The Forsaken Artifacts: Crude Stone Tools: Recent Comments

Comment on by Kenneth B. Johnston

Dana — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:42:03 GMT

I am so glad I finally found this article, after 3 long nights of searching for a site to identify my newly discovered, so now named, crude stone collection, of over 100 specimens! A few of them were tools identifiable in the field, but most, I assumed were varied types of jasper in the rough, until after further study, I noticed several anomalies, mostly in the forms of scoring, ridging and notching. I spent hours examining them for similarities and was utterly astounded at how many of them I recognized (And the longer I studied them, the more I discovered). Now, all I want to know is what they could have possibly been made for. Aside the fact that most of them are just great specimens of colorful jasper, they've also not only been admired by another human soul, but utilized as well; give a few to several hundreds of years ofcorse.
I haven't been able to find any examples close to my samples. Until now I thought maybe I was using the wrong terminology, now I finally realize that there just is no data or classifications out there given to these awesome and abundant crude stone tools. This, however, sits fine with me...the way I see it is: Ya'll can keep your arrowheads, scrapers, axes, atlatls, grinders, and all too perfect lithic relics, I will take one of my gorgeous banded jasper crude stone tools, with all of it's mystery and aura, over a hundred of your precious sought after, predictable, precisely recorded and all very well recognized, present day stone charms. However, if anyone out there has seen a crude lithic with at least one to two very defined little notches cut out of it on opposing edges, or any with a ridge pattern that seems to start with one center ridge splitting at it's lowest end into two, shorter, downward angling ridges, and this can be seen on a single specimen as much as 3 times, or X-ed scoring/engraving on it, PLEASE
submit any info you may have relating to the such, and many thanks as well, as I am fairly new to all of this and cannot find a strand of info so far. Dee

Comment on Photos 4

Fred — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:57:31 GMT

this shows no signs of ware at all. all the striations on it run in random directions like any other ordinary stone.
why do you think that this was ever used as a tool??

Comment on Photo 8

Fred — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:32:05 GMT

I do not believe that it is a spindle rest . It could have been used in an opportunistic way but then again any rock could. I do not believe that the thumb and forefinger are ware marks; it simply would not make any since. How long would you have to hold a thing like this to make ware marks? Do you NOT think that the concave surface would be worn through long long long before any finger marks were warn into it?

think about it.... If a person were using this item as a drill rest spinning a tool to create fire or work other material would not the grinding of the tool destroy the rest long before a finger could even slightly polish the surface of the same material? let alone alter its shape at all.

And if it were a intentionally made tool the concave feature would have been worked into the middle not one corner.

Just my opinion

Comment on Photo 9

Fred — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:18:09 GMT

Ok I will try to post this one more time.. if you get three of these I am sorry. Its not even come through to my email so I don't even think it is submitting correctly.

---------------------------------------

Trust me, I have been fighting the powers to be regarding certain effigy commonly found as funerary goods for quite some time now. What I don't like to see is individuals amateur (such as myself) or professional so quick to label an item "artifact" with out subjecting these objects to certain criteria. The simplest of these:

A. Is this item of a material that is likely to show its present morphological condition due to conditions attributable to natural factors.

B. Is this object of any more use then an naturally occurring stone of similar size and shape.

C. If this item meets has been "improved" does it show any signs at all of its intended use that can not be attributable by natural factors.

D. If this item does show signs of ware or alteration that are not readily explained by natural occurrence such as pecking grinding or percussion chipping, are these patterns sufficient to conclude the hand of man has made them.

E. If indeed the anomalous markings on this item are hard to explain away what else is found in its immediate vicinity. I.E: are there other objects that meet all the criteria in a-e.

I live on 10 acres of a archaeological dream land. I had a big old oak tree fall over during a storm. Of coarse I ran out to see what it had unearthed. I found half a dozen cobbles that had smashed together and turned them selves into perfect hammer stones. Smooth everyone but one end that was cracked and ground perfectly. If I did not see them right after this happened anyone finding them after patina and weathering took over would have been convinced of their former use.

Now multiply that factor by the 100s of times that happened over 14000 years...

Now. take for example the Pool Que stone (for lack of a better term) doesn't the discoloration in the pit of the thing tell you anything?

I would venture to guess that the material within that specimen is a harder more dense material then the outer and obviously porous material on its surface.

I do not mean to be so negative...
BUT contrary to your opinion pushing the envelope and publishing rocks as artifacts without irrefutable evidence does nothing but set progress back. We all get labeled nuts and lumped together and discredited.

Just an opinion that I earnestly believe.

Comment on Photo 9

Fred — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:41:46 GMT

(Hope this is not a double post)
Trust me, I have been fighting the powers to be regarding certain effigy commonly found as funerary goods for quite some time now. What I don't like to see is individuals amateur (such as myself) or professional so quick to label an item "artifact" with out subjecting these objects to certain criteria. The simplest of these:

A. Is this item of a material that is likely to show its present morphological condition due to conditions attributable to natural factors.

B. Is this object of any more use then an naturally occurring stone of similar size and shape.

C. If this item meets has been "improved" does it show any signs at all of its intended use that can not be attributable by natural factors.

D. If this item does show signs of ware or alteration that are not readily explained by natural occurrence such as pecking grinding or percussion chipping, are these patterns sufficient to conclude the hand of man has made them.

E. If indeed the anomalous markings on this item are hard to explain away what else is found in its immediate vicinity. I.E: are there other objects that meet all the criteria in a-e.

I live on 10 acres of a archaeological dream land. I had a big old oak tree fall over during a storm. Of coarse I ran out to see what it had unearthed. I found half a dozen cobbles that had smashed together and turned them selves into perfect hammer stones. Smooth everyone but one end that was cracked and ground perfectly. If I did not see them right after this happened anyone finding them after patina and weathering took over would have been convinced of their former use.

Now multiply that factor by the 100s of times that happened over 14000 years...

Now. take for example the Pool Que stone (for lack of a better term) doesn't the discoloration in the pit of the thing tell you anything?

I would venture to guess that the material within that specimen is a harder more dense material then the outer and obviously porous material on its surface.

I do not mean to be so negative...
BUT contrary to your opinion pushing the envelope and publishing rocks as artifacts without irrefutable evidence does nothing but set progress back. We all get labeled nuts and lumped together and discredited.

Just an opinion that I earnestly believe.

Comment on Photo 9

Kenneth Johnston — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:42:15 GMT

What is a problematical? Something you don't understand or that is not already in a book somewhere? I simply don't practice archaeology with such a classification. All artifacts are a part of the story. The point of my article is that when you chose not to publish an obvious artifact, a zoomorphic one at that, you have left the role of archaeologist/scientist to become gatekeeper/editor/self-proclaimed authority on high. Archaeology has made little progress in 150 years because of its dysfunctional epistemology originating from supposed positions of authority. When you chose to censor artifacts because they are a problem for your dogma, you deny progress for the rest of the field and its related disciplines. Archaeology has lost and is losing credit with the public because of it continued support of obsolete paradigms and inability to account for a growing number of anomalies which it cannot explain and does not attempt to address.

Comment on Photo 9

Fred — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:33:07 GMT

I did not mean to suggest that chert and alike was exclusively used in the manufacturing of tools. It is has been estimated that Bone and Wood tools outnumber stone tools 100 to 1! This based on findings mostly in the arid south and central west where if protected from the elements such items can and have survived.

I have several Bird shaped chunks of granite that are so obviously ground, pecked and percussion chipped that a 5 year old looking at them would say "who made that". But I will not publish them as artifacts simply because they are extreme problimaticals.

Comment on Photo 9

Fred — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:04:12 GMT

I did not mean to suggest that fashioned stone is anywhere near exclusively used. I have found several fully grooved basalt celts, random stone effigies and literally thousands of granite fabricators/hammer stones/percussion tools... But other than the celts I will not call them artifacts as they are categorized as problematical. Im quite certain that even stones of "opportunity " even of very poor material have been used for mundane tasks over the millenia but to hold them up as anything more then problematical is simply irresponsible in my opinion.

Comment on Photo 9

Kenneth Johnston — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:40:28 GMT

If you read the article I make it clear hand holds are not diagnostic. Wear surfaces are necessary. Fashioned stone being mostly chert type material is exactly the bias I am writing to expose. Dozens of stone tool experts from Europe and the US have looked at my finds and often can confirm artifactuality and can describe uses of many of the tools and I don't regard your comments as informed based on my own study of world lithics for 15 years. I use 10x to 200x lighted stereoscopic magnification to verify wear components. Judging whether someone could use one of my pieces to live off the land is impossible for you to know. Also, one is not able to make a determination of non-artifactuality by photograph so your comments that they are all rocks is without merit. But, thanks for taking time to comment.

Comment on Photo 9

Fred — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:01:03 GMT

Just because a "rock" feels good in your hand does not mean it was a tool. I have a PHD (Professorial Hole Digger)in paleo, archaic. and woodland artifacts. There is not one item shown on this site that is anything more then a simple rock. Fashioned stone is typically but not always made from dense sedimentary rock such as flint, chert, obsidian etc... Other material like granite was used largely for fabricating tools like hammer stones and percussion chipping tools. You can not simply find a "rock" that feels good to hold and say.. this is a tool! There is not one stone item on this site that I have come across that would be even remotely useful in day to day life, living off the land. If the "hand holds" showed signs of repeated chipping and pecking while the rest of the stone remained naturally finished (((AND))) the stone had an obvious use (((even then))) any serious collector/scientist would only consider it problematical at best!!!!

Sedimentary rock like chert even when after long long periods of time in a moist environmental does not tend to fracture. while others fracture repeatedly over time sometimes leaving suspicious looking tool like features. Finding tool markings that repeat repeat repeat, and fashion a USEFUL object out of a USELESS rock is the key to suggesting alterations by the hand of man are likely.

I will only even consider a hammer-stone a hammer-stone if it was found under the right circumstantial conditions.