Tweet
So, yesterday I received a package, from a friend I know from elsewhere in the artifact forum universe, containing several artifacts from Almeida Co., Ca. From around San Francisco Bay. Among several pieces were a couple of what I believe are discoidal-like manos, very nice, and this really cool incised stone. After reading some about incised rocks from Ca., I believe it is either sultstone or steatite. It does have a somewhat soapy feel, but I suspect siltstone. I found this older paper, among other sources:
And I zeroed in on this passage:
"Engraved stone artifacts are occasionally found in archaeological sites throughout coastal Southern California. While the size, type of stone material, and design vary considerably, they should not be confused with the more commonly found "incised stones" which are obviously honing or sharpening instruments. The latter range from a few random lines to seemingly elaborate patterns, but the lines are not deeply cut".
The suggestion is that the latter type of incised stone, functional artifacts, were honing stones for bone and wood artifacts. I have a long standing interest in incised stones, ancient ones, such as the famous examples from the Paleo era Gault site in Texas, and other seemingly non functional examples, such as this one from my own collection, and seen at the very bottom of this page from our Information Center:
In that case from my collection, seen is a classic crosshatch pattern, one of the most common motifs in North American petroglyphs, and indeed, one with a world wide distribution. Although my colleague, archaeologist and petroglyph researcher Ed Lenik, felt my rock might be a net weight, and the crosshatch an image of a net, I disagree. The crosshatch is just too universal, and I don't think the rock is other then non-functional with a classic crosshatch.
This very cool rock I am guessing falls in the functional category. Among other features I find interesting is that some lines wrap around to a degree. There is at least one line that is continuous around the entire stone, the stone being about 4 1/4" long x 2 3/4" wide x about 1" at its thickest.
It has one flat face, and one convex face. Here are a few shots of the flat face, with some shots showing the wrap around nature of the incised lines:
And I zeroed in on this passage:
"Engraved stone artifacts are occasionally found in archaeological sites throughout coastal Southern California. While the size, type of stone material, and design vary considerably, they should not be confused with the more commonly found "incised stones" which are obviously honing or sharpening instruments. The latter range from a few random lines to seemingly elaborate patterns, but the lines are not deeply cut".
The suggestion is that the latter type of incised stone, functional artifacts, were honing stones for bone and wood artifacts. I have a long standing interest in incised stones, ancient ones, such as the famous examples from the Paleo era Gault site in Texas, and other seemingly non functional examples, such as this one from my own collection, and seen at the very bottom of this page from our Information Center:
In that case from my collection, seen is a classic crosshatch pattern, one of the most common motifs in North American petroglyphs, and indeed, one with a world wide distribution. Although my colleague, archaeologist and petroglyph researcher Ed Lenik, felt my rock might be a net weight, and the crosshatch an image of a net, I disagree. The crosshatch is just too universal, and I don't think the rock is other then non-functional with a classic crosshatch.
This very cool rock I am guessing falls in the functional category. Among other features I find interesting is that some lines wrap around to a degree. There is at least one line that is continuous around the entire stone, the stone being about 4 1/4" long x 2 3/4" wide x about 1" at its thickest.
It has one flat face, and one convex face. Here are a few shots of the flat face, with some shots showing the wrap around nature of the incised lines:
Comment