Molested by early man?

[kyphote]

These pics show a partial hammerstone dug from what’s presumed to be a mid to late Woodland knapping site. I’ve been told the decorative dot and stripe is caused by the rock’s natural veins and I’m inclined to agree. But should the vein not run beneath the rock’s surface? Is everything so seemingly ornamental and superficial about this rock just plain natural? Thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[kyphote]

Same question applies to this rock pulled from the same site. Maybe it’s a root stain?

 

[Madmox]

Maybe fungus or lichen stain? Interesting question for sure...

 

[kyphote]

Maybe fungus or lichen stain? Interesting question for sure...

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Thanks. That was my first guess, as well. The colors on these and countless other rocks from the site are either black, gold, dark red or whitish. Here are some more rocks showing coloration that the archaeologist says is also naturally occurring.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The note I received from department of archaeology re below pics was “none of this is paint” which I’m happy to accept. On the pics above they had this to say: “The examples I see in the photos seem to be quartzite cobbles with natural quartz inclusions or veins running through them (the white bands in the reddish stone). If you split the cobble you will see veins of other material running throughout. It's not a surface decoration but rather part of the natural formation of the stone.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But they must have missed the pic of the split cobble that shows no veins running throughout.

I’m conflicted... [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]