Another field work find

[Olden]

.
It looks like debitage caused completely by machines to me.

[huntwild]

Looks like a flake to me also.

[rmartin]

I agree that both pieces look like possibly debitage. The first piece could possibly be an expedient tool but the second shows no modification. By that I mean usage wear or secondary flaking that I would expect to see on such an artifact.

[SDhunter]

It really doesn't look like a scraper.  It's a flake,  and it's possible they used it  for something,  but it doesn't look like it was any finished artifact.

[orari]

[QUOTE]Pele wrote:

I agree that both pieces look like possibly debitage. The first piece could possibly be an expedient tool but the second shows no modification. By that I mean usage wear or secondary flaking that I would expect to see on such an artifact.

  Thanks for your reply. It makes sense that the first piece is debitage or an expedient tool. As for the second one, an archaeologist was the one who identified it as a scraper. I don't know, I'm just repeating what he told me. He was able to point out some subtle flaking and details that lead him to that conclusion. Maybe those aren't coming through in the pic? It did start out as a flake, though, and the modifications seemed to be pretty minor to me.   :dunno:
  What exactly do you mean when you use the term "archaeologist"?  I ask because the things I am seeing in your photographs are not conclusions that I think most archaeologists would make with these rocks of yours.  Can you please send me something that lets me know their identity and background?