Flake Tools

[bean man]

Just some of the typical junk we find in our creeks. The brown chert is what we see the most of.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[bean man]

I think it is a modify flake made of basalt type material. I don't see how that so far fetched. I have some similar to it. The thing about you Cannon, your to sure, when you really can't be, and make guarantees when it's impossible. Just because Cannonman says it's not, does not make it misinformation. I could be wrong about this piece, or any rock I've said was an artifact. I do know this, I have quite a few rocks, that I believe are tools and they don't have flaking scars. It was the stone age, not the flint age.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cannonman17]

I think it is a modify flake made of basalt type material. I don't see how that so far fetched. I have some similar to it. The thing about you Cannon, your to sure, when you really can't be, and make guarantees when it's impossible. Just because Cannonman says it's not, does not make it misinformation. I could be wrong about this piece, or any rock I've said was an artifact. I do know this, I have quite a few rocks, that I believe are tools and they don't have flaking scars. It was the stone age, not the flint age.

I didn't say it was impossible. Anything is possible but it is one of those more than likely nots and those seem to be your favorite. Why do you focus on all the maybes? You're right, just because I say I don't think it is one doesn't mean that's always going to be right but there is a big difference between you and I. I make educated guesses and use the evidence at hand when looking at a piece where as you just guess. I bet you do have a lot of "artifacts" with no flaking scars, or any evidence of modification for that matter, to each their own. I will argue with you on the misinformation aspect though, we have a lot of new people come here to learn and when we first start out they have a lot of questions, including how to tell if a rock is an artifact or not... you chiming in on the one in a million aspect vs. looking at the actual evidence is misinformation. Archaeology is NOT based on your imagination and/or how it might have been used. Artifacts are artifacts because they were modified and used and thus show evidence of it!

 

[Cannonman17]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, if you want to argue whether or not something is an artifact that's fine! It can be a learning experience for all involved, but for heaven's sake you have to come up with something better than I see a flat spot where a thumb would fit. I'm not trying to one up you, not trying to belittle you, not trying to say I know it all, not trying to do any of that. All I want you to do is make a valid arguement based on evidence rather than it's possible.

 

[bean man]

Come on Cannon, you've made all kinds of statements without evidence to back them up. Are they misinformation or just your opinion.

 

[Cannonman17]

Show me one bean

You telling everybody every broken rock they find might be something is misinformation.

You should go to an artifact show sometime and see how many artifacts you find that don't show any evidence of having been worked. You might learn something. Oh yeah, make sure you look for flaked artifacts with "thumb spots". Keep a tally of how many you find. While you're there you should also get a chance to look at some real stuff to compare your mystery rocks to.

 

[bean man]

I have never told anyone that every broken rock they find might be something, on the other hand, you guaranteeing that they never made things to fit the hand, now that's misinformation.

 

[Cannonman17]

I have never told anyone that every broken rock they find might be something, on the other hand, you guaranteeing that they never made things to fit the hand, now that's misinformation.

I have never guarenteed that they NEVER made rocks to fit a hand. The problem is people use how a rock "feels" in the hand as evidence to whether or not it's an artifact and this is just plain stupid. 99%+ of what people think are artifacts due to how they "feel" in a hand are only natural rocks. Here you go arguing the lottery shot again.

What it all breaks down to is this:

I judge whether or not something is an artifact based on evidence, if there are "thumb spots" they will have to have been made that way and thus show signs of it. Perhaps the peck and grind method was used... no matter how it was done, it will show signs of it in 99% of the cases. "thumb spots" and the like were not worn into the rock by a persons fingers although this is a very popular misconception amongst newbies. Don't believe me? Go get a rock and rub it for the rest of your life... you might shine it up a bit, but you're not going to put divits in it. (unless it's a very soft stone)
You judge whether a rock is an artifact or not on if it feels right in the hand, or it was manufactured but doesn't show any signs of it (shot in the dark)? You would have a field day up north of here, there is a line of exposed basalt... even the Natives knew this stuff sucked and very rarely used it ( I have never personally seen an artifact made from it even though I'm within 100 miles of it) but you would more than likely tell me (if you didn't know me and I was new here) that any broken piece of this cr@p I managed to break loose from the formation has a good chance of being a knife.

Why don't you want to discuss artifacts based upon evidence bean? There's tons of information out there on lithic technologies and how to identify, you should take a look at some of it. There's even some great information that goes into great depth on the evidence left behind on stone tools that show not only how they were manufactured but also what they were used for. On the other hand, I did a quick search for information on thumb spots and flaked tools without flaking scars and found nothing. Perhaps you can show me where you have gotten your information.

 

[Airborne80]

Hey guys.......... I certainly did not mean to start a spat over this. Both of you have great incite on this topic. I admit that I am one of the brand new guys in terms of Indian artifacts. I do not know enough to weigh in on weather or not an item is a stone or an artifact. Of course.... I wish that they were all artifacts but I am smart enough to realize that some are just sharp stones. I really do appreciate the input from all of you and contemplate every idea that is posted here. I can see that each of you have your own system of analysis in terms of item identification and respect all of them. In the end.......... all that any of us can ask for is the opinions of the others here who share the same passion of collecting. I submit to you all that in the name of fun and interesting exchanges on the topic..... that we try not to get to personal when it comes to differences in opinion. After all.... its opinions that many of us (me for sure) are requesting when we post our finds.

Most important..... thank you both for your posts. I have learned new ideas from both of you and hope that there is no bitterness caused by questionable items posted here. As I said in another post..... in my quest for Indian artifacts, I pick up almost anything that may be a related item. I do value all of your thoughts and ideas and hope that blood pressure is not raised as a resalt of anything that I may post or ask about. Thanks again.

 

[bean man]

You crack me up. You don't read your own posts any better then you read other peoples. I read all kinds of info on the subject, thank you. But some things I'm discovering at the creeks and river around here. You should try it.

Don't worry Airbourne, he just don't like me thinking outside the box.

Oh, by the way Cannon. Cute kid! Must get it from his mother.

 

[Airborne80]

It may be time for the proverbial "Group Hug"!! Come on guys....... open arms.... step forward.... Embrace!! There..... isn't that better?

 

[bean man]

No Airbourne, I'm not the hugging type. Usually, we just ram heads until we get tired of it.

 

[Cannonman17]

Airborne- not to worry my friend, this argument between beano and I has been going on for a long time, you certainly did not start it! Some river worn rock with a flat spot that fit his thumb "just right" started it long before you were here. He thinks outside the box..... waaaayyyyy outside the box. Welcome to the forum by the way! There's a good amount of activity here and some fantastic finds are being posted through most of the year. I can't wait to see your future posts and what you find- HH

 

[Airborne80]

Roger that guys, Thanks for freeing me of self imposed guilt I do LOVE the hobby and can't wait for free time to get out, get dirty and get lucky!

 

[bean man]

I figure some of the only evidence to support a lot of crude tools, is finding multiple examples. I have quite a few, but just posted these right now, because their made of basalt and chert. It might not prove anything, but it's a start.

 

[Cannonman17]

Are these creek finds? I'm guessing they are because the edges look beat up as though they have been rolled around in one for a while. At least with these examples I can understand why you think you have something with what appears to be worked pieces... and could be but my guess is that they aren't modified tools. The flaking scars appear to be natural to me You see in that second picture down on the left... the basalt piece? There's not even an edge on that one... I honestly don't think you could use it to cut much of anything- and on the other hand the chert piece... those scars along the edge just don't look intentionally made... For lack of a better term they are too random and too small to have been done intentionally by human hands. Now don't go get all bent out of shape on me... lets ask one of the experts here for a second opinion... somebody who knows what's what... like badandy or Matt or Atlantis -
When you look at these can you understand what I'm trying to say? *hands bean the peace pipe*

 

[bean man]

I think their scrapers, maybe only used a few times. I'm not going to get bent. Just trying to make my case.

 

[steve71]

is there edge work on the other side of the piece in far right bottom corner?

 

[bean man]

If your talking the first picture, the only worked part is the upper half of the left edge. The skin of the chert is on the other side. If you mean the one in the picture of the four, the other edge is crudely worked like the edge shown. Thanks.

 

[stryker-one]

Bean--I do not see that these two examples show any tool use or flaking. I see no artifact value to them. They are a couple of creek rocks and that is all I see. Seen one or two of them myself--both in the creek and out of it.

I have to go with Cannon on this--if you find an artifact--when you hold it in your hand you'll know it has been worked. Even after ten centuries--you'll see the flaking scar--even flaked once on each side--no doubt.

1st time gold panning-- a long time ago: "How will I know when I have gold and not pyrite in my pan?"
"You'll Know it is gold when you see it."
I am thinking (never seen wild gold before)

1st Gold flake I had in my pan looked like a shaving off of a new penny. My PA was right--when I saw that glitter size flake. I KNEW!! And I did not have to work at it to convince myself either.

Hunting artifacts is the same way--at least for me.

Stryker

 

[bean man]

Hi Stryker. Your right, when you see an artifact that has "Artifact value",or money value, I think you mean, your going to know it. Here's my point, I believe that the vast majority of artifacts, that are in a creek flowing through an camp, are scrapers and grinders, that may not be particularly well made and show little modification. Does that make them not an artifact? Again I'll say it. I feel one of the only ways to figure it out is to see multiple examples. By posting on here, I can reach a lot more eyes. Thanks.