Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What did i find 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Ron Kelley wrote:

    I'm looking at the edge shot and I just don't see scraper. I will stand alone on this one: That's OK.  :laugh: An edge shot of the wide end might help. :dunno:
      I think Mr. Kelly is correct.......I'll stand with you Ron! .....awesome observation.
    A scraper is typically a unifacial tool, this appears to have that typical "stitched" look to the edge which indicates it is bifacially worked. More a small knife form or possibly a larger piece at one point that has been repurposed. Better pics would be required to say.....it is definitely an artifact that was man altered though, that much we can say with certainty.
    Southern Connecticut

    Comment


    • #17
      So it's not a "nice scraper"?  :laugh:  :dunno:  :laugh:
      http://joshinmo.weebly.com

      Comment


      • #18
        [QUOTE]cgode wrote:

        Originally posted by Ron Kelley post=154271
        I'm looking at the edge shot and I just don't see scraper. I will stand alone on this one: That's OK. :laugh: An edge shot of the wide end might help. :dunno:
        I think Mr. Kelly is correct.......I'll stand with you Ron! .....awesome observation.
        A scraper is typically a unifacial tool, this appears to have that typical "stitched" look to the edge which indicates it is bifacially worked. More a small knife form or possibly a larger piece at one point that has been repurposed. Better pics would be required to say.....it is definitely an artifact that was man altered though, that much we can say with certainty.
        So a "Vug" can be present I have to agree not an artifact. Here is one with inclusions ...or cortex but shows the smooth uni-face of being struck off the core.

        Look to the ground for it holds the past!

        Comment


        • #19
          That is probably a blank, or maybe large debitage at least. It also appears heat treated, but looks can be deceiving.
          http://joshinmo.weebly.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Just thought i would update some pictures i hope they are better than the last ones. I am still confused about what i have here.  :dunno:  Thanks to all !! i sure do enjoy the site and all of your input

            Comment


            • #21
              Whatever it is, it isn't REALLY significant imo. It's a chert,appears to be, well anyway keep checking that area.   :dunno:
              http://joshinmo.weebly.com

              Comment


              • #22
                What you have is a piece of Coastal plain chert, the Brier Creek variant. it has those inclusions in it and a lot of them are much bigger than the one you have. As much material as the people had access to they most likely did not use that piece long. The Brier creek material is known for its vibrant colors blues , reds and greens. If you can find a copy of the book "People Of The Shoals" by Ken Sassaman it covers people that lived along the Savannah River and Brier creek before the time of the Creeks and Cherokee. Your piece is most likely older than the Creeks.
                South East Ga. Twin City

                Comment


                • #23
                  Speaking of fossils in artifacts I found this yesterday. It is a thick unifacial tool of some sort. The reason I post it is because the fossils were turning to quartz. The quartz seemed to have a high iron content. Eventually the iron would have broke down and the fossil could have eventually become a vug.

                  location:Central Ky

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thank you very much for your time and input. I will try to find the book

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X