GeologyRocks

I took a look and must admit I don't have time to read all of your pages .I am currently travelling to attend a congress. So can you add some vital information to your post that is still missing:

What kind of rocks are the pebbles? Identifying a rock esp. with a weathering crust, on a foto is...extremely unreliable.

 Then, you write in your website that you used visual magnfication to identify "holes" as natural or not. I am afraid that method is not reliable because you cannot determine the age of weathering crusts or patina simply by looking at it under a stereoscope. Different weathering process may produce these crusts at different speeds. You will at least need to make a thin section of the "patina".

Last but not least from a very brief and quick look at the posted links I would assume all samples to be of natural origin. I have seen similiar pebbles from formations (for example in Brittany) that are far older than humankind or formed before the presence of humans (here in Peru).

Some samples appear to contain ooliths or oncoids or pisoliths. The spherical shape of these favours weathering our small globes that will create the impression of human activity. 

I'm sorry I cannot look into the matter deeper but being abroad I do not have the time and internet access time as requiered.

It would be really helpful to know a. where the rocks originated and b. at least a few good guesses on their composition. In most of the pictures, I can't even tell if they are sedimentary or igneous, which certainly makes a big difference. What is the paleohistory of the area(s) where these have been found? Are there any other known anthropogenic artifacts found in the area? While geologists can be helpful in deciphering these clues, anthropologists who have studied the area(s) would make more sense. If these areas have been studied, you should be able to find journal articles about the site history that can help you assess whether or not your determinations are correct.

 That said, at first glance, the smooth round depressions look a lot like concretions where the deposited material has fallen out. Concretions are formed by a material filling in an empty gap, like a bubble or air pocket where something has drained out or otherwise naturally decayed, etc., and then that void is filled by another material. In an area of shale nearby to me ono the shores of Lake Erie, these can be seen in very small sizes such as that which you posted (including pyrite concretions I mentioned in another thread) or very large, such as what locals call "turtle rocks" because the resulting concretions do often look a lot like turtles.

Without knowing anything about the composition or origins of these rocks, there isn't much anyone can say about them definitively, even if they have the time to read through all of the writings, which I also don't. However, I will say that I've seen lots of rocks very similar to the ones listed. My area is roughly around the edge of the last glacial advance (and others) so a lot of odd-looking rocks with strange marks have been deposited here.  I can't say there was anything in those pictures I haven't seen before. if they've all been found close together, then I would go back and look for tools and other signs of anthropogenic residency along with the aforementioned site history. To a scientist, one line of evidence isn't good enough.  

Dear Mathias,

Thanks for taking a look and posting your comments - most appreciated. I will certainly do more research on ooliths, oncoids and pisoliths. Yes, you are right I cannot determine the age of patina by visual identification alone - however "b" for example is fairly unambiguous and I can determine that this has been caused by direct percussion - whether or not it was anthropic in origin.

The pebbles are "blue beach" - flint.

The other two items are both chert/flint, the white/blue flint is local, the brown - I don't know.

Whilst I hear what you are saying with regard to natural formations, etc, it has to be borne in mind that these were recovered in context with Palaeolithic tools - of this there is little doubt - and hence my reason for not brushing the matter aside. It may well be the case that 1, 2, and 4 are geofacts, but equally, they may have been curated. Item 3 is a core tool with a bifacial margin and explains in part my particular interest in the "eye" feature.

Once again, appreciate your initial thoughts and grateful to hear more...

Regards

Richard.

Dear Miss Fabulous,

As far as I am aware flint is sedimentary, but I do appreciate that you don't necessarily have time to read all the material here or on my web pages. Briefly (more details here  http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wilson740/palaeoart/sitedata.html) the proto-Thames ran through here before the Anglian glaciation (the Colne valley), so yes, there are anthropogenic artifacts documented from this locality i.e. Mill End & Long Valley Wood - in addition to those mentioned in the S&MR, so more than one line of evidence - even if you do decide to discount the artefacts that I have already identified as Developed Mode 1.

1/ mark 'b' isn't the result of a concretion but direct percussion. In my mind, it appears to be a remarkable coincidence or "fortuitous" that these "holes", including mark 'b' are in two (more or less) straight lines. Any thoughts?

Thanks again Miss F.

P.S. I understand that the sand and gravel layer is miocene, either laid down or eroded by the proto-Thames. As mentioned before, the blue/white flint nodules originate, I am lead to believe, "locally".

I am afraid I can only give clues but no solutions because I am myself neither familiar with the local geology nor with the local pre-history. My area of expertise is mostly mineral deposits. What I do know though, or better said have read, is that in some parts of Germany sites of stone tool production have been found with a lot of wate production that for whatever reasons didn't please the manufactureres and it was apparently thrown away.

I would advise finding both geologists and anthropologists familiar with the region. I won't have the chance to come by in person to have a closer look which is as I think exactly what is needed to find a satisfying answer.

Thank you again Mathias,

I realise, it is a lot to ask from photos alone.

My door is always open.

I have taken a couple of items to two eminent geologists; both of which didn't hesitate to agree independently that both items were "not the result of geological processes" - which as I understand it is close to confirming that they were anthropically modified.

The elephant in the room

I am only too aware of the perception that's quickly formed when someone mentions that they "have a rock that looks like a [insert fantasy of choice]". The effect is to make my task as a "serious" researcher all the more difficult. To put this into perspective - I don't claim one or two rocks are 'iconographic', but that from a 1m x 1m x 1m area the frequency of 'iconography' is beyond chance or pareidolia. These items were found in association with 'stone tools' or indeed incorporated into them. More often than not they show the same traits indicating anthropic agency.

There is good reason to conclude that the attenuation of natural features or shaping of stones was not out with the cognitive capabilities of early hominids. I am aware that it is a controversial subject - especially when it doesn't conform to mainstream beliefs  that have little basis in fact (i.e. that "art" didn't start until the apparent arrival of modern humans into Europe 40,000 years ago - the prime example was the Chauvet Caves which has since been shown to be most likely the work of so-called Neanderthals).

But I hold my hands up - I have a lot to learn.....

My first mistake was to claim in my naivety that I might have found some Palaeolithic tools - nobody likes a smart arse...

My second was to claim that they appeared to be iconographic - I may as well have said I had the plague.

But as you say, what is really needed is for someone to come and take a look....

There are a few professionals who are interested - unfortunately they do not live in the UK, so it isn't going to happen any time soon.. in the meantime, I would love for a geologist/geomorphologist to visit.

How we tell manmade from natural marks is an intersting question.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to read everything you've written on your website, so forgive me if I'm going over ground you've covered.

Perhaps you should be looking at how flint is in its natural state and how it weathers. Does flint fresh out of a chalk quarry or cliff carry any marks similar to what you are looking at? Flint in an old river terrace could have been subject to a number of different forms of weathering and erosion: glacial, fluvial (attrition), freeze-thaw/frost shattering and chemical/biological from the vegetation and soil that once covered it. I'm not sure how you'd test all of these... Attrition would be easy enough i suppose- pick water-worn flints off a beach near flint bearing cliffs and you could say pretty confidently attrition is all that has happened to them. See what kind of marks they carry. It may also be useful for you to find flints in an older river terrace that was laid down before man arrived on the scene. You could say confidently all the marks on those are natural and see how they compare.

Do remeber that the characteristics of flint can vary from area to area and this might affect their initial appearance and how they weather.

Good luck.

Hi Matt,

Yes, there is very little by the way of peer reviewed material about how we can (reliably) tell the difference between manmade and natural material. It's a topic that I feel is avoided by many "lithic experts" - to the detriment of the discipline.

Thank you for some interesting ideas that I will indeed follow up.