Opinions please!

[uniface]

I only wish I could. Matt !

[ShaunB]

Thanks for the replys everyone! Here is a pic of the other side and a pic of the tip. The main reason I thought it had a chance of being something was how worn the tip looks. Im not trying to cause arguments between members just trying to learn!

[Neanderthal]

That piece is completely natural, it's not a reduction flake.

[comanche]

I agree after seeing the back.
Check this out Shaun
THE FLAKE--Stepchild of Lithic Analysis

[silver lake]

Looks similar to some of the perforator/drills we find in the desert.

[StonedAge]

my guess would be a punch or drill, i find many big reduction flakes worked to a drill or punch.

[kenbjohn]

I say artifact. I'm new to this site. These things are often settled by doing a micro use wear analysis using a lighted microscope. You can learn about identification of wear patterns and determine if it was used and perhaps what material was worked (bone, wood, soft plant, hide, stone, etc.) Does anyone using this site ever do this? There is a alot of silliness going about about artifact vs. geofact and this can very often be verified scientifically by avocational archaeologists. There are some great lighted microscopes that connect to your USB port and let you take pics from 20x to 500x. Then you just post the use wear photos with the artifact or make a determination there no human agency on the piece whatsoever and discard it (keep it out of archaeology).

[George Looney]

After seeing the other side,,(with) cortex still on it,,it's a geo-fact all the way,,just happened to be pointy on one end, I could sit on any gravel bar here in the Ozarks and find two or three of those at arms reach. really.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by kenbjohn

I say artifact. I'm new to this site. These things are often settled by doing a micro use wear analysis using a lighted microscope. You can learn about identification of wear patterns and determine if it was used and perhaps what material was worked (bone, wood, soft plant, hide, stone, etc.) Does anyone using this site ever do this? There is a alot of silliness going about about artifact vs. geofact and this can very often be verified scientifically by avocational archaeologists. There are some great lighted microscopes that connect to your USB port and let you take pics from 20x to 500x. Then you just post the use wear photos with the artifact or make a determination there no human agency on the piece whatsoever and discard it (keep it out of archaeology).

Interesting! What is your input on these pieces? What do you think they could have been?

[kenbjohn]

These look like debitage and the photos provided don’t show anything that would make me look at them closer. Why did you post them in the geofact/artifact discussion section? What makes you question these pieces? Please provide more detailed photos and an explanation.

The silliness is that the geofact/artifact determination cannot reliably be made using photographs. An opinion can be made but people usually want to know for sure. It’s no fun counting how many votes for geofact/artifact and then trying asses the weight of expertise to give to each vote. It kind of gets to be like the politics and religion thing. So I tried to help people understand how they can do this for themselves.

But let’s focus on the posted piece. I don’t care what various people find in their neck of the woods. That’s a distraction and irrelevant. The poster provided some context information and context means something.

Mother nature does not focus action on the pointed tip of a piece of chert- only humans do. The possible wear and patination on the tip indicate it could have been used as an awl or perforator, so I’d take a closer look. Also, there is a large curvilinier feature on one side of the tool that is indicative of human modification after the flake was created. The two relatively straight edges leading into the curved part are at different angles- they both do not represent the original flake edge, only one can. Mother nature again picking on this piece?

Further, the curvilinier aspect seems to be comprised of three separate action events. It takes three edge flakes to make one serration segment. On the opposite side there is second, smaller, curvilinier aspect. These are often created when the side is used as a scraper. Both curvilinier aspects are loaded toward the front of the piece where human activity would place them. The piece suddenly gets fatter toward the base, right where it would likely have been gripped by the fingers and protected from the use which could have narrowed the pointed end of it. So I would look at this under my trusty lighted microscope, no matter how looney this may seem to some others.