No way this is a natural stone!

[BearCreek]

I found this on the edge of our creek today. We live in the ridge and valley region of Northwest Georgia. Any idea what it might be?

 

[joshuaream]

Really great quality pictures.

It looks obviously worked to me, but with that big blob of cortex at one end, I think it might have just been a preform or a quick tool?

 

[arrow86]

Maybe a broken knife that was reworked into a scraper

 

[rock]

Maybe a broken knife that was reworked into a scraper

I agree the cortex on the end is the stem the well worked end use to have a tip on it and when it broke they made it into a hafted scraper from what I am seeing. Any chance on seeing the other side? Could be flat on the other side.

 

[scruggs]

Nice...definitely worked by human hands!

 

[BearCreek]

The back is sort of flat and both edges are worked. Here's a pic of the back and the side.

 

[Jon Stewart]

Material almost looks like slag glass.

 

[monsterrack]

It is an artifact, but I'm not sure it is broken. Can you show a photo looking straight at the wide end showing the edge. The shine could be from wear. Cool find

 

[Mrdigz]

Interesting!

 

[rock]

Okay looks to be a unifaced tool which is still a good find. The material is a flint not slag glass. Every once in a while I will find a type of flint that has those tiny holes in it. Its a sturdy flint but is a lower grade type probably Chert. Flint and chert are basicly the same material just chert is a tad bit lower in a grade quality. But was still used and worked.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Definitely a flaked artifact. Not sure though if it was a finished product and used as a Knife or as Joshua said it may have been a preform that was abandoned because of the cortex.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Posts deleted, Bob this is the "North American Indian Artifact" forum not the rock and mineral forum or fantasy forum, last time I politely remind....

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Mod. If you know anything about the Jesuits. They were in the Indian settlements. Therefore they did have an influence in the stone work. I will stand my ground in this one sided view. Just prove me wrong is all I ask.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[beep beep dig]

Mod. If you know anything about the Jesuits. They were in the Indian settlements. Therefore they did have an influence in the stone work. I will stand my ground in this one sided view. Just prove me wrong is all I ask.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

fantasies can't be proven wrong. just imagine someone saying prove to me that Santa Claus doesn't exist, it's impossible to do.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Mod. If you know anything about the Jesuits. They were in the Indian settlements. Therefore they did have an influence in the stone work. I will stand my ground in this one sided view. Just prove me wrong is all I ask.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Bob it is not up for debate or discussion, stop posting the fantasy rocks and Jesuit wannabe rocks in the north american indian artifact forum.....

 

[Backwoodsbob]

That proves it!!!!!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Bob, your not going to win this battle, this is American Indian Artifact Forum PERIOD!

 

[Charl]

Jesuit influence on native life took place in the 17th and 18th centuries. Said influence included the obvious missionary work of conversion. Other influence included exchange of trade goods such as metal crucifixes and medals. Such Christian inspired goods are found in some abundance in 17th and 18th century Iroquois villages in upstate NY, to name one sphere of influence.

However, Jesuit influence did not include any influence on the production of stone tools by the natives.

In addition, Jesuit influence was not present for the ~14,000 years of native history preceding the 17th century.

Since there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the stone artifact presented in this thread was created in the 17th or 18th centuries, there is absolutely no reason to bring up the Jesuits in this thread at all. And even if it could be demonstrated that the tool was fashioned in the 1600's or 1700's, there would still be no reason to raise the topic of Jesuit influence on native life, since the artifact seen in this thread is a native creation, not a Jesuit creation.

 

[Charl]

Mod. If you know anything about the Jesuits. They were in the Indian settlements. Therefore they did have an influence in the stone work. I will stand my ground in this one sided view. Just prove me wrong is all I ask.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Illogical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this instance, the burden of proof is upon yourself. The burden of proof is not upon those who believe you are mistaken. That burden is upon you. To prove your rocks are in any way shaped by humans, or contain markings rendered by humans. You are the one making these claims. Therefore, you are the one who bears the burden of proof. Period. And since your rocks are not artifacts, that argument does not belong on a forum devoted to Native American artifacts.

See the preceding comment for other fallacies contained in your statement.....

 

[Backwoodsbob]

I can and I will.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk