Artifacts or just coincidence look alikes

[MoRockHunter]

I found these both in an area where a couple of arrowheads and a some broken pieces have been found but these two rocks along with one more that looks just like them I found on a different day a couple hundred yards away look all to similar to make me think that they are possibly tools or something used by an ancient people, but I don't know I'm not to good at identifying stuff like this. Also the pictures just aren't as good as seeing them. Any help would be great please and thanks.

[Randyw]

I’m sorry but these look like natural geological formations  to me. The surfaces don’t looked worked. They just look like natural fractures.

[Mahnmut]

Hi MoRockhunter,

those do at least look as if they have been eroded a lot after being knapped, if they are artifacts at all. Not sure if that amount of time has gone over any tool outside of Africa.They somewhat resemble tools that in neolithic contexts are called awles or scrapers. One telltale difference between naturally fractured flint/chert and artifacts is the "bulb of percussion", although I never really understood why a natural hit by rockfall could not produce one of these. Maybe its multiple bulbs to be specific?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_flake

Best Regards,

J

[MoRockHunter]

Thanks yall, I just wish y'all could see and hold some of these rocks I have collected in your hands because like I said the pics just arent good enough.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

While of the right material, and the fact that the stones look so worn isn't very informative other than to the extent that stones were exposed to the elements for some time - primarily water or heavy wind - I have to agree that these are not stone tools. I have found various water-worn stone tools on Dutch beaches, as well as in Dutch heath forests, still clearly recognizable for their shape and the "bulb of percussion". Now I must admit that I never worked with stone tools overly much during my studies in archaeology, and aware that stone tool production was more arbitrary - that is, leading to less structured/repeated tool shapes - in certain parts of the world, such as the circum-Caribbean, but still, I wouldn't call these stone tools. There are simply too few traces of the stones being worked. The thing is that it's actually quite hard to prove something is a stone tool, unless it conforms to a know tool type or use-traces can be established (e.g., by use of a scanning electron microscope). That's why, as @Mahnmut indicated, archaeologists typically look for hallmark signs of tool production, prime of which is the "bulb of percussion", retouch being another... And while I believe it is technically possible to find a bulb of percussion on natural pieces, I think it's likely the placement of this bulb versus the flat surface that was hit to remove a flake from the stone that gives it away - as well as the fact that, for a bulb to come about, a certain amount of pressure would be needed, not as commonly encountered in nature. I'm seeing none of the hallmark features here, and in absence of traces of what once might have been sharp edges, I would conclude these are not stone tools. I hope this clarifies things a bit

[Bonehunter]

I literally have thousands of points, mauls, scrapers, lances, and lithic debris, etc. from the Kansas City area. In your second photo, the chert in the lower stone has a "potential" percussion flake in the middle but there are no other indications it was worked. The top item is not a water worn point- even the most worn pieces don't become well rounded, just lose the sharpness. You are on the right track- look for wavy sharp edges in creeks, gravel bars, etc and you will find them!!   Bone