Guess - GeoFact or Artifact?

[Kyflintguy]

If you hang around here for awhile, we play this game all the time :rolf: The hard part is getting the right photographs and angles to be able to make accurate I.D's . Well , that and convincing some people there rocks are just rocks, that can also be hard...

[rmartin]

As Chase said, hardstone can be tough from pics. Lithophylic, we do okay most times but we have had LOTS of practice. I know personally, I really dislike telling someone they simply have a rock but it has to be done.

[painshill]

Kyflintguy wrote:

If you hang around here for awhile, we play this game all the time :rolf: The hard part is getting the right photographs and angles to be able to make accurate I.D's . Well , that and convincing some people there rocks are just rocks, that can also be hard...

  That's so true. Although the thread invites us to "guess", we try not to do that... and when we have to, we try to make it clear how informed that guess might be. We prefer to go by the evidence and some of the arguments we have with posters are because the pictures don't clearly show what the finder/owner says he can see. Other times, a rock is just a rock, but no amount of persuasion will convince the finder/owner unless we can show an identical example. Life isn't like that of course, because every rock is an individual. Although particular features may be diagnostic to us, it sometimes requires a little imagination to see how they relate to the rock in question.
You also made it tougher here because location and context is part of the evidence, but we weren't given that information.  :laugh:

[Lithophylic]

I feel the location and context can be the most important information you can have when deciding whether a piece is authentic or whether it is artifact or geofact.  That is why I left it out in the beginning.  Too many new collectors do not give this enough consideration even when they are trying to type their own finds.  I would say many point types are miss-identified simply because they do not consider context.  Point types such as the Kirk / Pine Tree forms versus Hopewell / Snyder forms for example.  In most cases you do not have a text-book example of a point.  Without a better understanding of the point assemblage at the location you found the point, it can be very difficult to determine which grouping is more likely.    Same holds true with copenas.  I have a friend to this day that swears he has an unfluted clovis.  It has all the general features though a little rough.  But go to the field where it was found and it is all copena , flint creek cultures.
With stone implements it is even more difficult to determine if it is artifact or geofact.  Often you can have natural abrasion on a piece that can look identical to man-made features.  And in some cases I would say that you have pieces that could never be distinguished.  Too many people look at a shape and because they want it, it is it.  I have seen this even with archs.  On a state collecting event, one student found a flat piece of greenstone, no form, rough, no shaping or grinding, I suspect it was a piece of lithic stock to be worked at a later date.  The leading archaeologist glimpsed briefly at it, became excited and declared it to be a tablet.  “And in those days what the king said was law and all bowed before him”  No one questioned him and all shared in the excitement.  Maybe that is why I don’t get invited to their parties.  Anyway, it went into the log as a tablet in crude form.  Someday I am sure it will get published as such and from that day on, it will be.
In northern collections I can’t tell you how many game balls and fire starters I have seen.  In the south, paint pots.  Try to tell them it is natural formed and they politely ask you to leave.  There was one site in Alabama where they were building a new softball field.  The area had a RV camp ground next to it where several points were found.  Upon clearing the field area, several (>50,

[orari]

JoshinMO wrote:

I'm going with geofact also, but if not i can find a mess of those today! hmy:  :laugh:

  My grocery store has a ton of those in its parking lot islands.

[painshill]

Some of the longer-serving members may remember me posting a couple of these before (so please hold your powder if you remember them)... but here are five teasers for you. Artefact or geofact? And if artefact... used for what purpose?
NUMBER 1

NUMBER 2

NUMBER 3

NUMBER 4

  NUMBER 5

[Lithophylic]

Geofact
Artifact
Geofact
Artifact
Geofact

[painshill]

Lithophylic wrote:

Geofact
Artifact
Geofact
Artifact
Geofact

  Four out of five correct! Not bad. 

[Lithophylic]

Please elaborate as to which one I missed.  I was hesitant about number 2 but I did not observe any apparent compositional layering within the piece to explain the formation of the ridges and although I would have no idea what it would be, I selected it as Artifact based on the photo at hand.

[painshill]

Lithophylic wrote:

Please elaborate as to which one I missed.  I was hesitant about number 2 but I did not observe any apparent compositional layering within the piece to explain the formation of the ridges and although I would have no idea what it would be, I selected it as Artifact based on the photo at hand.

  I was just holding off to enable others to guess if they so wish... and also to guess the function of any aretfact(s) that might be there. The mathematics of your four out of five score indicates there must be at least one artefact. 

[Hoss]

Love those Painshill

[painshill]

OK… no more takers!
Numbers 1 and 5 are carbonate-cemented mudstone and siltstone concretions, formed in glacial lake sediments. From Washington State. Completely natural.
Number 2 is an iron oxide-cemented concretion from the Navajo Sandstone of Utah. It’s a variation on what are called “Navajo cherries” or “Moqui marbles” where a combination of episodic deposition and preferential erosion have created those remarkable ridges… but completely natural.
Number 3  is a piece of obsidian from central Colorado which has experienced “pencil fracturing”, probably following flow lines from when it was a molten sheet. The sharp edges have been lost by subsequent weathering. Longer examples are sometimes called “wands” and thinner ones called “needles”.
Number 4 is the only artefact. It’s a stud used as a lip or cheek piercing and has been pecked and ground from a piece of quartz. Neolithic (9,000 – 4,000 BC) from Mauritania, NW Africa.

[Kyflintguy]

Oooh! I didn't comment because I was thinking the obsidian was one of those micro tools you showed a while back, from Africa? The little itty bitty ones...
This one

[Ron Kelley]

OK I have four for this fun game.
A

B

C

D

[gregszybala]

A. is easy Ron. Thats a Yooper or Polish weather station!