No announcement yet.

Rock or artifact?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rock or artifact?

    Please give me your opinion.

  • #2
    Professor Shellman
    Tampa Bay


    • #3
      That also looks like an atypical rock. Are you finding all these out of a river bed or field?


      • #4
        It's not easy to make a good judgment from just a picture.  Just identifying a material can be very difficult sometimes.  At first glance I can see how this may look like just a rock.  The more I look at it though, the more questions that come to mind.  Why does it have 3 colors on it?  Is that red, and gold ocher? What about the black?  Did it leach from minerals in the stone?  Or is it residual paint stain?  The shape seems similar to a lot of abraders I have seen.  Does it have any ergonomic holds?  Do you have pics of the other side?  What kind of environment was it found in?


        • #5
          yes, it fits well in the hand. It was found in a bunch of river rock dredged out of the missouri river. The back side looks like the front.


          • #6
            Hi Mike,
               It looks like a typical natural piece of sandstone with a high iron and mineral content. Such material was used for abraders and macrotools like axes etc, but the human modifications will be very evident. This one shows no modification.
                As far as fitting the hand- if you get a dumptruck full of that rock delivered and dumped in your yard, you will find hundreds of pounds of natural rocks (and those broken in excavating)that will "fit the hand". That alone is not a criteria for a tool, the tool must have human modification or use wear to be considered a tool. The same way that all 4' long wood sticks in the woods are not walking sticks, they become walking sticks by actually being used or even carved by the walker.