Ancient Hand Axe?

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

Hi guys,

I found this and felt I should share and see what you think:

Ancient Hand Axe?

First, I was struck by the 'cutting edge', which seems used, and has radiating shock marks from the edge, inward. There also seems to be debris in the cutting area, one piece contains 2 small, thin inset hairs, light brown in color, which I've bagged.

The ergonomics are amazing. The mass of the stone fits neatly in your hand, while there appear to be wear marks where your index finger and thumb might go. Also, when held in that manner, the cutting edge is parallel to your cutting surface.

[Auspex]

It doesn't appear that there has been any work done on it; the fracture seems natural. Not to say that it couldn't be picked up and used as is in a pinch, but there is no wear to indicate that it was,

[alfonso]

also no artifact here

[fossilized6s]

I agree, it hasn't been napped for cutting or anything else for that matter.

[ptychodus]

I disagree. Looks like an artifact to me.

[JohnJ]

This cobble might have been "test flaked" by ancient people; but I agree that it looks more like natural fracturing. It is certainly no tool.

Keep looking.

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

Just you guys wait til I build a bookshelf with it!

[JohnJ]

I should be able to deliver bandaids within a reasonable time....

[Herb]

I do not believe it is an ax either, the tool makers had better skills than that.

[tmaier]

I do not believe it is an ax either, the tool makers had better skills than that.

Yeah, it seems to have only one point of percussion to it, i.e., it was only stuck once. It's way to simple and would more resemble something from a million years ago, not the much more sophisticated tools of the American Indians. Also shows no signs of usage wear on that ragged edge.

Also, not good for chopping because the opposite side of the percussion point is rounded blunt.

Also, resembles no common tool of the tool kits of the American Indians. It's not an ax, and not a scraper. What's it supposed to be?

It's common to find these one hit wonders that look like tools, but what you need to look for are a series of percussion points that seem to make sense in trying to create a tool.

[Auspex]

"Fits the hand perfectly" is not the defining criteria for an artifact.

[Plax]

if this was found in a midden with pottery and other fractured stones I would say it was an artifact. Not a finished one though. Also if you find something like this in a sand or loam field without any other rocks it is suspicious as human handiwork. Keep in mind that a plow strike on a rock like this has the same appearance. If I found a rock like this in a stream bed with other cobbles I would say it was just a rock. Am basically agreeing with everyone else but putting in a few qualifiers.

[Harry Pristis]

Not an axe, certainly. The stone may be a core . . . the tools may have been the flakes. This doesn't resemble natural flaking in my opinion.

If I were a NA who had just snared a rabbit, I might pick up a suitable rock, knock off a flake or two for use in skinning and dressing the carcass, then leave behind the core and the flakes. These are disposable, single-use tools. They are not uncommon, if you know what to look for.

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

Gotcha. It was found on a sandbar in the Colorado river, Garfield Tx. There are suspicious wear marks to me that are very 'index finger / thumb sized', and are also present where the fingers sit. I also found it suspicious that there are ripples coming from the edge inward, elliptical ripples on the stone from a central point of impact. I mean, I suppose there's the possibility that it flaked off naturally and left a curious elliptical set of ripples away from the edge, but who knows. I saved the small brown hairs from the edge in a plastic bag just in case.

Edited April 13, 2016 by PetrifiedDoubleGulp

[Auspex]

As it came from a sandbar in a river, I doubt that the hairs are associated.

[ptychodus]

From

Museum of Anthropology

• Cobble “adzes” show minimal alteration. The cobbles are split or broken and show flaking and polish along the broken edges. These were probably for food preparation rather than wood working.

Cores, core choppers, hammerstones, and cobble adzes. A. 08-01A Cores, variety 1; B. 08-01B Cores, variety 2; C. 08-02A Cobble core/chopper, variety 1; D 08-02B Cobble core/chopper variety 2; E. 09-01A Intact cobbles with percussion-end wear; F. 09-02A Intact cobbles with percussion-end wear and grinding; G. 16-02A Diagonally broken cobble adz; H. 16-01A Split cobble adz (Source: Nakonechny 1998:Figure 81).

Cobble tools were one of the first types of tools ever made by human beings. They are relatively easy to make and the stones used are found everywhere. You might think that once more complex tool making techniques were developed people stopped making cobble tools, but they continue to be useful especially when there are no other resources available and little time.

[tmaier]

You are showing tools above that have multiple things done to them, grinding, smoothing multiple flaking on one side... They have evidence that they were intentionally worked, and not a single accident. Also, they were likely found in context with a known site, and not found as a "float" artifact on the side of a river.

But the stone shown in the original post seems to only have ONE impact to it. That means all stones that have one impact become human artifacts? More evidence of intentional working of the stone need to be shown.

Those multiple percussion fractures that you see on the original stone are all coming from one impact point, on the far left of that image on the far left.

There are some stones that seem to be minimally worked, and make you go "mmmmmm", but the one in this post doesn't seem to have that much going for it, in my opinion.

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

This is the first post that's caused a hullaballoo, very exciting!

The 2 teeny-tiny light brown hairs that I found, were from the cutting edge, and they are encrusted in a very small piece of debris that was wedged deep in the cracks. I'm not saying they're definitely associated with use, but I am saying they were kind of wedged in there. Saved them anyway.

I do think my stone resembles 'D' in the above images, as well as the two towards the bottom right, in the lower image.

I have to say, that the wear marks are the features that peak my interest the most, because when held with the mass in the palm, the index finger and thumbs rest right on the smooth, discolored (fingerprint shaped) portions. Not only that, but there's a similar, slightly less worn mark, where my pinky sits.

Edited April 14, 2016 by PetrifiedDoubleGulp

[Harry Pristis]

You're on the wrong track with the hairs and the ergonomics.

[JohnJ]

This is the first post that's caused a hullaballoo, very exciting!

The 2 teeny-tiny light brown hairs that I found, were from the cutting edge, and they are encrusted in a very small piece of debris that was wedged deep in the cracks. I'm not saying they're definitely associated with use, but I am saying they were kind of wedged in there. Saved them anyway.

I do think my stone resembles 'D' in the above images, as well as the two towards the bottom right, in the lower image.

I have to say, that the wear marks are the features that peak my interest the most, because when held with the mass in the palm, the index finger and thumbs rest right on the smooth, discolored (fingerprint shaped) portions. Not only that, but there's a similar, slightly less worn mark, where my pinky sits.

PDG, your river chipped chert cobble is extremely common along the river in that region. Big floods slam those gravel bars every few years and bang rocks together; that's what you've found...a naturally broken cobble. Native artifacts will present a purposely flaked edge. Your find shows the irregular fracturing that is typical of natural breakage. I've seen this countless times in almost 30 years of hunting Texas rivers. As has been said, "fitting your hand" and a "place for your fingers" could be true for hundreds of cobbles on any given gravel bar.

[fossilized6s]

If you're suggesting that there are wear marks worn into your "hand axe" then that alone would take an extraordinary amount of time and use for this to be true. And given that amount of use would have rendered this "tool" completely flat and unusable.

A skilled napper can nap a usable blade or axe in less than a minute. I see no need for a tool like this to be used SO extensively that there are finger grooves worn in it.

Maybe Bear Gryles used it on one of his fake survival shows to needlessly kill some poor creature.

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

Bear Gryls, that should make this way more valuable then I thought then.

I'd say this case is closed.

[alfonso]

From

Museum of Anthropology" ..

from Musem are also lot of fake artifact

[ptychodus]

More on uniface cobble tools:

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/arf033-03.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=eGUZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=cobble+tools&source=bl&ots=hhp4XG4lhz&sig=2wbsz21l0lBy_tx_rdUBEGzAaH8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimsJ6Qqo7MAhUCOyYKHRoKAQA4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=cobble%20tools&f=false

Note, the comment in the article below about cobble knives, "knocked at one blow from a pebble"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40914268?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Choppers.

Choppers are another easily made tool. A flint cobble would have flakes knocked off of one end to create a cutting edge. The other end usually fits nicely in the hand. The cutting edge is often battered with crushed edges. Choppers were often quickly made and discarded after use. Choppers come in all shapes and sizes.

The term chopper is used to refer to a simple and crudely made pebble artifact that has one cutting edge. A chopper was used for cutting, hacking, or chopping through various soft materials such as meat or wood. It is a simple tool that was made from a nodule or pebble of flint in which several flakes had been struck from one end or side to form a sharp edge (Figure 9). In most cases, percussion flakes were removed from only one surface of the nodule, producing a sharp but rather steep angled cutting edge. Occasionally, the cutting edge has been trimmed or shaped by additional flake removal from the alternate face of the nodule, producing a bifaced cutting edge.

One distinctive feature of the chopper is the presence of the cortex or outside unmodified surface of the original pebble or nodule of flint. This remains unworked with the exception of the cutting edge, from which only a small portion of the original cobble has been removed.

Choppers vary a great deal in their form, depending upon the shape of the original nodule or cobble used to make the artifact. Most of them, however, are of a convenient size to be held in the hand and the average specimen has a length falling between 50 mm and 120 mm.

The chopper was apparently not mounted in any

way but was held in the hand for actual use. Although crude and simple in manufacture, it was an efficient tool for numerous purposes.

The term chopper is usually associated with "pebble tools" which were common in Africa, and elsewhere, during early Paleolithic times. Cutting edges made on a pebble, however, provided a simple and useful tool so that examples are found almost world wide and from various time periods. Because of their simplicity and crude appearance, they are often believed to represent very old artifacts, but this is not necessarily true as they frequently occur in late occupations.

Choppers are found in most sections of Oklahoma and appear to be more frequent in the Archaic period but do occur on later sites.

Flaked stone tools from Squirt Cave (45WW25): cobble chopper (source: Endacott 1992:74,

[PetrifiedDoubleGulp]

So there you go, mine is not / is a hand tool.