Photo 9

All of these tools have what I believe to be residual material on what would be the working surface.  The material respective to each tool is not present anywhere else on the tool, only on the bottom.  Crude stone tools should be an important resource in material analysis archaeology.  Material ranges from chalky white concretion on tool in upper left, to black, pitch-like substance on tool in lower right.  They all, of course, fit the hand  perfectly.




Click on  OLDER POSTS  BELOW FOR MANY MORE PHOTOS
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 8/19/2006 2:32 AM Stone wrote:
    On facet of artifacts in general is that the hand of man is only assuredly certain where some sort of bilateral symetry is evident in the manufacture of the tool. The 'fit to the hand' is seldom if ever a requirement for an artifact to be called that--the 'tell' is in how it was made to fulfill a specific purpose.

    Geofacts are naturally occuring phenomenon--especially where rivers, creeks, the ocean, or any other physically violent geological circumstances compell rocks and stones to be forced against each other...

    Without the requisite bilateral sysmetry evident in it's manufacture, it is either a casual 'tool of circumstance' or a geofact.

    Arrowheads and dart-points exhibit the most obvious bilateral symetry--two matching sides or angles, even if assymetrical in outline due to use-wear, the conceptual form originated in bilateral symetry. Axes and celts also exhibit this bilateral symetry, as do pestles, hammerstones, scrapers, denticulates, etc. Tools of casual happinstance--perhaps a rock used breiefly for some purpose and discarded--will first and foremost exhibit wear resulting from such use, and will not exhibit a 'fit to the hand'--the so-called hand-fit is not a primary nor even a secondary consideration of manufacturing a tool. The purpose for a tools' manufacture does not center around nor is it dependant upon the fit to the hand, but to accomplish a given task. Defining a rock as an artifact by 'how it fits the hand' is not a workable criteria for such determination. Look instead to the purpose the 'tool' was made for--somewhere there should be use-wear that cannot be ascribed to natural causes. If natural causes can be ascribed to the 'tool', best do some rsearch and find a specific class of tool that compells it's placement in that category, and failing that, it can only be described as a geofact and not to the hand of mankind.
    Reply to this
    1. 2/25/2012 11:10 AM Andrew Benson wrote:
      Hello Stone, I am sure your comment is appreciated. However, to state your opinion as an arqueological fact is not scientific. There are steps to follow in any method of scientific investigation. One of the most important steps, being the compilation of all the evidence available, all the information you can gather, not limited to certain eye pleasing caracteristics such as bilateral symetry and/or other obvious notations, Regardless of what is said to be required by a community of scientists who never lived during the time these tools were used, or not. This is a study of the unknown origins of Man, No one for sure can state when Man first walked the Earth. No human knows and understands all the misteries Nature has burried in the vaults of time, as well as the misteries to come. You are limiting yourself and trying to do the same to others. The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your activities, and Nature has proof that there is much more beyond it. Logic will incarcerate imagination and stop your sensorial connections to a reality that can be appearantly clear to a free mind.
      Science can be one or many forms of art, and there is an art expressed within science itself. Ask mother Nature, but make sure to listen carefully this time. The images on these stones speak a different kind of language and they do so from many angles within the shadows and light. Good Day!
      Reply to this
      1. 2/25/2012 12:15 PM Roddy Heading wrote:
        .. for a science critic you don't spell very well.Maybe get your next wave of supernatural insight from Uncle Nature
        Reply to this
      2. 2/25/2012 12:40 PM Fred wrote:
        Grasping at intangibles.

        This still leaves us looking at a pile of Geofacts

        Most of these rocks do not even hint at any wear patterns.
        Reply to this
        1. 2/25/2012 2:56 PM Andrew Benson wrote:
          I can understand.
          Try observing.
          Looks can often deceive the eye.

          And you are right, a "tool" with no wear patterns doesn't make sense. Unless they were rejects or pieces used for practice. They can also be random forms of an ancient artistic expression.

          I own many stones which are displaying artistic and complex imagery, as well as stone tools, points, geofacts or rocks. That is why I agree that this subject should be taken into consideration.

          Take care!

          “I tell you,”...“if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Luke 19:40
          Reply to this
  • 8/27/2006 4:02 PM Mike Morrin wrote:
    Hi,like your artifacts.I also enjoy all crude and as well as the perfect native tools.Historical and archalogical info is lost at sites if you do not collect all tools found. Mike
    Reply to this
  • 12/31/2007 9:28 PM Stone Sweet wrote:
    I am wondering why none of the comments contradictory of your thesis have been oublished with your website.

    I've written you before to try to dispell the notion that hand-holds were more important to manufacturing 'a tool' than creating a working edge or surface. One of your pics shows a hand-hold on a rock and when the rock is turned over in the hand, there is no working surface at all.

    Please reconsider your thesis in light of what should have been your ongoing studies of actual artifacts vs. sex stones. For all your writing and web-design abilities, lithics is surely your shortest hand of knowledge...
    Reply to this
  • 2/29/2008 1:20 AM Kurt Esche wrote:
    Great job. I have been collecting a similiar line of stone tools from my yard and locality near a glacial kettle pond. I strongly believe you are completely correct in your findings and yet only some people seem to be able to see it or recognize what we have found. Keep up the good work. I hope every archeologist is soon aware of these things. Check out my thread here http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=119629 Thanks, you saved me from having to write a very similiar paper and now can move on to better demonstrate what we are on to.
    Reply to this
  • 3/16/2008 7:52 AM allen v. deibel wrote:
    you will hear from me in the future when i am more educated and prepared. I've been working what i believe to be a paleo site (pre-clovis? i don't have the credentials. the tools that i am finding are called by others "just rocks". they are beautiful works of art in that with just the right amount of modification they perform the needed function perfectly. they are very similar to yours. mine might be less modify ed but more polished. the elements of design that you describe pertain to my finds perfectly also. when the weather breaks i will be out in the field. this site was revealed when equipment disturbed it to beneath the plow zone. my finds are surface finds. i hope and intend to do some digging/sifting. a daunting project, just where do i stick my spade? just got back from a battle with your spell checker,jeez, at least i can work a shovel
    Reply to this
  • 11/1/2008 9:36 PM Seth wrote:
    I found one that is amazing! Interested?
    Reply to this
  • 11/26/2008 11:11 AM Jim Bratcher wrote:
    Mr Johnston,
    I ran across your website & enjoyed the article & photos. I am a very amateur enthusiast of artifacts & tools. I would like your opinion on a cobble stone tool (I believe) that I found a few years ago in Nelson County KY. It was about 3 feet deep. If you'd respond with an email that I could send some photos or an address that I could send a CD I'd appreciate. If not that's okay. You have some great info.
    Thanks, JIM
    Reply to this
  • 4/18/2009 10:53 PM Adam wrote:
    i have found very similar tools in Central texas with other well recognized artifacts. Most are choppers or stone tools that have holes for the fingers to fit in, and some have been honed out of chert cobble to be either hammer stones or axes. The only way you can tell they are artifacts is the fact that they have smoothed areas that have been worked to fit the hand comfortably. You would be interested in what i have found, b/c it backs your theory. I would like to send some pics and let you see how similar these artifacts are.. Thanks, Adam
    Reply to this
  • 6/3/2009 11:07 AM Joan Stewart wrote:
    I enjoyed reading about crude stone tools. I live on a river in Mississippi. Beautiful clear water with rock and sand bottom. Beaches and rock bars are always changing. walking on the beach one day a friend picked up a long smooth stone, perfectly shaped. I looked at it and said this is not a natural shape. we find Knives and scrapers an arrow heads once and a while, but nothing as neat as this tool. Since I have started reading and paying attention to certain styles and shapes. I have a great collection of tools and weapons now. I can,t walk on rocks without looking for certain shapes and marks that are clerly artifacts. I am an artist and hope to recreate scenes of the indians working with and making their tools jewlery and weapons.I to have found the rocks shaped like yours in the picture plus others I know where not naturally formed that way. I would like to know how to clean the stones without harming them.I found some with mold and scum on them that dosen't rinse are rub off. I also would like to know a safe and legal way to show and sell some of my collection.
    Reply to this
  • 6/5/2009 9:09 AM Mike wrote:
    These crude tools are all over the place here in Southeast North Dakota. I have piles of them. I'm very fascinated by them.

    When my favorite field was taken over by the construction of a Wal Mart, I wrote to the state museum people. They acknowledged the existence of crude stone tools but lamented the fact that they have very limited resources to look into such things.

    Mike Adams, Wahpeton, ND
    Reply to this
  • 10/10/2009 8:19 PM Bruce Wheatcroft wrote:
    Ken - want to write to say your article is very fascinating and full of facts.I started collecting bottles in the Malvern ,Ohio area.Then I found an iron axe head. Then I decided to look for arrow heads. Have not found any yet. But I have found lots of flint. One day while walking home with a pc of flint , like you I noticed that it fit in my fingers like it was made that way . Since then I have found many tools of sorts. Some are stone or rock and some are flint. They had to use something to Knapp the arrow heads. also the Adena tribes used to clean the bones of the dead before burial , I think i may have some of these tools.Just like today if every body made a chair they would be similar but different material, designs and sizes. I believe that is why there are so many different but similar ancient tools. They used whatever material was available and made the tool to match their needs.Would like to here from you.

    Bruce Wheatcroft
    brujeann@aol.com
    330-806-0978
    Reply to this
  • 11/6/2009 10:38 PM Ed McCloskey wrote:
    Ken,
    I have many of the same type of stone tools that you have posted on your site. Mine were all found in a single area on my property. I'd love to share the pics with you for your intepretation.
    Reply to this
  • 3/13/2010 2:08 PM Ozzy wrote:
    Great work....KUDOS

    Ozzy
    Reply to this
  • 3/26/2010 6:12 AM Linda Wood wrote:
    Like I fill the same way about the stones grate job
    Reply to this
  • 4/4/2010 10:03 PM aaron wrote:
    I as well collect these types of artifacts. I find them in the same locations except in Indiana. To me it is clear that they are artifacts but most don't see it. I also have collected large stones (what I believe to be boundary and milling stones) that have wearings all over them. E-mail me and I will send you some pictures.
    Reply to this
  • 4/19/2010 11:26 AM susan wrote:
    dear sir< this is a really helpful website and i think you have great insight to even notice these. hang on to your collection, now, if i may offer advice, since some just see "rocks" thanks for letting me see these tools!
    Reply to this
  • 4/23/2010 7:53 PM Tracy wrote:
    Howdy...I have just discovered your website so I hope you still check it. I read everything you wrote and viewed the pictures. I totally agree with you. I have found and gathered many stones through the years that I believe are tools as well. Many of your pictures resemble many of the stones I have. I was amazed and very glad that someone else has taken the time to pursue this. You are correct that it is difficult to find literature on this subject. I have one book that I found that discusses this subject. It has black and white drawings of stone tools some of which again resemble things I have found. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post your article and pictures. Very informative and I enjoyed reading it. I would love to know if you get this post from me. I thought about writing you or calling but I thought I would take this route first. I hope you still actively check your website. Thanks again.
    Reply to this
  • 5/10/2010 4:29 PM Linda Clark wrote:
    Enjoyed very much! I live in an area, where arrowheads have been found. I also have found stones that appear to have had a purpose, sometime in life, as a tool, or such..
    Reply to this
  • 5/18/2010 12:46 PM Mike Beard wrote:
    This is the most interesting site i've found on Artifacts. For years i for one get more excited About finding a crude tool used for many functions. It just so amazing that they could take a stone & use it as a multi-tool. You my friend have made my day. I hope more people will pay more attention to the forgotten crude tools. Godspeed. mb
    Reply to this
  • 5/20/2010 7:59 PM Heidi Duffield wrote:
    YEA!!! My husband and I are hooked on "crude tools" as well. Would love to connect with you and talk tools. We live in Illinois, north central,,,in the Ill River valley area,,Putnam County. We like you, were and are surface hunters and for years only looked for the "pretty" stuff. Until we like you found that the stone tools were everywhere in our valley. We live in a south facing valley,,along a creek. We have found points and a celt here,,,,but mostly stone tools. The creek below us,,is rich with flint, chert and the like. We feel we are right on top of a tool making valley. I could ramble on and on. I have not found any professional work done on these either,,and have been more than once,,told "oh they are just "rocks" ,,,not pretty. Would love to share ideas and photos and what not,,,hope to hear from you Heidi D.
    Reply to this
  • 5/23/2010 6:50 PM Edward Compton wrote:
    Do you have a contact I have an artifact that is unknown that I would like to show you
    Reply to this
  • 6/15/2010 4:44 PM jay higdon wrote:
    Ken, Thank you for writing your article. I found it very informative and helpful in convincing myself that I'm not totally nuts. I have also found stones that appear to be "ground to fit" the hand or hands, also at the foot of the glacial advance, but in Kansas. I would like to know if others have found tools as you describe and if you have had any estimates of dates. I have written 3 academic "archs" and "anthrops" but have not any luck striking up a conversation. I assume these, as you say, not being flaked tools are open to interpretation thus pulling them out of study. I do find it difficult to understand why I would notice these objects as they lay among more common stones. Would like to know about attempts to confirm. Thanks. Jay
    Reply to this
  • 7/3/2010 2:50 PM amy sullivan wrote:
    Please contact me by email so that we can maybe compare notes and pics.
    Reply to this
  • 7/7/2010 5:21 AM Thomas Johnson wrote:
    I've a few hundred tools of jasper calsidny bone obsidion i bought them from an old womans yard sale as rocks she told me her father and brothers collected them from s. calif mountains and deserts between 1925 ,50 as you said the tools would slip into a sweet spot in my hand with the working surface exposed for ideal applied pressure i dont think mine are nearly as crude as the examples you show but they still seem to be overlooked in favor of points they include awls wedges scrapers hammers of particular interest were a violin shaped rock (no neck)makes a work surface to squat over a piece of burl wood 8" diameter 3" thick smooth backside front has a knob at the top for tieing to your body and a hole towards the bottom with charcoal in it i would call this a fire holster used to carry embers from campsites would love to share photos i too found left handed tools thanks for your site tom
    Reply to this
  • 7/7/2010 7:54 PM Tim wrote:
    Picture #8 appears to be most likely a spinning stone...used to spin a stick to start fires. I'm sure you have seen how to make a fire with a bow and arrow...using the bow and string to turn a stick creating friction to start a fire. JMHO
    Reply to this
  • 7/10/2010 10:40 AM Mary Mullarkey wrote:
    I was very interested to find this article. I live near Plymouth MA and have found so many ancient manmade tools and tools that have been designed to resemble animals in this area. I also have been blown off by archeologists stating they are just rocks, but when I am finding so many of these so called "rocks" that look the same, fit my hand, and are obviously carved I know they were made by someone hundreds maybe thousands of years ago. I keep everything I find, I do live on over 3 acres of land and there are many places to find these things. It's sometimes overwhelming but when I'm digging in the dirt and clay (I am almost 45) it's very calming and exciting. Thank you for your article, I found it very informative.


    Mary Mullarkey
    Reply to this
  • 7/11/2010 3:50 PM Roddy Heading wrote:
    These were wonderful lithics you have found & are describing!

    I am finding similar stuff on the Niagara Pennsinula in Ontario Canada/ similar in every way you describe.I an 14 miles downstream from Niagara Falls on the Niagara River. The original people here were the Neutrals.- they had their own language and culture unlike the Iroquois and Algonquins who arrived here much later neutrals claimed to have come from the south - and in many way s resembled the prototype mound builders, there are a few mounds in S Ontario so we know that culture did get this far..

    features of the Niagara lithics are:


    1_ all all usual;ly avacado sized, you said computer mouse sized'
    2_ all wonderfully shaped to the human hand'
    3_ almost all are exotic lithics, that is, stone was brought in from outside the area. Quartzite Granite, Basalt and sometimes curious >two toned pieces,
    after selection for correct hardness selection for >redness and >pretty colours seems to have be major considerations
    4- many feature what i call "Finger Saddles" thoughtfully & cleverly positioned by the maker
    5- some have erroced out of hilltops and tumbled into Lake Ontario, the degree of wear on some of these suggest they have been in the water for a --very long time

    I have many photos - where can I send some Niagara stones to you to compare with the lithics you have in Ohio ?

    I sometimes chalk the stones to amplify patterns of how flakes were removed to create the lithic, I marvel at the economy of labour and high degree of skill the original artist put forth in rendering a servicable tool

    There are rumnours in the Archeology community that Niagara is trolling for designation as a world heritage site because of pre glacial era human activity sites, Its a long process and most of the sires are in parks and green belts. Officials are very close mouthed about any of this

    share:
    I have posted a few dozen photos of my Niagaga lithics with descriptions on my facebook photo albums. You are welcome to view them and comment..

    I very much enjoyed your website''
    yours truly'

    Roddy Heading
    Niagara on the Lake
    Ontario Canada

    < rheading@becon.org >
    Reply to this
  • 7/14/2010 11:43 AM Ernest Lephart wrote:
    Thanks for Sharing. I believe you have some very wonderful finds.
    Reply to this
  • 7/14/2010 6:01 PM judy wrote:
    There definetly needs to be more research on crude stone tools used by prehistoric man. 20 years ago I took some stone artifacts to the Cleveland Natural History Museum to identify my find. the museum disregarded the artifacts as anything special because they did not have anything similiar. I am glad to know that there is some oneelse interested in discovering the period of inhabitants before the already known existing ones. As a matter of fact I just recently found a rock similar to the one you have with many lines on it. I figure it must have been used for sharpening.
    Reply to this
  • 7/16/2010 3:59 PM Kathleen wrote:
    Dear Sir, I have found quite a few Pebble tools ....or so I think they are....we are talking small...1"-2" some of them.I am in central OH. Near the Scioto river...When did they say the first "Ancients" arrived here in Ohio? I have found some pretty cool stuff!!! Some of it is in such good shape it is unbelievable....and talk about sharp!Please respond when you can.Can you direct me to some pictures of more tools so I may compare? Thank you for your time....Kathleen Kay
    Reply to this
  • 7/19/2010 3:58 PM Mike Allen wrote:
    I too have found several objects fashioned in the same manner here in north east Texas and find them very interesting. Most every thing around here is Caddo.
    Reply to this
  • 7/21/2010 9:44 AM Stephen Sayre wrote:
    Hi, Ken! I think you're definitely on to something! I'm a 57-yr. old novice at this, but wholeheartedly agree with your analysis and thoughts. Thanks to you, I will use "new glasses" while hunting in Hamilton, Warren , Clark & Greene counties! Please feel free to email me at the above address... All the Best, Steve Sayre
    Reply to this
  • 7/24/2010 4:47 PM mike wrote:
    ive had the same trouble trying to find what those rocks were i have alot myself mostly found on the ohio river in wv moundsville area ide like to send yousome pic of mine like to no if there worth any thing. lol thanks mike icelepard49@yahoo.com please keep in contack
    Reply to this
  • 7/26/2010 12:04 AM Roddy Heading wrote:
    I wrote last week about how similar artifacts in Ohio & Southern Ontario are.' I have sifted through my artifact photos and found a couple of striking mirror examples. Also some recent Canadian archeology press stories that confirm my theories that S Ontario proto Iroquoians maintained long & direct contact with the Ohio valley.

    If you will share your email, I will send you some photos of my Southern Ontario/Niagara lithics and forward these press stories.

    I am sure you will see the similarities for yourself. I was amazed how similar your Ohio lithics were to my Niagara ones: I have not seen anything like them anywhere else in Ontario archeology reporting, and I always keep an eye open hoping they are a Niagara version of some other better known group or culture. I am eager to share pictures of what I am finding.

    Thank You

    Roddy Heading
    Niagara on the Lake
    Ontario, Canada
    Reply to this
  • 7/31/2010 4:19 PM Va Toebbe wrote:
    How informative you are! Thanks! I enjoyed your article and would be interested in receiving any more info you may have. I grew up in Ky. where we found points on a regular basis when my Dad plowed for crops..wish I had them all these years later.
    Reply to this
  • 8/8/2010 5:42 PM Bruce E. Smith wrote:
    I also have found a large number of hand tools and could not find references to further define them. THIS IS VERY REASSURING, Thank You.
    Reply to this
  • 8/8/2010 5:46 PM Bruce E. Smith wrote:
    Outstanding! You need only to hold them in your hand to know they are tools. Know by touch!
    Reply to this
  • 8/8/2010 6:10 PM Bruce E. Smith wrote:
    I once showed a stone tool I found new Ames, Iowa to a member of my porker playing group and he said it was not a tool in no uncertain terms. The next week I brought the same stone back with another of very nearly the same size and shaped stone from White Earth, Wisconsin. He agreed!
    Reply to this
  • 8/22/2010 3:07 PM Steve Wilson wrote:
    I have found a lot of rocks that have strange markings on them and wondered if I could send pictures to you to see if you think they are tools.
    Reply to this
  • 8/26/2010 4:59 PM lisa cox wrote:
    if i send a picture of 2 things i have found, would u be able to tell me what they are?
    Reply to this
  • 9/24/2010 10:42 AM judith wrote:
    I recently have found quite a few pieces of sandstone shaped like different animals and birds. I call them flat stone effigies. I sent hem to the Naural History Museum in Cleveland to be observed. One of the archaeologists said that basically they are just a natural occurance, but that would be statistically impossible. All of them have similarities in the way that they're made. They very well could be man's first portable art. I think they need to be validated. Now that I have seen your pictures I know they are something special.
    Reply to this
  • 10/19/2010 2:03 AM MicroConsole wrote:
    I can see that you are an expert in this field! I am launching a website soon, and this information is very useful for me. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business.
    Reply to this
  • 10/20/2010 6:41 AM texasgirlnmissouri wrote:
    I found your website on arrowheads.com and thought maybe you could help me identify this rock I found in Texas, Coryell county. my e-mail is texasgirlnmissouri@yahoo.com.
    Reply to this
  • 12/10/2010 12:29 PM Red Clay wrote:
    I was starting to think I was losing my marbles. I've been finding anthro and zoo morphs in amazing numbers in 6 main locations in central new jersey. I've not been able to find any literature anywhere. In fact, the state map detailing paleo occupation misses all 6 sites. [I have 4 more to investigate.These also are not on the map.] What's doubly interesting is that these objects are almost all in fossil bearing rock. The common fossil is some kind of cephalapod. A cross section in stone will often have a human like pattern in the stone. The animal has parts that look much like a human eye. I believe this has a great deal to do with the carvings and use of these items by the early peoples here.
    I grew up in the same area I'm speaking of. As a kid I roamed all over these fields [what's left of them] I was told that the Lenape were present in the area at one time. So, off I went looking for the stereotype "arrowhead". Never did I find one single item that I could for certain, identify as "Lenape". No one else that I knew found any either. Considering what I now know, there should have been. There was a large Lenape village located approx. 10 miles upstream from my location. From information I gathered when I was in Uni. [mainly from local sources, folks in their 80's and 90's, and this was in the late 60's] I've been able to determine that the Lenape considered this area "sacred" and only certain members of the tribe could come here. Little by little, I'm starting to understand why. The only thing I haven't done yet is to photograph the collection of items. As soon as I have some suitable for posting I'll get back to you.
    Reply to this
  • 2/6/2011 12:27 PM Kneedeep wrote:
    It's great to see these ancient artifacts are finally being acknowledged for what they are. I praise your efforts and openess. Please visit this sight as well to see similar items found in So. Maryland. Thanks
    It's great to see these ancient artifacts are finally being acknowledged for what they are. I praise your efforts and openess. Please visit this sight as well to see similar items found in So. Maryland. Thanks

    http://cid-2476f7e9b917f5b0.photos.live.com/browse.aspx/Human%20%5E0%20Animal%20art%20%5E0%20effigies
    Reply to this
  • 9/23/2011 10:01 AM Fred wrote:
    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.
    Reply to this
    1. 9/23/2011 11:40 AM Kenneth Johnston wrote:
      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.
      Reply to this
      1. 9/23/2011 1:04 PM Fred wrote:
        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.
        Reply to this
  • 9/23/2011 1:33 PM Fred wrote:
    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.
    Reply to this
    1. 9/23/2011 2:42 PM Kenneth Johnston wrote:
      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. 
      Reply to this
  • 9/23/2011 3:41 PM Fred wrote:
    (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.
    Reply to this
    1. 3/2/2012 9:11 PM kneedeep wrote:
      Please consider the following comments.
      A. Is this item of a material that is likely to show its present morphological condition due to conditions attributable to natural factors.

      • Assumptions;
      o The natural process affects every rock exposed whether qualified as an artifact or not. Many variables exits that determine an affect on a rock or discarded artifact. Prominent aspects may include;
      1. Type of Material
      2. Type and extent of “apparent” alternations if any.
      3. Type or intended use. (Can a use be accurately defined?)
      4. Length of use
      5. Effect of use
      6. Length of exposure after presumed use
      B. Is this object of any more use then a naturally occurring stone of similar size and shape?
      • Object must show clear evidence of manufacture, use and wear within defined parameters.

      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.
      • See items 2-5 above

      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.
      • See items 5-6 above
      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.
      • Establish Provenance!
      • Establish patterns, must provide comparative examples to validate an assumption of human intervention and use.
      Reply to this
  • 9/23/2011 5:18 PM Fred wrote:
    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.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.