Rocks or artifacts?

Hi Im new to the forum and artifact hunting, I hope its all right for me to post and ask questions here on the forum. All of these were found in creek beds around the Branson MO area. Thanks for any help!

A little hammerstone, some flake/blade knives and possibly some stones in the process of being made into celts, plummets &c.  Artifacts.

Thanks uniface! I know there not much but I was exctied when I found them, now I know Im on the right track. Which one is the hammer stone? And what is the white stone in the middle. Thanks

It's my opinion that only one rock is a positive artifact and that would be the one in the last pic. at the bottom. I would call that a blade or knife. jmo, Harry

While unitas is right, the only easily identifiable artifact is the blade in the last picture, I'm seeing another in the piece top left of the first picture...Looking at the closeup, I see some secondary flaking on the edges, possibly a killsite tool. I agree with uniface about the possible plummet, tho.

[Matt Rowe]

As Unitas stated, I too believe that the only artifact you have there is the small knife / biface in the bottom of the last pic. 

gotjack : the bottom right one in the first picture is the one I meant (little hammerstone). The rest of the chert pieces pretty obviously didn't make themselves. If somebody wants to believe that the creek made them, they're welcome to, I guess. They well may be debitage (waste flakes from making something else) but I suspect they were used (utilised flakes) from looking at them.

Good going & keep up the good work. 

Well thanks for all the replys I welcome them all as I am new to hunting artifacts. I cant wait to get out there and look for more!

Gotjack, I just saw your location.  You are VERY close to me, I live in Pryor.    I would be happy to look at your artifacts in person sometime, but I'm pretty confident in my first assessment of them.  Take care and happy hunting. 

Gotjack, I just saw your location.  You are VERY close to me, I live in Pryor.    I would be happy to look at your artifacts in person sometime, but I'm pretty confident in my first assessment of them.  Take care and happy hunting. 

 That was nice. Looks like you are in a spot that will give you more. Keep bringing everything home. Good luck.
TnMtns

Neanderthal that would be nice. Please send me a PM or email, Thanks

I agree with the rest ,on the only artifact is the blade in the last pic. Your about 3 hours from me or Id look at them also, but I am pretty sure everyone is right on this. Good luck. John

The differences of opinion aren't really about your artifacts (or, non-artifacts), gotjack. As usual, they're over the definition of "artifact." And while it might be tedious to keep raising this point, I think it is at least equally useful to do so, for if the wind always blows from the same direction, the trees grow crooked.

To one way of looking at it, a chert "artifact" essentially means "biface." (A biface is a piece with both sides flaked, and usually recognisable as at least once having been a point or a knife). Only in cases where a repeating form (like prismatic blades) or fairly extensive edge re-touching are involved (such as on scrapers or gravers) are non-bifaces recognised as "artifacts."

This is more or less a carry-over from the way archaeologists viewed the picture 50 years ago. Everything then that wasn't a biface or a flake tool was dismissed as just "debitage" -- the chips and chunks left over from making "artifacts."

It has since dawned on people that not only were these "waste flakes" used (often without further modification) as tools in many cases, but with some peoples, far from a re-supply source and being frugal with what they had with them, (what was once written off as) "debitage"  comprised most of their actual tool kits. Everything that could be recycled was recycled -- down to smashing exhausted tools to use the splinters as gravers and borers.

So whether your pieces were, in fact, used as tools or not, from this perspective, they could have been and, at any rate, they were deliberately produced. Making them, broadly speaking, "artifacts" (things made by people).

Choose your perspective, and your conclusion follows.

Yea I agree with the others only see one artifact. 

The differences of opinion aren't really about your artifacts (or, non-artifacts)

So whether your pieces were, in fact, used as tools or not, from this perspective, they could have been and, at any rate, they were deliberately produced. Making them, broadly speaking, "artifacts" (things made by people).

   Incorrect.  I think if you would get out of Pennsylvania and come to the Ozarks (or even most places east of the Mississipppi), your perspective on "artifacts" may really change.  The items he is showing (to me at least) show absolutely no signs of human modification.  They show incidental damage that is common where you find good quality lithic materials.  His pieces were not "things made by people", they are things made by nature.  

   Even the "micro flaking" that you think you see along the edge, sorry guy, that appears all natural and commonplace for the area.  

The differences of opinion aren't really about your artifacts (or, non-artifacts)

So whether your pieces were, in fact, used as tools or not, from this perspective, they could have been and, at any rate, they were deliberately produced. Making them, broadly speaking, "artifacts" (things made by people).

   Incorrect.  I think if you would get out of Pennsylvania and come to the Ozarks (or even most places east of the Mississipppi), your perspective on "artifacts" may really change.  The items he is showing (to me at least) show absolutely no signs of human modification.  They show incidental damage that is common where you find good quality lithic materials.  His pieces were not "things made by people", they are things made by nature.  

   Even the "micro flaking" that you think you see along the edge, sorry guy, that appears all natural and commonplace for the area.  

Neanderthal raises a good "point".  In central and south Texas, we have large amounts of flint and chert.  Creeks, rivers, freeze/thaw, and even the Texas sun can fracture this lithic material to look similar to flake tools.  I think you need to weigh the context of where you found something before assigning whether it was produced by people.  Your case is stronger for "artifact" if it was found in site debris.

John

All probably true.

Hi gotjack, I'm new to this hobby, too.  I'm in Missouri, about 4 hours NE of you, and I find the same kind of items here.  Are they artifacts?  I don't know.  But the learning and the hunting are so much fun that you'll be addicted in no time.  Good luck on your hunts!

Bluesy i am all ready addicted LOL. Thank you everyone for the replies and the opinions, I can definitely learn from all of them.

I agree with Neanderthal. Mo creeks are loaded with flakes like that I guess from freeze fractures and fire.

The differences of opinion aren't really about your artifacts (or, non-artifacts), gotjack. As usual, they're over the definition of "artifact." And while it might be tedious to keep raising this point, I think it is at least equally useful to do so, for if the wind always blows from the same direction, the trees grow crooked.

To one way of looking at it, a chert "artifact" essentially means "biface." (A biface is a piece with both sides flaked, and usually recognisable as at least once having been a point or a knife). Only in cases where a repeating form (like prismatic blades) or fairly extensive edge re-touching are involved (such as on scrapers or gravers) are non-bifaces recognised as "artifacts."

This is more or less a carry-over from the way archaeologists viewed the picture 50 years ago. Everything then that wasn't a biface or a flake tool was dismissed as just "debitage" -- the chips and chunks left over from making "artifacts."

It has since dawned on people that not only were these "waste flakes" used (often without further modification) as tools in many cases, but with some peoples, far from a re-supply source and being frugal with what they had with them, (what was once written off as) "debitage"  comprised most of their actual tool kits. Everything that could be recycled was recycled -- down to smashing exhausted tools to use the splinters as gravers and borers.

So whether your pieces were, in fact, used as tools or not, from this perspective, they could have been and, at any rate, they were deliberately produced. Making them, broadly speaking, "artifacts" (things made by people).

Choose your perspective, and your conclusion follows.

the wind doesnt blow in the same direction and never will.

A reality check every now and then doesn't hurt. Sometimes it even helps.

With that in mind, take this little quick test to see how well your idea of what an "artifact"/"tool" is (and isn't) measures up.

How many artifacts in these images ?

http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/enlarge/topper-1.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/enlarge/topper-13.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/enlarge/topper-10.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/enlarge/topper-11.php
http://www.centerfirstamericans.com/gallery/enlarge/topper-2.php

Extra Credit : Ignore the points in the top row. How many tools ?
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/students/2003/images/anthro28.jpg

A picture's worth a thousand words.

Recognise these as Paleoindian tools ? (Hint : They are)

http://www.bse.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_6_2_27067_3316_405749_43/http%3B/pubcontent.state.pa.us/publishedcontent/publish/cop_environment/phmc/communities/extranet/archaeology/naarch/paleoindianucontent/paleoindiantools.jpg

PS : IN CASE ANYBODY'S WONDERING, THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ISSUE.

NEANDERTHAL PROBABLY KNOWS AS MUCH IF NOT MORE ABOUT MIDWESTERN ARTIFACTS AS ANYBODY ALIVE. I'M HAPPY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, WITHOUT PROMPTING BY ANYBODY.

IT'S ABOUT DIFFERING CONCEPTS OF WHAT TOOLS/ARTIFACTS ARE OR CAN BE.

I generally don't have the time to post much, but I do believe debate can be educational as well as healthy at times.   

I can't see a single point in the topper site that I can look at for sure and say "yes, that's an artifact".  We can also throw Calico and Burnham sites into that mix also.  I'm not the only one who thinks that either.  Here are some other Topper related links.  For the record, I consider Michael Collins from UT to be very adept at identifying Clovis, and even pre-clovis.  I believe he is the one on the Gault site down in Texas.
  http://www.allendale-expedition.net/pressreleases/Archaeologymag.pdf
  http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/why-50000-bp-is-a-crazy-date-for-topper.htm
  http://pediaview.com/openpedia/Calico_Early_Man_Site

   Don't get me wrong!  I'm not saying that there wasn't pre-clovis occupation, I'm just saying those sites don't do it for me.  As for the images in your bottom links, I simply can't tell from the photos.  A few do look like they may humanly modified, but I simply can't make out a whole lot from those images. 

    Uni, have you ever seen what good flint does when it's been super-saturated and then exposed to a quick freeze?  I have, several times.  It will fracture the chert and often blow it into pieces so delicate and sharp that you would swear they were taken from a core.  Or flint shards (not struck by man) that have tumbled down a creek bed for years?  The edges of them can get chattered and flaked in a fashion that is easily mistaken for intentional pressure flaking.   

 

I generally don't have the time to post much, but I do believe debate can be educational as well as healthy at times.  

I can't see a single point in the topper site that I can look at for sure and say "yes, that's an artifact".  We can also throw Calico and Burnham sites into that mix also.  I'm not the only one who thinks that either.  Here are some other Topper related links.  For the record, I consider Michael Collins from UT to be very adept at identifying Clovis, and even pre-clovis.  I believe he is the one on the Gault site down in Texas.
  http://www.allendale-expedition.net/pressreleases/Archaeologymag.pdf
  http://archaeology.about.com/b/2009/02/14/why-50000-bp-is-a-crazy-date-for-topper.htm
  http://pediaview.com/openpedia/Calico_Early_Man_Site

   Don't get me wrong!  I'm not saying that there wasn't pre-clovis occupation, I'm just saying those sites don't do it for me.  As for the images in your bottom links, I simply can't tell from the photos.  A few do look like they may humanly modified, but I simply can't make out a whole lot from those images.  

    Uni, have you ever seen what good flint does when it's been super-saturated and then exposed to a quick freeze?  I have, several times.  It will fracture the chert and often blow it into pieces so delicate and sharp that you would swear they were taken from a core.  Or flint shards (not struck by man) that have tumbled down a creek bed for years?  The edges of them can get chattered and flaked in a fashion that is easily mistaken for intentional pressure flaking.  

  

Totaaly agree with Matt,Seems like if ppl make a internet site its all of a sudden fact sorry just not so.Creeks do wild things to flint here anybody that has spent time looking for artifacts in them knows what it does to them.

Well, to pick a place to start, no, I haven't seen the freeze/thaw flint breakage you describe. Or, to be relentlessly honest, haven't recognised it if I have. Living here in Pennsylvania, I should see it -- a lot. 16 Wheeler magazines every year have polls on the worst roads in the USA and Pennsylvania generally wins hands down. Pothole capital of America because of the way that geological and meteorological factors intersect, especially SW part of the state, where I grew up. Exactly because of the freeze/thaw cycle you bring up. Snow melts, water soaks into the road, then a quick hard freeze comes. Repeat that maybe 100 times a year, and you've got Pothole City. It drives PennDOT (Dept. of Transportation) nuts. People assume it's their fault and hate them. They've spent millions of dollar on studies to minimise it with improved construction design, asphalt & concrete, but you can't fight mother nature. It isn't the freezing or the thawing, but these oscilating back and forth so many times with such intensity.  

That being the case, I should have been seeing frost-shattered chert all over the place.  But if I did, I didn't recognise it. What I did find were artifacts, on or close enough to the surface (the frost line here's about six feet) that were as intact as when they were discarded or lost, thousands of years ago. And glacial river cobbles collected for microcores (for an example) in the early Woodland era (they loved 'em) that are still intact cobbles 1500 years later. Not shattered. Not split. The pounds and pounds of debitage I collected (like everybody does when they start) and dumped on the porch didn't show any fresh breakage I ever noticed in subsequent years when I re-checked it to make sure I hadn't overlooked something in it. Stuff broken by plough impact, sure. Tons. But recognisable artifacts just randomly shattered like the ones pictured with no impact evidence, no. Slate will weather split. But if seams and cobbles of chert will, it seems to take a lot longer than the time frame of human habitation. Or else different chert.

So maybe that happens in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas & around there. Since I can't say it doesn't, I won't. But it raises my eyebrows, the way anything curious and unexpected does. Ordinarily, it would seem to take pretty violent flooding to bash pieces like those off. And considering that the smaller the size, the more forceful the impact would have to be (impact being a function of mass and velocity, super velocity would have to make up for minimal mass), it's counter-intuitive, at least.

And that's too much about frost-splitting, probably.

OK. Now tools. (Whether this is educational for anybody else or not, I don't know. But it's educational for me, at least).

I checked your sites, of course. Intending no personal disrespect, I think that, as what purport to be Science, they're jokes.

This is why I think that :

Try (if you're a masochist) to convince the powers-that-be in the Baptist world that the Methodists are right about anything. That's exactly what's going on here. These are people entrenched in a belief system that feel they have something important to lose if it should turn out they're wrong. So they're never wrong. The other guys are.

One of the statements in them give the whole game away :

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary standards of evidence," said Anderson.

This is the kind of statement you'd expect from a politician. Or from the O. J. Simpson defense team. But as Science, it's sheer rubbish. Because in Science, theories have to account for the evidence. When they don't, it's the theories that have to be revised. It is not incumbent on the evidence to be congruent with the current theory. Which is exactly what these people are trying to insist is the case. And 180 degrees backwards.

In 1927, all it took to establish that people lived here during the ice age was a Folsom point found between the ribs of an extinct bison. One and done. The old guard tried the same stunts then, too. A prairie dog dug a hole down into the Paleo level and a later artifact slid down into it.  Then the whole thing filled back in again, so it only looks like the Folsom Point is contemporary with the Bison. See ?  Or else Bison Taylori (as it was called then) survived, in small herds, into historical times. The whole thing's probably only a couple hundred years old.  See ?

They only gave it up because people were laughing at them. The grand poohbah of the old guard actually reached the level of high comedy in the paper he wrote for the journal volume that published the evidence. According to him, since no skeleton of any ice age man had been discovered, there still wasn't any "proof" he had ever existed.

Science examines the unexplained.
Belief systems "explain" the unexamined. And an "examination" undertaken with the sole intention of picking evidence apart and "debunking" it is not an objective examination, any more than the Warren Commission's whitewash of the Kennedy assassination was. When even people in the street recognise this, the game's about over.

How does a flake of chert travel 100 miles from its source to turn up where it doesn't belong there ? (Picked up and dropped there by a tornado going north-to-south, maybe ?) How do little pieces of quartzite in core and tool forms happen to be where they don't naturally belong when there are tons of quartzite elsewhere in the neighborhood that are still big chunks ? (Chipmunks picked up the little ones and cached them ?) How does it happen that these are associated (as would be recognised anywhere else, provided that association were non-controversial) with a campfire ? (Lightning hit a tree and blew a chunk of burning wood off that kept burning though it was raining ?). Why was a similar lithic technology found at Meadowcroft ? (The dates there are all wrong. There was invisible coal in the charcoal samples that two different world-class laborotories didn't recognise).

Add up not only this picture but similar ones and the bottom line is on a par with "the dog ate my homework." Impossible to disprove, but so unlikely it provokes laughter.

The whole issue is not that the evidence isn't adequate. It's that (as your citations show) that "Scientists" won't acknowledge it -- refuse to recognise it as evidence, on any pretext necessary. If they would, then the whole picture they've painted of people coming to the Western Hemisphere for the first time from Siberia would collapse. More importantly, it would turn out that they've been full of dookie for years.  And obstinately so. Suppressing evidence, persecuting dissenters behind the scenes, operating as a cartel to control what gets published . . . behaving any way but the way scientists are supposed to.

"Science" doesn't accept evidence of pre-Clovis people here because it overturns their belief system.

The Baptist church doesn't accept that the Methodists may be right about a few points they differ on.

In the second case, this is fine.  Because they are dealing in beliefs.

But in the first case, this is NOT fine. Because they're dealing in beliefs.

And calling this "science."

Science Today :

Lenny Bruce used to do a monologue about being on the road (he was a comedian) one night. He was staying in a seedy hotel, and called room service to send him up a prostitute. When he opens the door, there stands a guy in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches, with a beard, a pipe and a typewriter.

That's "science' today in all too many cases. Because of the golden rule : the people with the gold make the rules.

Want "evidence" of massive global warming ? Put enough temperature sensors beside parking lots and buildings, and you'll come up with all the "evidence" of it you want.

Want to "prove" that tobacco kills people with statistics ? Make your standards of "evidence" so loose that a woman who dies in a traffic accident gets recorded as a "smoking-related" fatality because her husband smoked an occasional cigar in their house.  

It's easy.

We see it every day.

And the key is always what constitutes "proof." Control that, and you dictate the conclusion.

Uniface, with all due respect, your constant knocking of science is contradictory.  It seems you have issues with Certain views held by SPECIFIC people in various fields of science; however, in your criticism of them, you are constantly using various things learned through Science.  Figuratively, it's similar to "your" Baptist beating the Methodist with a 20 lb. Bible, or vice versa.  Science (the observation, study, and analysis of things that exist) is taking a beating in your post while you use some science as your "weapon".  It sounds like someone who is critical of the use of language, while using language to make their case.

I interpret your intent to be to improve our understanding in this field of Science.  So, wouldn't it be accurate and useful to be more specific in your criticism of Certain Views, rather than regularly degrade the concept of science?  Otherwise, you may find that you're not on the trunk side of the tree that you're trying to saw a few limbs off...and you seem wiser than that.   

Science is not the problem...views within it have evolved as we learn new facts.  You're reading this sentence on a product of...Science.    

Oh, and by the way, 10,000 cfs in a narrow creek or river smacks rocks into each other with a force that can be heard above water.  SoIll reminded me of another culprit - range fires.  These things are responsible for some flakes that look like artifacts.

I think that identifying any artifact by just looking at one photo can be difficult.
If someone is new to the hobby the best thing to do for them is to positively I.D. artifacts that are obvious to everyone. It is not responsible to I.D. everything as an artifact regardless of one's personal opinion.It is more helpful to a beginner to take small steps. I think beginners should take home any rock that they may think is an artifact because with the growth of their knowledge, they may indeed I.D. an artifact that they did not know they had.But to weigh down a newbie with complicated theories and opinions helps no-one. I think this is the kind of HOBBY that people can grow into,gaining knowledge as they gain experience.If they decide to read and study to gain a deeper understanding more power to them.Until then keeping things simple is probably best. I don't want this poor guy lugging a bushel of rocks home until HE decides he should.jmo--Harry

Hi Tylocidaris

I'm not knocking science. I'm supporting it.

Against crap purporting to be science, and dressed up like it, that isn't.

If that much isn't clear, I need to learn how to write, I guess.

Welcome to t-net gotjack. I am also new to this site and have learned alot from the good people here. Looks like you have found at least one nice artifact, maybe more! Below is a site i found helpful for identifying artifacts from rocks, even though its from Australia. Its not alot of info, and as someone above mentioned, just because someone put it on a website dosent mean its true, but i found it helpful. Click on the poster to see more artifacts. Alot of their quartzite artifacts resemble the stuff we find here, in my novice opinion.
                             Good luck, happy hunting.
                                                  The viking.



            http://www.ccmaindig.info/heritage/SitesArtifacts_FlakedTools.html 

gotjack - nice post - looks like the kind of rocks I find and look at trying to imagine them as an artifact . I guess all my drills might not be  (although I figured that out already from the link that has all pictures of drills.)

theviking - thanks for that link - Guess I have found a lot of peices off the real tool  - but at least I am more confident that I am on the right track and the real tools must be around somewhere

Good Info

I just had to get in here. Yes, the bottom one IS an artifact. I believe it is a biface, very possibly a preform made from high grade Burlington. For any who dont know, Dead Coyote Creek, in Greenfield, MO. is a good place for flint AND artifacts. I have been there to get rock and found DOZENS of preforms there. I live in Alabama and Im an artifact collector and master flintknapper. You can see my site at www.flintstoneandbonecreations.com   Stan

Thanks for the links and info guys.

Afternoon,

Gotjack you have some good information from the troops there.  You also got a good lesson in "professional differences of opinion."  I could sit here for an hour and lecture you on what to look for in determining an "artifact" over "geofact"....such information is good, but is never 100%   It is also very difficult to tell just what something is, or is not, by looking at a photograph.  There is much information to be gleaned only by close examination of a piece.

Rocks tumbled in a river will be round and smooth....of course many will exactly "fit" your hand and you can see just how they (indians) used them.  That in and of itself does not however make it an artifact.  If, however, you find a similar stone in conjunction with pottery, chips, points  and other obvious artifacts, it greatly increases the probability its an artifact and not just a smooth river rock.

I dont normally get off into labeling chips and flakes....for the most part I either leave them or put them in the can O' junk I keep in the back of the truck.  Long bladelets and large flakes with worked edges are pretty obvious.....the workmanship speaks for itself.  Good sites will normally exhibit lots of flakes and broken pieces...of many sizes and variety.

If you have the opportunity to meet Matt, I am certain you will gain valuable knowledge on artifacts.  I always look to him when I have a question about a point, and he has never led me astray.
It sounds somewhat of a cliche' but experience will be your best teacher. 

Read books...watch videos...youtube has many...check out the various websites available....take in shows if you can and remember that nothing beats field work....I am sure there are some folks around your area that are into relic hunting....they might not take you to their spots, but most will be willing to give you a little primer on what to look for.  TN is also a very valuable resource.

Looks like you have the bug now.  Dont be afraid to ask questions, that's how you learn.

Atlantis

I ran into this on another site and thought it worth repeating. On the "controversial" pre-paleo artifacts at Calico :
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/17170/t/Charlie-Hatchett-question.html

"Well sure, anyone can pick out the cherries from 60,000 specimens".

Y'know, this is what you hear -- A LOT!

Yet, not one single debunker has come forward showing another natural-geofact site where this is true. Consider all of the natural flint/chert outcrops in the entire world the debunkers have to chose from. And yet, after 40 years of Calico lithics -- and you would think that the debunkers would have been looking -- there has been no other candidate that has ever yielded the kinds of "geofacts" that the debunkers so easily and so glibly claim are just normal wear and tear you find at any chert source/outcrop. In fact, there are plenty of great geofacts in the Calico collection itself; some are natural, weathered spalls that you would swear were actually blades unless you are familiar with the signatures of fracture mechanics. And, there are indeed actual blades in the collection as well. It is complex and in many ways the subtleties can be confusing. Our job right now is to put the collection on some type of friendly footing that will allow in depth analysis in the years to come.

It is great that the idea of geofacts is posited as a hypothesis, but to rest on that hypothesis as "proof" of geofact-ness is not only bad science, but whoever does it is pretty much an air-head because that is all a hypothesis is -- air, i.e. an idea, a test, something imagined that has to be tested, something you can do on your couch. Yet not one single other chert or flint resource has been found in the Old or New World with anything close to the type of variability you find at Calico. I mean, you mention that for the debunkers, the fact that there are only 26 images may imply that we have only cherry picked the best, that the rest of the "things" pulled out of hill are all hokie and not worth publishing because they sour the case of artifact-hood. That could be an argument, I suppose.

Given most debunkers like to criticize at a distance and don't bother even looking through the boxes themselves, we hope to remedy that situation through a series of extensive photographic examinations. For example, what about 26 graver specimens, all with isolation flakes (small notches) that help isolate the graver element -- these are small notches on either side of the graver element -- a very common practice in the world of graver-dom. Thing is, we could probably double or quadruple the number of "alleged" gravers we have based on the presence of these double-notched isolation features alone. This is true for other delicate features on a number of different artifact types, such as reamers and denticulates. Once we get through the basic classification stage, this will be a top priority.