thanks fossiler
Attached Files
-
tjkhgh_064.jpg 107.49K
11 downloads
-
tjkhgh_061.jpg 111.11K
11 downloads
-
tjkhgh_057.jpg 110.05K
10 downloads
-
tjkhgh_059.jpg 110.07K
10 downloads
0
A Scrapper?
Started by fossiler, 1-Feb-2007 17:01
12 replies to this topic
#1
fossiler
-
- Registered
- 11 posts
Pebble Tripper
Posted 1 February 2007 - 17:01
hi,could anyone please tell me if this is a scrapper or just a rock,,it seems workedas in large flakes taken off,but i'm not very sure.
thanks fossiler
thanks fossiler
#2
sam
-
- Registered
- 54 posts
Dolmen Expert
Posted 1 February 2007 - 21:31
Hi Fossiler, i think what you have there is a lithic pebble chopper, quite scarce although not uncommon...looks like Blue beach pebble but the pics are quite blured (like most of mine) ....any chance of a clearer view?
Sam
Sam
#4
sam
-
- Registered
- 54 posts
Dolmen Expert
Posted 2 February 2007 - 04:10
Fossiler,
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. 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, are found considerably in Britain and appear to be more frequent in the Archaic period but do occur on later sites. Choppers can be confused with discarded debris to be found at lithic sources or gravel deposits where flint nodules are plentiful. Indians in search of lithic materials commonly picked up suitable appearing nodules or cobbles and removed one or more flakes from them in order to examine the interior of the stone to determine if it would be useful for making artifacts. This cobble testing produces chipped nodules which may resemble choppers in appearance, but they lack evidence of use wear along the cutting edges. Choppers should show some edge wear or evidence for use as a tool. Hope this helps
Sam
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. 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, are found considerably in Britain and appear to be more frequent in the Archaic period but do occur on later sites. Choppers can be confused with discarded debris to be found at lithic sources or gravel deposits where flint nodules are plentiful. Indians in search of lithic materials commonly picked up suitable appearing nodules or cobbles and removed one or more flakes from them in order to examine the interior of the stone to determine if it would be useful for making artifacts. This cobble testing produces chipped nodules which may resemble choppers in appearance, but they lack evidence of use wear along the cutting edges. Choppers should show some edge wear or evidence for use as a tool. Hope this helps
Sam
#5
fossiler
-
- Registered
- 11 posts
Pebble Tripper
Posted 2 February 2007 - 15:22
hi sam
thankyou very much for the detailed explanation......on closer inspection there does appear to be some wearing on the actual blade part,,,,a bit like small chips,,,,i have taken some new pics that i will post on later,and hopefully they have turned out a bit sharper.....
thanks again fossiler(ian)
thankyou very much for the detailed explanation......on closer inspection there does appear to be some wearing on the actual blade part,,,,a bit like small chips,,,,i have taken some new pics that i will post on later,and hopefully they have turned out a bit sharper.....
thanks again fossiler(ian)
#6
stonecarver
-
- Registered
- 278 posts
Megalithomaniac
- Gender:Male
Posted 2 February 2007 - 21:56
Pebble choppers are part of a Palaeolithic techno-complex and extremely rare in the British Isles, and which have irregular scars created by pre-hominids who were making very basic cutting implements.
What you have here however, seems much more in common with a Neolithic flint nodule which was in the process of being 'quartered' (a stage in the manufacture of flint tools). From the photos I would say the user was making flake tools (probably to be used as scrapers), due to the regularity of the nature of the flaking it has been exposed to (and lack of irregular scars as seen on most chopper-cores).
Interesting find!
What you have here however, seems much more in common with a Neolithic flint nodule which was in the process of being 'quartered' (a stage in the manufacture of flint tools). From the photos I would say the user was making flake tools (probably to be used as scrapers), due to the regularity of the nature of the flaking it has been exposed to (and lack of irregular scars as seen on most chopper-cores).
Interesting find!
#7
sam
-
- Registered
- 54 posts
Dolmen Expert
Posted 3 February 2007 - 10:49
i wouldn't say extreamly rare in Britain SC as i myself have over 60, ...iv even left a lost count amount on the fields due to them having slight damage & atleast 95% of the Ones left on the field had clear visable knapping...something may seem to be a rarity if no One recognises them, hence leaving them in situ thinking they are just mere pebbles...the average fieldwalker or detectorist may walk over Hundreds even Thousands & not realise it, its only through excavations generally they are found & the amount of those small pits dug, in comparrison to land out there in Britain housing them ...well, the odds of finding alot more are quite high. I tend to agree with your theory of it being a nodule seeing its form but without clearer pics to see all necessary working etc its a hard 1 to guess at.
Sam
Sam
#8
stonecarver
-
- Registered
- 278 posts
Megalithomaniac
- Gender:Male
Posted 3 February 2007 - 13:25
Sam,
the Neolithic quartered flint nodlues are not especially rare. But Palaeolithic pebble choppers are. You have probably found the Neolithic quartered nodules.
It is very easy to distinguish the difference (if you are trained in lithics analysis). It does not require micro-analysis to determine the difference. The morphological differences between the two types are such that it can generally be determined from a photo like the ones shown. The makers were doing entirely different things and the resultant debitage is entirely different too.
From the photos shown, the maker was quartering a nodule to make flakes.
the Neolithic quartered flint nodlues are not especially rare. But Palaeolithic pebble choppers are. You have probably found the Neolithic quartered nodules.
It is very easy to distinguish the difference (if you are trained in lithics analysis). It does not require micro-analysis to determine the difference. The morphological differences between the two types are such that it can generally be determined from a photo like the ones shown. The makers were doing entirely different things and the resultant debitage is entirely different too.
From the photos shown, the maker was quartering a nodule to make flakes.
#10
fossiler
-
- Registered
- 11 posts
Pebble Tripper
Posted 11 February 2007 - 15:19
hi all
here are a couple of better pics,the first shows up some of the chipping on the blade,hope these pics help in a positive id.
thanks again for looking
fossiler
here are a couple of better pics,the first shows up some of the chipping on the blade,hope these pics help in a positive id.
thanks again for looking
fossiler
Attached Files
-
1112_034.jpg 111.59K
11 downloads
-
1112_035.jpg 118.55K
10 downloads
#11
stonecarver
-
- Registered
- 278 posts
Megalithomaniac
- Gender:Male
Posted 11 February 2007 - 15:40
However the nodule was first broken, it was obviously at some time in moving water - there is a lustre across the main scar which indicates it has been water-rolled. There are also more recent removals... but they are not where we normally see a point of percussion from a knapper and are probably damage caused by some other taphonomic process.
The only way to be certain about this nodule would be to look at it 'up-close', in the hand and with low-power microscopy at the more recent scars.
Still a nice bit of flint. Was it found in or near a river/stream or beach? Of course, palaeochannels are not easily detectable, so what is solid ground today may have been an ancient coastline or river.
The only way to be certain about this nodule would be to look at it 'up-close', in the hand and with low-power microscopy at the more recent scars.
Still a nice bit of flint. Was it found in or near a river/stream or beach? Of course, palaeochannels are not easily detectable, so what is solid ground today may have been an ancient coastline or river.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
