Ok my turn…

[Blackfoot58]

I found this while walking a trail this morning. I’ll lay myself on the altar of Potential Pareidolia. This a very small piece. The coloration variances near the edge caught my eye. It appears to have a worked edge. I can also see where it could be natural “damage”.
The size is what gives me doubts. I can’t see a purpose for it. Either way, it’ll fit in my “Other” jar. Give me your thoughts; I can take it! 🤷‍♂️

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Older The Better]

Looks like a fragment of a tool to me

 

[dognose]

from the angle and the shape of the stone, maybe a basal fragment.

 

[CreekSide]

Keep looking in that area something else might pop up. It’s been worked.

 

[ToddsPoint]

A piece of white flint with heavy yellow creek stain. The edge where white is showing looks like it was worked by the creek to me. I think natural but you’re getting closer!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Looks like a piece of natural flint to me. I would keep looking in the area though for sure.

 

[Relicgrubber]

Looks like a piece of natural flint to me. I would keep looking in the area though for sure.

I agree TH. Its road/trail chatter.

I hate to say it but, some of the comments here tell me that they have no common sense and don't know what an intentionally removed flake scars looks like...

In conclusion, It puts people on the wrong path to identifying possible artifacts.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I agree TH. Its road/trail chatter.

I hate to say it but, some of the comments here tell me that they have no common sense and don't know what an intentionally removed flake scars looks like...

In conclusion, It puts people on the wrong path to identifying possible artifacts.

That is what I hate about the potable art and some pareidolia posts who insist it is just bad pictures, it misleads new artifact hunter members, and they never learn what to look for in real artifacts, you have to train your eyes on what to look for, or at least I did.

 

[Older The Better]

Yeah I agree some comments point to having no common sense, like yours.

it’s extremely possible and a valid assessment that it’s a tool fragment, and I thought the comment on it being piece of a base was right on.

It’s ignorant to take shots on people wanting to help, not all areas are subject to the same processes, I’ve got a river and creeks and nothing comes up black like down in Georgia. Other than local flint which crops up in nodules flint found is almost always imported, whos to say the area this found has enough flint or fast moving water to pick up chatter or even be stained.
A piece like that would 100% be a tool fragment around here, there is absolutely 0 creek chatter that looks like that.

Not to mention there’s a margin that looks like a blade and on the other side it’s blocky like a break

It’s fine if that’s what you think but don’t insult other posters we just may have more experience than you.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Ol

Yeah I agree some comments point to having no common sense, like yours.

it’s extremely possible and a valid assessment that it’s a tool fragment, and I thought the comment on it being piece of a base was right on.

It’s ignorant to take shots on people wanting to help, not all areas are subject to the same processes, I’ve got a river and creeks and nothing comes up black like down in Georgia. Other than local flint which crops up in nodules flint found is almost always imported, whos to say the area this found has enough flint or fast moving water to pick up chatter or even be stained.
A piece like that would 100% be a tool fragment around here, there is absolutely 0 creek chatter that looks like that.

Not to mention there’s a margin that looks like a blade and on the other side it’s blocky like a break
View attachment 2107388View attachment 2107386View attachment 2107387
It’s fine if that’s what you think but don’t insult other posters we just may have more experience than you.

Older, the side you say is "blade margin", the chips are random and the white color shows they are recent, they would not be that white if they were worked in ancient times.

 

[Relicgrubber]

Yeah I agree some comments point to having no common sense, like yours.

it’s extremely possible and a valid assessment that it’s a tool fragment, and I thought the comment on it being piece of a base was right on.

It’s ignorant to take shots on people wanting to help, not all areas are subject to the same processes, I’ve got a river and creeks and nothing comes up black like down in Georgia. Other than local flint which crops up in nodules flint found is almost always imported, whos to say the area this found has enough flint or fast moving water to pick up chatter or even be stained.
A piece like that would 100% be a tool fragment around here, there is absolutely 0 creek chatter that looks like that.

Not to mention there’s a margin that looks like a blade and on the other side it’s blocky like a break
View attachment 2107388View attachment 2107386View attachment 2107387
It’s fine if that’s what you think but don’t insult other posters we just may have more experience than you.

I stand by what I said judging by your interpretations (marked up pictures) of the item in question...

 

[CreekSide]

Sometimes in hand is the only way to determine a artifact that is broken or a natural form. To me it shows some work but could be a flake or as others have suggested a natural formation. Either way I try to keep most of my opinions quiet as in a absolute either way. I’d like to see the Artifacts Forum grow back to where it was. I believe by showing negative responses people will leave. But at the same time we should tell someone if it’s a rock without a doubt.

 

[Relicgrubber]

"I believe by showing negative responses people will leave."

Sounds kinda woke to me.

Should I just hand out participation trophies instead? How do you learn if everyone agrees and none disagree? Serious Question...

 

[Blackfoot58]

I wasn’t trying to stir the proverbial pot with this thread. I was honestly unsure and thought I’d seek out opinions. That’s what this site was good for, not too long ago. I respect serious viewpoints shared from both sides. I wanted to hear the doubters along with those who agree. Then I can weigh the perspectives. I’ll try to solve more of these on my own so as to not cause such discord. ☮️

 

[Relicgrubber]

Post them BF58. We are here to learn...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I wasn’t trying to stir the proverbial pot with this thread. I was honestly unsure and thought I’d seek out opinions. That’s what this site was good for, not too long ago. I respect serious viewpoints shared from both sides. I wanted to hear the doubters along with those who agree. Then I can weigh the perspectives. I’ll try to solve more of these on my own so as to not cause such discord. ☮️

BF58, you have not created any discord, disagreements are okay as long as they do not degrade into insults and fights.

 

[Older The Better]

I hate to say it but, some of the comments here tell me that they have no common sense and don't know what an intentionally removed flake scars looks like...

In conclusion, It puts people on the wrong path to identifying possible artifacts.

I stand by what I said judging by your interpretations (marked up pictures) of the item in question...

"I believe by showing negative responses people will leave."

Sounds kinda woke to

Post them BF58. We are here to learn...

Pot meet kettle

Treasure hunter i can get behind what you say and like creekside said one downside to the whole system is working off of pictures,

what I don’t appreciate are the pot shots at other posters I’ve seen it drive off plenty of people in the past, I commented on what I saw, and tried to explain it farther, but I’m not looking to die on any hills like this one.

Bottom line I come here to see points, learn and talk rocks, and feel like I have plenty of common sense to do so, not looking to fight with anyone but also not afraid to have some self respect.

This isn’t the first time a questionable thread has gotten aggressive and maybe I’m just grumpy today but I wasn’t having it this morning. I generally agree with the opinions of long time members and appreciate the knowledge but we can do without the insults.

 

[CreekSide]

"I believe by showing negative responses people will leave."

Sounds kinda woke to me.

Should I just hand out participation trophies instead? How do you learn if everyone agrees and none disagree? Serious Question...

Before I can respond to your question I need to know exactly what you meant by saying
Sounds kinda woke to me. I was wondering if you meant any of these meanings to the term Woke. I chose to disagree with you which I’m not afraid to do. But I’d like to see it as a discussion and not negative.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Please end the arguing.

 

[Relicgrubber]

Before I can respond to your question I need to know exactly what you meant by saying
Sounds kinda woke to me. I was wondering if you meant any of these meanings to the term Woke. I chose to disagree with you which I’m not afraid to do. But I’d like to see it as a discussion and not negative.

"I believe by showing negative responses people will leave."

Designating areas (example: North American Indian Artifacts)where vulnerable populations can feel comfortable discussing their issues. While generally supported, controversy may arise around the concept of excluding certain viewpoints or the perceived coddling of individuals so as not to upset them.