Replies

Just a bit of trivia but rocks develop patinas, meaning that you can tell recently worked rock from old work if you are familiar with the material and genuinely old items made from the same material. Unworked stones will obviously have thicker cortexes, and in order to make a tool you have to knock off the outer layers of the stone, thus knocking off most if not all of the cortex, something which cannot simply be painted back on. The soil and water the resulting tools are in colors the exterior, as does contact with air, but it will never have the same degree of chemical changes and wear that the original stone had and this would set it apart from naturally occuring stone or work of different ages which use the same source material.

Depending on the porosity, etc, of the material this aging can be merely on the surface or extend down through the stone towards its center. Sometimes this occurs on only one side if the piece hasn't been disturbed and one side remained more protected than the other. Soils can also polish the surfaces. Older tools sometimes have recent chipping or reworking on them which is obvious because it lacks the characteristic patina found on h rst of the piece.

Even very ancient rock has moisture in it that remains in it so long as the cortex is undisturbed. The flintknapper may begin working on material that looks very dark, only to see it change later as it dries out, to something quite light in color. This factor doesn't help much since most fakes would dry out quickly anyway.

Some newer relics - particularly those used for small arrowheads- were sometimes heat-treated, a process which can dramatically alter the characteristics. Typically it makes material like chert much more colorful. It also makes the inside glassier and easier to work, and when worked, it's sharper. The disadvantage is that it makes material more brittle, too brittle for axes.

It's true that sometimes it's not easy to tell a real from a fake- there have been cases where knowledgable people were fooled by very talented fakers using assorted recipes and methods. Most fakers aren't that good though- they leave the smell of Old Mill furniture polish on the item, or creosote, use gemstone tumblers and polishes, etc- but they are not making their work to be donated to some museum but rather to fool the collector so they can get some cash. But often traces of their fakery end up under flaws in the material and can be detected. One of my friends spots traces of coffee, manure, etc all the time in otherwise good modern replicas taken to him for identification.

One of my friends spots traces of coffee, manure, etc all the time in otherwise good modern replicas taken to him for identification.

But how do we know that coffee & manure were not simply part of the evolutionary progressive process of these alleged replicas? Maybe coffee simply evolved. Maybe coffee was even one of the original stimulants that prompted life???

And given enough coffee, well, manure is bound to follow as an evolutionary cause & effect!!!

you can tell recently worked rock from old work

You know, you're not being sensitive enough to us Totalitarian Evolutionists (those of us who believe everything evolved). Would you mind, in order to not continue offending me, if you were to start using phrases like "recently scraped" vs. "recently worked"? Worked implies a worker, and that implies design, and design implies a creator, and a creator implies accountability. (Frankly, and don't tell Santa, my lifestyle is well beyond the latter!).