Jump to content

DeBeque\Wasatch Formation Artifact Fossil ID


ArtifactHunter

Recommended Posts

I recently collected quite a few artifacts from a privately owned piece of property located in the Debeque Colorado area. I beleive most of the pieces (knives, drills, hand axes, projectile points, ect.) to be of late Paleo Indian Age. Specifically, Foothills Mountain Complex. A significant portion of the artifacts were knapped from source material that contains the fossil type represented in the photo. I cannot identify the species. I find it very interesting that tool stone containing this particular fossil was apparently utilized over the same material without this fossil. Tool stone containing this fossil is very difficult to find. Stone with no fossil is easily obtained. This could indicate they wanted their tools to have this fossil within them. Why? I would love it if someone could tell me what this thing is. The Geologic maps I can find online indicate the entire area could be the DeBeque\Wasatch Formation. Any information would be more than appreciated. I have numerous additional photos but this one is by far the most detailed. Thank You.

 

image0.thumb.jpeg.6488cca76519acf32b51e0ae18c1a833.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad. Its 5.5 cm X 2.5 cm  This particular piece is fairly small in comparison to some of the others I have. It is however much more detailed. I have partial pieces that are at least 2 times this size. One Preform Artifact I collected was crafted from a piece of tool stone containing a fossil of the same type that is closer to 3 times as large. Unfortunately the preservation wasn't nearly as neat as the one pictured. Thank you so much for responding. If you can positively ID it I'll gladly donate a piece to you for your efforts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems probable that these were being used as indicators of the best stone to use. Diatoms and radiolarians are two common components of flint/chert type rocks. I can't positively identify these however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to be any help with id'ing the fossils but in my 20 years of knapping I've found typically fossils to be better indicators of poor quality in flaking material as visible macro-fossils are usually the result of carbonate material included in the silicate which causes the rock to break unpredictably. For that reason I'd suspect the fossiliferous material was intentionally selected for the visual appeal rather than the quality of the stone.

 

That being said, Rockwood could be entirely correct, I can't be certain without testing the material myself. But, for more information on the possible selection of fossiliferous material for aesthetic purposes, I'd highly recommend The First Artists: In Search of the World's Oldest Art by Paul G. Bahn and Michel Lorblanchet. It's a fabulous book with a few full color plates including a silicified sea urchin that has been retouched into a scraper and a hand axe that has a bivalve(if I remember correctly) perfectly centered in the middle.

  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple photos in natural light would be useful.  Photos of other pieces you consider partials might also help.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does often hear archeologists explaining that such a fancy object was certainly made for ceremonial use. Could it be that that is what you have found. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You all for the information. I will post additional photos in natural light this evening and include a photo of the preform I mentioned in my previous post. I know finding tool stone that included this particular fossil had to be much more difficult than finding stone without it. The fossil containing material is only found as a secondary source. There is an obvious quarry on the property that was utilized as a primary source but there isn't a trace of any fossilized material in the quarry stone. I takes a lot of work to even get to the area where the material that contains this fossil is found and even then it is difficult to find. It took me three days to find a single piece of raw stone that contained this fossil. If material containing fossils is also more difficult to Knapp then it would appear that 10,000 years ago people may have appreciated fossils even more than they do today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly. The sheer volume of pieces collected that contain this fossil leads me to beleive they were used as practical everyday tools though. I collected over 100 pieces on the surface of the ground over an 80 acre property just before about half of the acreage was destroyed by a bull dozer. It was tough to see that happen. 

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we see the other side, too?

 

Also, what makes you think this is a preform or a man-made artifact?

  • I Agree 1

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll post a pic of the other side. It has been ground smooth and not by a natural process. Also, It was found within inches of several obvious artifacts including a grinding stone, several hammer stones and other tools. I will post several pictures of the artifacts found in close proximity to this one. If I only didn't have to hold down a day job ;) 

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The backside. Pictures don't do this piece justice. Its a preform that was destined to be a knife but never quite made it. I'll post additional pictures of some of the obvious artifacts collected right next to this one tomorrow. I have a detailed log with information about every piece I collected. I numbered them all and mapped their location and recorded any other info I thought might be relevant. I pushed the land owner to allow me to bring in a trained archeologist once I realized the significance of what I was seeing but sadly they refused. I understand their reasoning. It was just an unfortunate situation. I think I did fairly well for an amateur considering the circumstances but this location definitely merited a very close look by a trained professional. I'll try to lay out a large number of the pieces I collected and snap a picture tomorrow. There are traces of fossils in the majority of them. I beleive there are more than a few species preserved within them but the one represented in photos I've already posted appears to be the most common. I also collected a few fossils not preserved within artifacts. I'll post photos of them as well when I can. I'm not really sure what to do with everything I collected and with all the information I recorded. It seems to important to just display it all like a trophy. IDK. It is awesome to look at :) Identifying this fossil would be a step in the right direction I think. Thankyou for your help.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

image4.thumb.jpeg.c63733598d296f72031a88dc0fd6a3f4.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ArtifactHunter said:

I'll post additional pictures of some of the obvious artifacts collected right next to this one tomorrow.

 

That is an interesting piece of rock.  I'll be able offer a better opinion once I see photos of the "obvious artifacts".  Looking forward to the photos.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obvious Artifacts" (Let me know if you want better detailed photos of any of these pieces. Or... Of some of the additional pieces. This is the best I could in the limited amount of time I had. I have a project at work that is wrapping up in a few days. I'll have more time to spend on this then.) Thanks

 

20230125_210209.thumb.jpg.93e37191420745961e8f9dc66c302926.jpg20230125_210238.thumb.jpg.052dadad201fabf949b5f9b9eddfa9e7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I have posted is accurate. If an academic out there wants a closer look, I'll do everything in my power to make that happen. I have over 100 pieces of siltstone (or mudstone or claystone or whatever this source material is). Most contain fossils. I also have a number of pieces with no fossils that were crafted out of other source materials rhyolite, andesite, etc. All collected at the same location. Thank You for Trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see the fossils in some of the other stones.  However, like Randy, I'm hard pressed to see any artifacts among them.  The upper right piece might possibly be crude preform, but it is questionable.

 

Are these your best artifacts from the location?

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...