I'm not familiar with specific materials in the Yellowstone area - but in most places that seems to be something that would be considered a nature fact - natural breaks. The material does not seem appropriate for chipping technology nd the large "basal" break seems very recent (lack of patination). I have seen plenty of objects like this over the years, and unless it is located within a site producing more typical materials - my index of suspicion (for it being an actual artifact) would be very low to non-existant.

Of course - I am always open to learning something new if locals have seen this type of item before.

Here are some characteristics that most archaeologists require a lithic to have in order to be defined as a flake:




At a minimum a flake needs to have a platform and a point of percussion/pressure. Things such as dorsal scars and arrises only appear on later stage flakes (secondary, tertiary, etc.).

It would help if you could point out some of these characteristics on your tool in order to orient the item and work out what it may be. As it stands the lithic in your photos appears to be a large flake, but I'd like to see the platform, point of percussion, and any edge wear. The edge wear would help define how it may have been utilized.

It certainly appears that it could be man made. There appear to be a couple of prepared platforms, multiple flake removals, and arrises. The material doesn't appear conducive for demonstrating bulbs of percussion and percussion waves. Do you know what type material it is? I've found a couple of specimens in central Texas that appear, morphologically, similar.
Here's one:

http://bandstex.globat.com/preclovisforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

I should have also pointed out the several plow scars visible on the face, suggesting the item was found in a (at least at one time) plowed field (or a secondary deposit). Plowing is also a likely candidate for causing the visible scars along the edge.

It looks pretty natural to me, too. The breaks don't look intentional.

[quote:="trast"]It looks pretty natural to me, too. The breaks don't look intentional.

Please explain what an unintentional break looks like.

I see several hinge fractures, several step fractures and what appears to be a prepared platform.

Thanks,

Charlie

Unintentional breaks look random, unplanned - like gravel. As mentioned earlier, it might have been broken by people driving a vehicle or machinery over it. Or tumbling down a slope in a rockslide or bounced along a flooded stream. Its tough to tell from the photo, but I get the impression that its a softer stone, like slate or limestone that has some natural random chips and a lot of weathering on it. It doesn't look like a good rock for knapping and the breaks don't look planned. I can't see any flake scars or platforms in the photos. If the breaks were caused by people, then I don't think they were done on purpose.

Then carry on my man!!

I say this specimen was anthropogenically modified.

http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=17002#17002

Where in SE MT near the Yellowstone was this found?

The material looks to be a type of quartzite, something commonly found near the Yellowstone.

Was this found in an area that is irrigated, or that has irrigation nearby, or was it found in natural prairie? The reason I ask this, is that back when the large irrigation projects were being built along the Yellowstone (Huntley Project and the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project), the proposed lands to be irrigated were "leveled". There were literally tens and tens of thousands of acres made flat by heavy earth moving equipment, or at least the version of such that existed at the time. Also, in many areas, dirt was hauled in, often from very far away, to assist in leveling the contour of the land.

Therefore anything found in those areas is somewhat suspect (I work in SE MT, so have ran into this many times). If the artifact is real, there is no way of knowing if it came from the immediate area...it could have been hauled in with a load of dirt from 5 miles away. Things that are "borderline" as to whether they are cultural or natural, are just that, borderline. With all the earth moving, and subsequent decades of farming (plowing, discing, etc.), it could just as well have been "created" by equipment impacts. Here again, it it were in fact real, there is no way of knowing from where it came.

If it were found in natural prairie, then that is another story. However, I have found many flakes with what looks to be worked edges but were created by cattle trampling (the worked edges)...I have actually stood there and watched cows step on flakes and heard the crunch of the edges of the flakes breaking off.

A friend of mine once took some obsidian flakes he had knapped--none of them had worked edges--counted them, scattered them around a livestock water tank on his family's ranch, and came back a couple of weeks later, collected them and upon examination, found several of them now had worked edges that for all intensive purposes fit the definition of stone tools. All of those worked edges were created by cattle trampling.

Scott

Scotty, is there any way you could post that info here?

Post what info?? The irrigation or the cattle trampling experiment?

Well, no doubt many city folks dont know what a livestock water tank looks like :D, but I think the data on the trampling experiment, with photos, would be really neat to see.

Well, I will have to look into it. I don't know if my friend ever published the data or not. I think he may have used it in an arch class paper.

S.