Sometimes...

[Mt. Hope]

I have viewed many questionable artifacts on the internet over the past year and a half. Many, and I mean many, are posted as artifacts that look a whole lot less like artifacts than some of the stuff I post. This is an addictive, and for me, a "confusing" hobby. I would call this a tool. My gut tells me, from past experience, best not to call it anything. What is the definition of an artifact?

[chase]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact

What you are showing is an Artifact, but as far as being used as a tool my thoughts are no it was not. This is a flake was taken off for the purpose of reduction of a tool of some sort. Being that I have seen the flint knapping process I see flakes like that all around the knapper. Here is an example of flakes that could have been used as tools but most likely were just discarded.

Here are ones that show secondary work but still most likely discard since they do not show any edge work and most likely were blanks that would have been refined into tools but for reasons of how the stone was flaking did not allow it to be refined.

I am sure others may have their own opinion but this is how I see it.
Chase

[painshill]

Ruthie
You may have a vague recollection of this snippet that I posted a long time ago.
“The traditional definition of an artefact, from “arte factum”, is derived from the Latin word for “skill” (ars) and the verb “to make” (facere). So, it’s something made or given shape by the skill of man, such as a tool or a work of art.”
So, an artefact is “made”, and that is generally taken as meaning intentional creation. It may then be “used” or simply “coveted” (which may or may not imply some “ritual use” (effigies, for example). It doesn’t have to be a tool to qualify.
I would then say that a spall created as a waste by-product is not an artefact by that definition because it was made by accident, albeit as a result of something else being made deliberately. If it has been used a makeshift tool for some temporary task then it sits on the border – it’s a tool but not really an artefact. Unfortunately we often can’t tell if that was the case unless there is a wear pattern or some context for the find that suggests it was used for something.
When a spall has been further worked to have a better edge or a better fit to the hand then that’s definitely an artefact, even if it was only used fleetingly and discarded. Evidence of working is not always evidence for an artefact… it depends on the pattern of that working. For example, a spall can have significant flaking on one side, including what might look like secondary working, but only a bulb of percussion on the other. That’s usually an indication that the working occurred during the shaping of the blank it came from and when the spall was detached, those patterns detached with it. It doesn’t really then qualify as an artefact, and it’s certainly not a tool. So when newbies say “but it’s worked”, that has to be judged more critically than they realise.
We then come to blanks, preforms, cores and nuclei. Blanks and preforms are certainly artefacts, but not tools. However, many items that we regard as preforms show evidence of having been used for something before their final conversion to the intended tool. Interim use of some kind. Either way, these items are intentionally made to a particular form for a specific purpose and that makes them artefacts. Cores and nuclei are not artefacts, unless they have been prepared. You may remember one that I posted a while ago which had been carefully trimmed to a polyhedral shape to ensure that uniform flakes could be struck from it. That kind of core would have been carried in a pouch and used again and again for that purpose. That’s an artefact, whereas a cobble from which a flake has been struck for further working is not.
Finally, we come to tools which clearly had a use but which may be completely natural and weren’t actually made for that purpose. Many hammerstones, pecking stones, honestones and such fall into that category. Strictly speaking they are not artefacts, but archaeologists are happy to relax the “rules” here. The intended purpose is generally specific and clear, and often involves a high degree of selectivity with respect to material or shape. They’re not normally just random lumps of rock.
I’m essentially with  Chase here – It looks to be a reduction flake (spall), although I wouldn’t class it as an artefact for the above reasons.
[Butch: sorry about that spelling again. I may have failed my Latin exam, but the spelling derivations and verb declensions stayed with me forever. Useful for translating Roman inscriptions, though.]

[Butch Wilson]

Thanks Painshill, that's some fancy 'splainin there.

[Mt. Hope]

I know y'all tryin' to teach me something and I thank ya' for it.  I'm in denial! :lol:


  I received a major compliment on my collection today!  By golly...I was told I knew the difference! :S 

[Butch Wilson]

Nice frame of artefacts, you have inspired me to drag out and use a couple of frames from the attic.

[Mt. Hope]

Butch Wilson wrote:

Nice frame of artefacts, you have inspired me to drag out and use a couple of frames from the attic.

  Yay!   We women know how to inspire!  "Artefacts?"  Butch?  Can't wait!

[CliffJ]

That is becoming a real nice looking frame, gal!
Just remember-
All tools are artifacts but not all artifacts are tools. (no matter how perty they are)

[Butch Wilson]

Painshill, dangit you made me think again. Now what about context and association. Cairns, teepee rings, lithic scatter, Not tools, individually not artefacts! So if I remove one of these items from its context, what is it ?

[Bone2stone]

Butch,
When someone finds a rock on the ground then it's a "rock".
When that someone picks up that "rock" and takes it home, then it is a specimen.
As far as whether it is an artifact or not well that is where context/association
would narrow down specifics.
Now for Painshill,
Thank you for the explaination.
Your response is just the thing a lot of us need to keep an open mind when we respond.
I especially like the part of preforms.
Yall have a good day.
It's a rock on the ground.
It's a specimen when you pick it up and take it home.
Bone2stone

[painshill]

Butch Wilson wrote:

Painshill, dangit you made me think again. Now what about context and association. Cairns, teepee rings, lithic scatter, Not tools, individually not artefacts! So if I remove one of these items from its context, what is it ?

  Good questions, I think. A cairn is an artefact (made intentionally by the skill of man, and for a purpose) so I guess we should consider the stones as component parts of that and also covered by the definition. If you disassemble it, then I suppose that doesn’t detract from the stones having been part of an artefact… only that the likelihood of recognising them as such is hugely reduced.
Lithic scatter and flint shadows composed of discarded material are evidence of human activity but not intentionally made for any purpose (neither the shadow nor the flakes) and I would suggest therefore not artefacts. Not that much different from a footprint really.
Tipi rings might fall somewhere between those two?

[chase]

[QUOTE]painshill wrote:

Painshill, dangit you made me think again. Now what about context and association. Cairns, teepee rings, lithic scatter, Not tools, individually not artefacts! So if I remove one of these items from its context, what is it ?

  Good questions, I think. A cairn is an artefact (made intentionally by the skill of man, and for a purpose) so I guess we should consider the stones as component parts of that and also covered by the definition. If you disassemble it, then I suppose that doesn’t detract from the stones having been part of an artefact… only that the likelihood of recognising them as such is hugely reduced.
Lithic scatter and flint shadows composed of discarded material are evidence of human activity but not intentionally made for any purpose (neither the shadow nor the flakes) and I would suggest therefore not artefacts. Not that much different from a footprint really.
Tipi rings might fall somewhere between those two?
  Now I am curious as to context, in dig sites where they are able to re-fit flakes to a tool or a point would be valuable information to the archaeology of the site. Association with an artifact makes it unclear to me as to weather it becomes an artifact or just leads to a supporting role.
Roger what are your thoughts on this?
Chase

[painshill]

[QUOTE]chase wrote:

[quote=painshill post=56319]

Painshill, dangit you made me think again. Now what about context and association. Cairns, teepee rings, lithic scatter, Not tools, individually not artefacts! So if I remove one of these items from its context, what is it ?

  Good questions, I think. A cairn is an artefact (made intentionally by the skill of man, and for a purpose) so I guess we should consider the stones as component parts of that and also covered by the definition. If you disassemble it, then I suppose that doesn’t detract from the stones having been part of an artefact… only that the likelihood of recognising them as such is hugely reduced.
Lithic scatter and flint shadows composed of discarded material are evidence of human activity but not intentionally made for any purpose (neither the shadow nor the flakes) and I would suggest therefore not artefacts. Not that much different from a footprint really.
Tipi rings might fall somewhere between those two?
  Now I am curious as to context, in dig sites where they are able to re-fit flakes to a tool or a point would be valuable information to the archaeology of the site. Association with an artifact makes it unclear to me as to weather it becomes an artifact or just leads to a supporting role.
Roger what are your thoughts on this?
Chase
  All information is valuable in archaeological contexts, whether it comes from artefacts or not, I would say. Lithic debris, detritus of other kinds such as firepit embers, shells, food waste - even human excrement, when we find - it all add to a picture. Things don't have to be artefacts to be worth collecting, interesting or provide insight into human behaviour and culture.
I would't ever dismiss a flake as "just a flake" if it has a story to tell. Sometimes it does - as in the kind of re-fits you are describing. Flakes can also tell us about raw material procurement in the absence of the artefacts themselves. That's often the case over here in Europe where there are many instances of industries producing tools from material obtained from a long distance away. In some cases archaeologists have been able to identify sequences such as quarrying and blank production in one place, preform production at another location, finished tool production elsewhere still and trading of both blanks and the finished items to sometimes very distant locations.