Archaeologica.org

Charlie, after viewing an artifact/geofact discussion that you started on another website - I would have to guess that these are geofacts.

deleted

My opinion is that these are large pieces which were knocked off in the initial part of the knapping process and then discarded as other parts were used. The small chips on the edges are from being rolled downstream with other rocks. They aren't refined ebough for a human to have done them for a reason. Or.....they could just be totally geofacts. They don't look like tools to me. Only possible debitage.

I've often wondered about the ones which did not survive the Quality Control process....whatever that may have been, Frank.

deleted

Because that's the weakest edge?

deleted

What kind of stone is that, Charlie?

deleted

Coesn't look like flint, either.

deleted

deleted

Pardon a dumb question - on rocks:

How easy/hard is it to tell if an interesting piece is a discard vs. a finished tool vs. nothing but a rock.

Don't give up on me Charlie, I'm getting a little better.

deleted

My criteria with stone, is definitive evidence of knapping.

In this gravel alluvium, from where these pieces are unraveling, there's geofacts galore. The only sure way, is definitive evidence of knapping.

Yup ... I generally look for bifacial knapping, preferably 6 or more strikes per side, and form. If it's well-formed but fewer strikes, I'll still retrieve it, but the knapping is what gives it away as human made.