMucker]

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.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My posts were not meant to discourage, but I also believe we do disservice to new collectors to say something that has no signs of being worked as a maybe. It encourages new hunters to look for "maybes" and not real artifacts. You have to train your eyes on what to look for and if the eyes are trained to look for the wrong thing odds are greatly reduced of finding real artifacts..

 

[uniface]

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

FWIW

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Depending on where found it could easily have been impacted by farm equipment.

 

[Fossils]

Context is everything. A piece of chert found on a Native Anerican site with no natural chert around has a high probability of being held by Native Americans. There is no way to be 100% sure of the items identity, but chances are its a chert core.