Geofact or Fiction

[LucasBMylks]

I have quite a few pieces that have very little work on them but seem very interesting



and as always they all `fit the hand`

[JoshinMO]

Geo-fact in fact. You can find lots of rocks that fit in your hand.

[painshill]

That’s a good question. Nodules with cortex abound in every conceivable shape… including many that fit neatly in the hand. I find items like your too. The question to be answered is less about the degree to which they fit in the hand, since clearly the presence of cortex tells us straight away that the overall shape is natural and unmodified. It’s more about whether the cortex-free areas have been deliberately knapped or accidentally broken.
On the one hand it can be argued that the projecting portions or irregular nodules are the most likely areas to suffer accidental damage. On the other hand it can be argued that those projections are also the prime candidates for a bit of knapping to create a useful edge.
Sometimes, you’re really sure. This is a Mesolithic nodule axe, complete with what I am sure is an additional flaked area apart from the blade, that acts very nicely as a finger-grip when held:

Sometimes you can see very clear signs of what you’re sure has to be intentional knapping but no real evidence of use-wear:


Sometimes you’re unsure… or at least can’t offer convincing proof, but your instinct says this is not accidental damage but it’s not a recognised tool form:


That latter point (recognised tool form) is something I’ve long stopped worrying about and actually I don’t worry that much about use-wear on crude Mesolithic or Neolithic items. What I look for is the degree of fit to the hand; whether there has been any modification in the way of cortex removal which improves that fit from a comfort or ergonomic viewpoint; whether the presumed working surfaces are correctly oriented when naturally held, swung , pulled or pushed (ie in what direction was the force intended to go, and does the geometry make sense for that). Anything else such as secondary work to an edge or use-wear is a bonus but I now know that it often simply won’t be there.
It’s very clear that in these periods there is an abundance of expedient tools that were quickly made for a specific task and then abandoned. That applies as much to nodules as it does to flakes.
I would say that the second one perhaps has some promise in terms of the projection having missing flakes on two opposing sides to create an apex (from what I can see). The pictures aren’t quite sharp enough to be sure on the first item whether there are multiple logical flakes on the stripped end… but it looks more like random chipping consistent with natural breakage. If I’m going to be convinced an item has been knapped I like to see decent facets and some logical orientation. Expedient quick and dirty knapping doesn’t mean random bashing.

[JoshinMO]

My apologies, if they are something. Seen an area that looked chipped, mostly looks like plain rock though.

[painshill]

JoshinMO wrote:

My apologies, if they are something. Seen an area that looked chipped, mostly looks like plain rock though.

  No apologies needed Josh. Sometimes we just don't know.  :laugh:  You're quite right that those are natural nodules in the sense of having no modification to their overall shape. But only really close and critical examination (or context) tells you if the chipped areas have been intentionally modified.
There's a place in England known as "Grimes Graves" which is a huge underground Neolithic flint mine. It's a chalk formation with rich seams of glassy back flint of very high quality, which is what they were digging for. The looser material was mined out with picks made from antlers. But the surrounding chalk is also full of irregular nodules like the ones we're showing here. Hundreds of those nodules have been simply and quickly modified to have pick-like bladed portions which they used to dig out the tougher areas and you probably wouldn't give them a second glance out of context unless you knew what you were looking at.

[LucasBMylks]

That latter point (recognised tool form) is something I’ve long stopped worrying about and actually I don’t worry that much about use-wear on crude Mesolithic or Neolithic items. What I look for is the degree of fit to the hand; whether there has been any modification in the way of cortex removal which improves that fit from a comfort or ergonomic viewpoint; whether the presumed working surfaces are correctly oriented when naturally held, swung , pulled or pushed (ie in what direction was the force intended to go, and does the geometry make sense for that). Anything else such as secondary work to an edge or use-wear is a bonus but I now know that it often simply won’t be there.
thanks again roger.
totally agree with you about this point.
so many of my finds are obviously worked but not in any shape/mode that i know.
(hardly know many names for forms tho (still learning more everyday))