Abrading stone questions

[Rockfarmer]

I have been posting in the what did I find section with pictures but I feel like this section may be more appropriate for asking questions. I have been searching for information about abraded stone tools for a few weeks now and narrowed down on abrading stones recently. I see a lot of images on the internet of abrading stones and try to just focus on the ones from museums or artifacts sites and don't give much attention to the ones on Ebay or etsy auctions etc. I have examples of stones that I have found that do resemble the images of certain museums and even images from this site and did post images of several angles of one piece that has heavy markings on all sides. So far there has been no mention of this piece resembling an abrading stone and all pieces that I have posted to date have not been recognized as anything other than natural stone. That's really not a problem for me being I'm here asking for opinions, I'm not going to argue over something I have requested. The more examples of my stone findings I post,different angles with better detail all it has done it seems is to make me less understood for the reasons why I have joined this forum. I am trying to find more information about abraded stone tools plain and simple so what has been lacking in the opinions that I have asked for is greater detail of why the stones I post do not meet the criteria for being an actual stone tool. I really can't learn much from responses with no greater detail than it's just a rock or those are not artifacts.
I am going to change my approach to learning on this forum by asking basic questions first so I have a better understanding of what is considered a stone tool and what criteria needs to be met for a stone tool to be considered an artifact. I will post an image of my findings if I am asked to but for now I really need to cover the basics in case I have misunderstood what defines a stone tool for identification.
My best understanding of what characteristics a stone needs to present to be considered a tool or artifact is it has to show modifications by humans from its natural state into a useful object that is identified as having a purpose. I'm not sure if it needs to show evidence of use or not so I need clarification of that specific. The stone should also show evidence that it has been altered at a time when indigenous people would have created it or put it to use. If I am wrong with this definition please inform me. My next questions are a little more specific concerning certain types of stone and evidence of use or creation as a tool.
If a stone is of a material that doesn't fracture like material that is used to make points by flaking or chipping but is better suited to being abraded or shaped by grinding be identified as an artifact by meeting the same criteria as a flaked stone tool?

Does a stone tool need to be made from a certain hardness of stone to be useful or can the stone be soft enough that it could only have a use as grinding or crushing vegetable matter and still meet the criteria for artifacts?

Does a certain time period that can be determined to be the age of a stone tool change the details or type of evidence that is used to identify the creation of a stone tool to classify it as an artifact?

Final question for now. Looking for information specifically about abrading stones I came across a few posts on this forum concerning a peice that was found in an area that had been frequently disturbed by glacial action and deposits. This stone had a lot of markings of various angles and even appeared to be shaped into a useful tool with a handhold but could not be evaluated as a tool because it could have been modified by glacial action. If a stone that appears to have been modified into a tool is found in an area that doesn't have a great amount of evidence of glacial activity to be more specific North Carolina, would that factor into the evaluation of the stone and the markings to rule out the possibility of it being a geofact instead of an artifact?

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to help me with my questions

[Artifascination]

To answer your question about abrading stones they are usually made from sandstone or similar material that would be used to smooth and polish other stone, wood, or bone. They will have deep grooves or scarring from the abrading process where the material has been rubbed repeatedly in a back and forth motion. There are some naturally occurring patterns in stone that will look similar especially glacial lines that will leave grooves in the stone. Get a 10X magnification loupe or lens to examine the scarring pattern. Find as many known authentic examples as possible to study and you will be able to determine the differences in no time.

[Jon E. Busch]

Great advice!

[Lone Star]

1. An abrading stone is generally a rough surfaced stone of minimal hardness used to abrade bone, possibly wood, and the edges of a tool stone to assist in knapping. They are generally lighter in weight due to their composition, with rough exteriors, that tend to crumble or give way during use. Just about anything could have been used, (sandstone, schist) and they were probably discarded often. Not many are kept or saved by enthusiasts, (except me) as they only stories they can tell are viewed as arbitrary at best.

2. A grinding stone on the other hand, tends to be a somewhat dense, smooth stone of medium hardness that can be used against another stone to break down vegetable matter into a state where it can be used for easier consumption. Rounded creek stones were the most common put into service. These would be used and ground to baby butt smooth on at least one side. Just because one finds a flat stone, it isn't a grinding stone unless the flat side is polished smooth from continued use. Sometimes more than one side is used, as it may have fit the hand of the user better than starting a new one.

3. Both of the above transcend time periods for the most part. Grinding stones and metates were more common during the later archaic to historic periods, when people started planting crops and limited their travels as wandering hunter-gatherers. We have found grinding stones and metates stashed for future use, rather than transporting heavy rocks from site to site.

4. Hammerstones tended to be dense hard stone so they would intentionally fracture the stone that was being hit. They didn't have to be monstrously large to do this. They just had to be directed correctly, which is easier with a smaller stone that fits your hand well. They can be identified usually with all kinds of blemishes that appear on the working edge.

5. As with all prehistoric artifacts, discernment thru experience is everything. It takes a while to recognize all the attributes associated with prehistoric artifacts and tool use. The more you put your hands on, the more you realize and understand. It tends to remove the arbitrary nature of what you pick up.

[Rockfarmer]

Thank you both for the replies, this is the kind of information I have been searching for. There is a great variety of stone material here ranging from slate in the lower elevations through various hardness of mudstone, argillite type stone giving way to hardened pumice and volcanic tuff similar to lava rock and the highest elevations become rhyolite stone similar to what is found in the uwharrie mountains to the east of here. All this material can be sourced over an area less than a thousand yards so I am seeing a lot of different types of alterations in the various stones especially the softer materials that can be shaped by abrading. What has me spending so much time and attention to all of it is the volume of stone I am finding with possible alterations over a short period of a few weeks and all are surface finds in an area the size of a football field. During daylight hours I really have to keep moving around here and can't get into a more detailed response to your informative answers you have given me but I would like to respond again some tonight with maybe even some more questions. I really feel like I am making progress with this research again with the information you both have provided thanks again for the help

[Caracello]

[Rockfarmer]

To answer your question about abrading stones they are usually made from sandstone or similar material that would be used to smooth and polish other stone, wood, or bone. They will have deep grooves or scarring from the abrading process where the material has been rubbed repeatedly in a back and forth motion. There are some naturally occurring patterns in stone that will look similar especially glacial lines that will leave grooves in the stone. Get a 10X magnification loupe or lens to examine the scarring pattern. Find as many known authentic examples as possible to study and you will be able to determine the differences in no time.

This is very good advice and really confirming to what I'm seeing in these pieces of stone. The various hardness of the mudstone I'm finding seems to show a relationship to other peices that I'm finding. For a lack of a better way of describing it some of the smaller pieces seem to make sense being a tool when I find larger stones that have been abraded. The abrading tool even appears to be shaped by abrading if that makes sense. There is a lot of abraded stones that range greatly in hardness from mudstone as soft as 100 year old brick to quartz that has had to have been used for long periods of time to make the flat surfaces I'm seeing

[Rockfarmer]

1. An abrading stone is generally a rough surfaced stone of minimal hardness used to abrade bone, possibly wood, and the edges of a tool stone to assist in knapping. They are generally lighter in weight due to their composition, with rough exteriors, that tend to crumble or give way during use. Just about anything could have been used, (sandstone, schist) and they were probably discarded often. Not many are kept or saved by enthusiasts, (except me) as they only stories they can tell are viewed as arbitrary at best.

2. A grinding stone on the other hand, tends to be a somewhat dense, smooth stone of medium hardness that can be used against another stone to break down vegetable matter into a state where it can be used for easier consumption. Rounded creek stones were the most common put into service. These would be used and ground to baby butt smooth on at least one side. Just because one finds a flat stone, it isn't a grinding stone unless the flat side is polished smooth from continued use. Sometimes more than one side is used, as it may have fit the hand of the user better than starting a new one.

3. Both of the above transcend time periods for the most part. Grinding stones and metates were more common during the later archaic to historic periods, when people started planting crops and limited their travels as wandering hunter-gatherers. We have found grinding stones and metates stashed for future use, rather than transporting heavy rocks from site to site.

4. Hammerstones tended to be dense hard stone so they would intentionally fracture the stone that was being hit. They didn't have to be monstrously large to do this. They just had to be directed correctly, which is easier with a smaller stone that fits your hand well. They can be identified usually with all kinds of blemishes that appear on the working edge.

5. As with all prehistoric artifacts, discernment thru experience is everything. It takes a while to recognize all the attributes associated with prehistoric artifacts and tool use. The more you put your hands on, the more you realize and understand. It tends to remove the arbitrary nature of what you pick up.

I checked out Lone Star, what a huge inventory. I'm sure you have put your eyes on a lot of stone artifacts, I'm hoping if I post images of what I am finding something will make sense that you can help me with

[Rockfarmer]

?

[Rockfarmer]

I hope what I am posting is not going to be boring to the point of everyone loosing interest but I'm trying to be thorough by posting a little background on the location I'm at.
This area has always been a good place for finding stone points and arrowheads in the agricultural fields there is a couple of guys now raking and screening in a field close by on a regular basis. It's before my time but a certain member of the community had a good run of the place back when tilling and plowing was the agricultural norm and I heard many mentions of digging remains and gravesites of the Indians or indigenous people here. By the mid 80s someone showed me what chips looked like and I can remember seeing chips and flakes every square yard in the fields. The county nearby Montgomery county is the home of the Town Creek Indian mound that I believe is a late period settlement that I visited on field trips in school. The bordering county next to here in cabarrus is Stanley county where the Hardaway site is located. I have driven through the property that this site is on many times to fish in Narrows part of the yadkin peedee chain of lakes. It is the western edge of the uwharrie mountains and the lithics here are very similar being a fault zone. This property is located in the Gold Hill fault zone and is the reason for the variety of different stone available in this area. All this generalization seems relevant to this area that I'm finding these materials at and may lead to a conclusion that what I am finding is from a late period settlement. Thanks for the patience with someone starting from scratch, If anyone is interested I have many examples of possible abraded stone tools that can be examined. Large,small,grinding stones that has been described in the informative responses that I have received on this thread to large to be transportable. The volume of material I have found in such a short time in such a small area is what is keeping me persistent in finding knowledge about all this stuff

[gregszybala]

"The volume of material I have found in such a short time in such a small area is what is keeping me persistent in finding knowledge about all this stuff"
That says a lot and should also clue you in to the likelihood of all you are finding being artifacts as extremely unlikely. It appears you want to learn but other than words you give us nothing to work with. The pics you posted were poorly lit making identification not easy but the volume and even despite the poor quality photos showed much of what you found to be just what they are, unused and unaltered rocks.
Continue your research, here in past posts using keywords in a search as well as this area of the forum: https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/...on-center-gc33. Also search the the internet. There are numerous published and respected sources available that will give you a better understanding of what is, not what you want it to be.

[Rockfarmer]

One of the problems with this area in some of the lower elevations is the heavy presence of iron. Places where water can travel it stains rock dark red to black. Some peices of mudstone doesn't even appear to have patina it's a solid color to the core. Even the lighter colored stones where material is removed sometimes it's all the same color and gives the appearance of the pieces being naturally formed instead of modified. This makes it harder to identify especially in photographs but there are two different shapes of what could be tools that keep repeating over and over that I am finding. Most of these have a readily obvious flat working surface from use and enough larger cuts and scratches that appear too numerous to be naturally occurring. These pieces could have been abraded against some of the larger stones I'm finding and varies in the type of stone they are made from as far as hardness. I'm finding flat abraded surfaces on stones that sometimes doesn't make sense what it could have been used for especially some larger pieces. The only thing I can determine is they are used to abrade other tools. It's not a big deal to me if a lot of what I am finding can't be determined to be an artifact I just want to have a better understanding of the big picture as far what was going on back then

[Rockfarmer]

"The volume of material I have found in such a short time in such a small area is what is keeping me persistent in finding knowledge about all this stuff"
That says a lot and should also clue you in to the likelihood of all you are finding being artifacts as extremely unlikely. It appears you want to learn but other than words you give us nothing to work with. The pics you posted were poorly lit making identification not easy but the volume and even despite the poor quality photos showed much of what you found to be just what they are, unused and unaltered rocks.
Continue your research, here in past posts using keywords in a search as well as this area of the forum: https://forums.arrowheads.com/forum/...on-center-gc33. Also search the the internet. There are numerous published and respected sources available that will give you a better understanding of what is, not what you want it to be.

I agree with the fact that the volume of stone I'm finding that seems to be altered is making it appear that a lot of this is just natural shapes. I have spoken to people that has hunted artifacts for years and found one hammer stone and here I am with a half dozen over a period of a month. That's why I posted a little background on this area and the amount of evidence that native Americans have been in this area. I don't know how numerous artifacts are in some of the sites like town creek indian mound or hardaway or any place considered a settlement. It really does seem unlikely that this also has went unnoticed all these years as heavily as this place has been searched before I came along. I will continue to research this until I figure it out,maybe one day I can get a local hunter involved to come on site. I'm not going to post pictures of all this unless someone is interested because it is obvious that I am a lousy photographer

[Caracello]

Your long winded repetitive rhetoric has obfuscated beautifully.

[Lone Star]

Oy Vey !

[Rockfarmer]

Your long winded repetitive rhetoric has obfuscated beautifully.

And here I thought being descriptive and thorough would somehow prevent any undo obfuscation. After all the more I am learning the more relevant the information I posted about the background and geology of the area and the many types of stone materials available are becoming. No worries, I'm getting it figured out. The more I learn the less everyone will hear from me