Ancient Stone Tool With Sea Shell Fossil

[adam arkfeld]

Have been investigating a Pleistocene archaeological site here in the Northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

This double burin was found recently. Can the fossil on this be identified, or is it a generic shell?

[erose]

It is almost certainly a brachiopod but that would be as far as I think anyone would go without knowing the formation and thus age of the rock unit it came from. There are a variety of brachiopods with similar shell ornamentation throughout the Paleozoic.

[Auspex]

All I can suggest is that it is a brachiopod (someone here might be able to give a tighter ID), and assuming it is a local rock, it is Paleozoic in age.

[Auspex]

Outdrawn by the master!

Is it not unusual for a burin to be sedimentary material?

[adam arkfeld]

Auspex,

Thanks for the ID.

Regarding stone type, the tool was built around the fossil.

This piece was modified into a tool because of the fossil, not for the quality of lithic material.

See example below.

West Tofts, UK, famous handaxe is 200,000 years old, centered on fossil shell.

[Harry Pristis]

Auspex,

Thanks for the ID.

Regarding stone type, the tool was built around the fossil.

This piece was modified into a tool because of the fossil, not for the quality of lithic material.

See example below.

West Tofts, UK, famous handaxe is 200,000 years old, centered on fossil shell.

Pishposh. By definition, No evidence of human alteration, not a tool.

Your 'double burin' shows no evidence of use nor of reduction by grinding or flaking. It's just a rock. The inclusion of the brachiopod is just random.

Fossils exposed in knapping chert artifacts is a common phenomenon. Often, the blank being knapped is abandoned when a fossil inclusion is exposed because the fossil is a weak area of the chert.

[RichW9090]

Burins are made of hard silicates which have a conchoidal fracture, and therefore can form a very sharp edge. Soft sedimentary rock simply can't be used to make a burin.

[ArtLithic]

Stick to Fossils, you obviously are not recognizing an Acheulian handaxe, produced by the earliest sculptors on the planet.

I recommend this: LINK

[ynot]

15 hours ago, ArtLithic said:

Stick to Fossils, you obviously are not recognizing an Acheulian handaxe, produced by the earliest sculptors on the planet. I recommend this: 

From virginia? I do not see that happening.

Also, the link You provide leads to some questionable "sculpture". Most look like natural rock that has a vague resemblance to something, but do not look like man altered rock. The few pieces that do look like man altered rock are knapped tools (axe or scraper), that have a vague resemblance to a picasso sculpture, but they are not.

[Aurelius]

27 minutes ago, ynot said:

From virginia? I do not see that happening.

Also, the link You provide leads to some questionable "sculpture". Most look like natural rock that has a vague resemblance to something, but do not look like man altered rock. The few pieces that do look like man altered rock are knapped tools (axe or scraper), that have a vague resemblance to a picasso sculpture, but they are not.

 

Couldn't agree more. I find 'sculpture' like that every time I go to the beach.

[ynot]

10 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

 

Couldn't agree more. I find 'sculpture' like that every time I go to the beach.

You are not the only one that finds these often.

See this thread....

 

[BobWill]

15 hours ago, ArtLithic said:

Stick to Fossils, you obviously are not recognizing an Acheulian handaxe, produced by the earliest sculptors on the planet. I recommend this: 

Are there any accredited archaeologists associated with your work on this site? I couldn't find anything about any scientists being involved with the art exhibitions you linked to either. I love me some art but we do science here and many of our members know quite a lot about archaeology as well as paleontology.

[Fossildude19]

15 hours ago, ArtLithic said:

Stick to Fossils, you obviously are not recognizing an Acheulian handaxe, produced by the earliest sculptors on the planet. I recommend this: 

@ArtLithic   Welcome to the Forum.   

 

You may be used to other forms of social media, where manners are few and far between. 

We keep discourse here civil, and family friendly.   

 

Your post (to a 3 year old thread, btw) is a breezy dismissal of the opinions of several people who actually know quite a bit about artifacts, while giving no factual evidence to back up your theory. A link to an Art Museum is hardly substantial backing evidence of your opinion.