NSR Finds

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Hey! Haven't posted in a while. Had some questionable finds from NSR the other day with @Jakuzi can anyone tell what I got here. Thanks 

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Other finds from NSR I'm not sure about. 

[JarrodB]

The white looking one is a toe bone. I have one identical to it from NSR that I think is Ice Age but not sure what it's from.

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Thanks @JarrodB I thought it looked something like a finger or toe. It has a hollow almost porcelain sound when you tap it. Curious about what it's from. 

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Now this may be wishful thinking but I also found this "possible" artifact. The rock seemed unlike any other rock I've seen at NSR. It seems like it has been worked by man but I'm no sure. So please let me know what you guys think. Thanks 

[ynot]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo Bill Cody said:

found this "possible" artifact. The rock seemed unlike any other rock I've seen at NSR. It seems like it has been worked by man but I'm no sure. So please let me know what you guys think.

It is the right type of rock (chert) for knapping a tool, but I do not see the correct shape for a tool. Maybe a blank that was discarded because of a flaw that made it unworthy of working into a tool.

Pictures of the other side may change My opinion.

Not an artifact.

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Thanks @ynot I was doubtful but it was worth the ask. Here is the other side just incase. 

[JarrodB]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Bill Cody said:

Thanks @ynot I was doubtful but it was worth the ask. Here is the other side just incase. 

It's definitely worked.  

[ynot]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Bill Cody said:

Here is the other side just incase. 

Thanks for the additional picture.

 

29 minutes ago, JarrodB said:

It's definitely worked.  

I disagree with this, it does not show the repetitive flaking of a worked tool.

[ptychodus]

Not all tools have repetitive flaking. There is evidence that the most commonly used tools were expedient flakes:

http://www.bvar.org/downloads/Johnson2010.pdf

 

http://cas.anthropology.txstate.edu/zatopec/analyses/lithics/exptools.html

 

https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/st-plains/prehistory/images/recycling.html

While the few “formal” stone tool forms require some shaping of a piece of flint to make them, it is likely that the bulk of the tools used in daily activities required almost no time to make and can be found "hidden" within the flaking debris. Simple flake tools required only a piece of debris of the right size and shape selected from a pile of flakes or chips to perform a task. Such tools required little effort to make and were routinely discarded immediately after their use, while the formal tools, that represented more effort to make and may have even been provided with a wooden handle, were kept as part of each individual’s tool kit and were likely transported from site to site. 

Some flake tools were slightly shaped by minor edge trimming and are easy enough to recognize. But most flake tools were "expedient" tools, mere sharp flakes that were picked up, used for a few minutes, and discarded. The expedient flake tools can often only be spotted and confirmed through microscopic examination.

 

https://www.ou.edu/archsur/OKArtifacts/choppers.htm

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.

 

http://www.csus.edu/anth/curation/archaeological curation facility/docs/sca 2014/brown et al utilitarian.pdf

 

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Thanks @ptychodus for the information and the references. 

[JarrodB]

19 hours ago, Buffalo Bill Cody said:

Thanks @JarrodB I thought it looked something like a finger or toe. It has a hollow almost porcelain sound when you tap it. Curious about what it's from. 

The one I have is the same way. It's almost white in color but fossilized and sounds like porcelain when you tap it. The white one in my pic is one I found at NSR. 

[CreekDawg]

I agree with Jarrod that this is worked stone. To me, repetitive flaking means more than one flake removed by either percussion, or pressure, and I believe this piece shows at least 5 to 6 flakes removed, most likely by percussion.  Looking at the second photo of the object, left to right there is a flake removed from the top, the bottom, the top, the bottom, the top, and the bottom, creating a zig zag bifacial edge, which is a hallmark of human manufacture. Also, in the center in the same photo, there appears to be some edge damage, which could be from being rolled about in the river, but can also indicate wear from use as a chopper, scraping tool or both. It may be a core, a chopping tool or both. As ptychodus has shown, tools of convenience, such as flake tools and choppers were widespread in all cultures worldwide. Many times people carried both flakes and choppers for simple chores they may have encountered. Also, a decent grade of chert not native to the area is an indication of human travel and/or trade. I would be interested to read Harry Pristis input here.

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

Thank you for the information @CreekDawg it is helpful to learn how to identify human work. 

[Buffalo Bill Cody]

4 hours ago, JarrodB said:

The one I have is the same way. It's almost white in color but fossilized and sounds like porcelain when you tap it. The white one in my pic is one I found at NSR. 

Yes It's exactly like that. So you are not sure from what animal it came? Thanks

[JarrodB]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Bill Cody said:

Yes It's exactly like that. So you are not sure from what animal it came? Thanks

I'm not sure. I posted it a couple of years ago but got very little feedback. I find enough bones from NSR I can tell it's Ice Age.

[garyc]

My guess for the phalanx is deer proximal.