what did i find possible pendent and a crazy point

[clistsmith26]

Any info would be awesome found on same field in Indiana I numbered them so we can just reference a number thank u very much


for your time

[waterglass]

The piece with the hole looks natural to me. 1, 3 and 4 may be tools. Or they may be naturally fractured rocks. 1 looks like the edge has been thinned, but that could just be a trick of the lighting. 4 looks like it could have been perforator or it could be a random pice of fractured rock.  3 looks to be worked at one end, but that could also be natural.
There is not a "point" in that picture.

[painshill]

Hi Clistsmith.
Looking at your posts in general and the various odd-shaped rocks you are finding, I think you are falling into the most common trap for people starting out collecting artefacts. You’re concentrating too much on overall shape and not enough on detailed form, function and typology. Overall shape is the least reliable indicator for an artefact.
Rocks break in all kinds of ways that cause them to resemble artefacts. Breakage (and frost damage) creates sharp edges and points. The commonest breakage results in triangular and diamond shapes. What we look for in artefacts is evidence of logical flaking and intentional design. We reference those things against what we know about knapping technology and defined previously known categories of tool forms. Yes, it’s true that any old sharp or pointed rock might have been used for something but these kinds of tools were expedient and throwaway. They can sometimes be identified from use-wear or context but for the most part they’re just broken rocks. Item #4 in your pictures is a case in point. It might have been used for making holes in something, but unless it has recognisable use-wear or strong context then it’s just a pointy rock.
Most crucially, what we look for is “secondary working”… the process whereby, after the first stages of reduction, a tool is refined by further flaking to enhance its edge. We also look for juxtaposition – where is the working edge (or edges) of a tool and are they correctly oriented in relation to hafting or hand-hold features in a “form fits function” manner.
People often say things like “I found this where a lot of artefacts have been found” or “an old timer told me there used to be an Indian camp here” but that alone is not enough context to justify a sharp or pointy rock as an artefact. In addition to natural breakage, camp sites also frequently contain “lithic scatter” which represents “debitage”… the bits and pieces chipped or flaked off a core rock which were discarded during the process of turning it into an artefact. Those are also often mistaken for tools but even debitage often carries unmistakable signs of the logical reduction process required to progressively shape a core to become an artefact.
For rocks unsuitable for knapping, the signs of intentional pecking are pretty unmistakable versus the kind of shaping achieved by mother nature.
People also often use the “but if fits really nicely into my hand” argument… but time and time again, we have to say that really means nothing. The same is true for natural grooves and ridges on rocks claimed as hafting features. Artefacts were made with a degree of care and craftsmanship that enables us to rule out many of the irregular and asymmetrical knobbly rocks people believe to be tools. The argument that “it’s probably crude because it’s really ancient” doesn’t hold much water either. Palaeo artefacts were among the finest made and frequently exhibit the highest degree of craftsmanship.
Holes in rocks are another common misconception. Cherts frequently contain fossil inclusions which are softer than the host rock and weather away or fall out to leave depressions and holes. Other sedimentary rocks often contain concretions which leave holes behind when they weather. The techniques used by Native Americans to drill holes usually leave features which distinguish them from natural holes. Most usually, holes were drilled from both sides to meet in the middle, leaving a distinctive biconical profile… rather like and hourglass. The edges of the holes usually have a bevel. Sometimes you can see marks inside the holes which indicate they were produced using a rotary technique. Again, what’s to say that a rock with a natural hole wasn’t used for something (be it pendant, net weight, canoe anchor or whatever) but we have to come back to context for anything claimed as an artefact.
All of that may sound terribly disappointing… but I don’t mean it to be so. The good news is that you’ve now found a great place to share what you find and learn how to recognise artefacts. What is disappointing is when we get people who say they’ve been collecting for 20 years and then show us a bunch of pointy rocks they have accumulated during that period, none (or few) of which are artefacts.
Keep looking and don’t get disheartened.

[cgode]

Clistsmith, as you can tell, Roger is one of our more articulate members and well respected. I'll just add, I agree with his opinion on your posted pictures and would like to take this opportunity to re-enforce his closing. Don't get frustrated and keep at it. Once you start finding actual artifacts, you will quickly become able to recognize intentionally worked pieces. They are found everywhere but just like a favorite fishing quote of mine says..."you need to find the 10% of the bottom structure that holds 90% of the fish"......good luck!