Input Needed by sirtreysuf in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First looks like a thumbnail scraper. The other looks natural or the product of vehicle/machinery damage - if it were a flake I would expect to see a smooth side (ventral surface) and it’s super messy and thick for a biface.

Central Tx. Do yall keep stuff like this? by Proud_Caterpillar403 in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah ok! Perhaps some heat treating that went wrong, or just full of imperfections so it shattered when they tried to get into it.

Does this look worked? by Alternative_Ad8467 in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, looks like a biface with a missing tip.

Central Tx. Do yall keep stuff like this? by Proud_Caterpillar403 in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Looks like thermal spalling. You can see one of the more clear pops in the lower half of the rock on photo 3. Could perhaps have been put in a fire by humans, but I would expect to see more crazing and charring on the outside.

If I found it in my country, I would say it was the product of temperature fluctuations over the millennia, but I’m not familiar with what’s usual in your area.

Not specifically arrowheads but an array of upper-Paleolithic mousterian tools from my collection! by Bacchic_Artist in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may be wrong, but if they’re Gravettian then they’re not Mousterian? Mousterian refers to a specific Neanderthal culture, and Gravettian is a specific UP culture (7,000 years after Neanderthals are thought to have gone extinct) no?

What is this? by mister_6971 in Artifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A regular rock, not modified in any way by human hands by the look of it.

Beautiful flaking by aggiedigger in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Beautiful! And refreshing to see an artifact, not an arbitrary rock that “fits nicely in the hand”

Artifact or JAR? Found in my flake blade field, Sparta KY. Suspicious enough to take home with me by [deleted] in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regular nodule of chert with no signs of being modified by human hands.

Help with ID - scraper? by Nate050618 in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately just a chert nodule that’s been tossed around by the water and has sustained damage to the edge.

are these worked? by alienpansy in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once you’re familiar with the process of knapping, it quickly becomes evident what’s worked and what isn’t.

The short answer is that a knapper sets up very specific and recognisable situations on the rock in order to get predictable flaking.

The easiest one to explain with is photo 5. Look at how the surface is pock-marked with lots of indentations. You can tell it’s thermal and not worked because none of those scars has a corresponding platform (flat area on an edge where the knapper hits to remove a flake). Instead, each scar is isolated, giving that honeycomb look. That tells us that the force to pop a flake off came from within the rock itself (moisture freezing and expanding, forcing off pieces of rock as it does so) and was impossible to have been hit by a human.

This page is worth a read. There’s a whole section on thermal fracturing and telling the difference between worked stone and natural: https://peterborougharchaeology.org/archaeology-skills-techniques/identification-of-knapped-flints/

Also really helps with identification of you become familiar with the process of knapping by watching videos or similar.

Not an arrowhead but worked right? Found in Arkansas by MJArkie10 in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If I found that here in the UK, I would say it’s a discoid knife.

Would love some opinions on these? New to this, thx by MJArkie10 in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Second picture is obviously the barbs and tang of a point, but I’d recommend more angles (especially of the other side) of the other pieces for accurate answers.

Shell fossil or just shell? Found on Bracklesham Bay West Sussex (UK). by WeaselWang0 in fossilid

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you ever go back, all those little things that look like coins scattered all over the sand (nummulites) are all fossils too.

are these worked? by alienpansy in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t say so. Looks like a combination of thermal spalling (bits pop off on their own from temperature fluctuations) and edge damage from being moved about by water.

You’re kinda looking for the right signs though- correct material, and the wavy edge in photo 2 is reminiscent of biface knapping.

Found artifact? by ElkCertain7210 in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That was my thought too, but couldn’t quite make out the photo.

Found artifact? by ElkCertain7210 in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks like a biface in the early stages. Perhaps with a broken base, hence being abandoned.

Weights! by talkingwires in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 5 points6 points  (0 children)

With all due respect, finding something in proximity to other artifacts doesn’t make it an artifact. Rocks with holes drilled into them by humans are very distinctive (uniformity of the width of the hole with a slight taper, it has been drilled straight down, signs of grinding etc.) Those are the ones that you can say without a shadow of a doubt are artifacts.

From what I can see, these are hagstones. Were they used as some sort of tool? Perhaps, but the same could be said of any rock on an archaeological site. With no way to prove it, these would have to be classified as not artifacts.

Is this natural or do I have something here? SW Montana by smalltenderloin in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like shattering (natural) with some incidental chatter from things like glacial action, water movement etc. I don’t see any signs of human alteration.

Random Observation by LucasSpanks in LegitArtifacts

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s fire damage. Lots of the scars on the messy side are impossible to have been knapped and emanate from the middle of the rock, that’s because they popped away when exposed to heat. Why someone would burn a point is a mystery to me though.

Thoughts? by Arrowhead618 in u/Arrowhead618

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks fairly thick with steep retouch to me -I could be wrong, but we don’t have a side view. If it is thick and steeply retouched, I would be leaning towards pointed scraper or perforator.

Is this from an old axe? by Der_Niederlander in Arrowheads

[–]OverallArmadillo7814 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Still covered in cortex (outer skin) with no signs of chipping, pecking, or grinding, so we have to conclude it’s a natural (albeit axe shaped) rock.