Not sure what this is, rectangular flint

[cloudboy]

Found this out walking today in my usual spot. I wasn't even sure it was an artifact at first, but it 100% is. It's very rectangular, every side is perfectly smooth. One side has been beaten as if it were going to become a point, then I guess whoever was doing it either gave up or dropped it? Is this called a preform?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[AlabamaRelic]

That’s a rock.

 

[cloudboy]

That’s a rock.

I agree that it looks like it at first. However, you can clearly see percussion marks along this edge and it is also translucent when held to the sun. My camera isn't very good but I hope you can see it.

 

[Tdog]

That looks like creek chatter and not knapping evidence. I would keep it.

 

[UnderMiner]

Mother Earth made that stone using wind, rain, and time. It took her millions of years to make that. Now it's yours free of charge.

 

[cloudboy]

Not sure I agree that it's not been knapped, but appreciate the feedback nonetheless. I will be keeping it.

EDIT- Also I want to point out that I did not find it in a creek, but along the dirt road where I've found so many tools lately.

 

[newnan man]

I agree it's natural. It could easily been in a creek during it's lifetime. Your neck of the woods was flooded completely 12-13,000 years ago.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Agree with the others, it is natural stone and see no sign of knapping by man, rather it is random chipping by nature.

 

[antmike915]

Agree with above comments about it being natural.

 

[JKicker]

There's more to knapping than just striking stone with other stones or bones. I would expect percussion strikes to remove more material. I would expect pressure flakes to have some foundation percussion work (unless it is a chip or flake being utilized, which could be be argued the foundation work was done).

I'm not an expert but I tried my hand at knapping 25 years ago and learned real quick that some of the things I believed to be worked was not possible or probable.

 

[pepperj]

Not sure I agree that it's not been knapped, but appreciate the feedback nonetheless. I will be keeping it.

EDIT- Also I want to point out that I did not find it in a creek, but along the dirt road where I've found so many tools lately.

Kind of looks like one of those licorice candies.
If found by a dirt road could of come from a quarry. (Rock crusher )

 

[dirstscratcher]

I agree with others that it's not likely to have been knapped. It's a little too small to make anything useful, and both ends heavily layered in non flint material, would make removing full flakes nearly impossible.

 

[unclemac]

we had this conversation years ago, sometimes these siliceous stones just happen to rough out into cube shapes, odd but natural.

 

[Tdog]

I agree with others that it's not likely to have been knapped. It's a little too small to make anything useful, and both ends heavily layered in non flint material, would make removing full flakes nearly impossible.

That layered outer skin is cortex and you're exactly correct. The softer cortex would be removed in most cases to further refine the tool. Probably not so much on a quick-&-dirty tool but on a keeper. I think the piece is a section from a vein of good flint.

 

[unclemac]

good point.... a vein as opposed to a nodule is a good way to explain this

 

[Monsterrack 15]

A part of a vein of chert is a great way to look at. Has for the chipping that could have happened a 100 different ways. 1 step on by a person and the stone laying in the right spot could have caused that. If it was pressure flaking the chipping would be more matching. Also I would think why use such a thick stone when you could just knock off a flake from a larger stone an have a ready to use tool.

 

[cloudboy]

A part of a vein of chert is a great way to look at. Has for the chipping that could have happened a 100 different ways. 1 step on by a person and the stone laying in the right spot could have caused that. If it was pressure flaking the chipping would be more matching. Also I would think why use such a thick stone when you could just knock off a flake from a larger stone an have a ready to use tool.

I don't know much about natural flint sources. So it's definitely flint, then? If so, then it was at least brought there to where I found it by someone? And where can I read about veins vs nodules?

 

[Tdog]

Here's a good place to start. They refer to veins as layers in parts of this text.

https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6284&context=pias

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I don't know much about natural flint sources. So it's definitely flint, then? If so, then it was at least brought there to where I found it by someone? And where can I read about veins vs nodules?

Doesn't mean it was carried there by someone, was it near any roads, it is common to have flint in gravel that is used for roads, could easily have fallen out of a gravel truck, I have even found flint points in gravel dumped on roads.

Was it near water, easily could have come from a creek or stream bed, stream doesn't have to be a stream now either, could have been a creek or stream a 1000 years ago..

To be an artifact there has to be signs it was touched, made or used by man.