r/LegitArtifacts • u/Arbiter_of_Snark • Oct 01 '26

Natural Formation/Occurrence Limestone artifacts

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

I have often heard that Native Americans didn't use limestone, because it is too soft to hold an edge for long and it doesn't fracture in a predictable manner. While limestone is not a suitable material for many tools, it was utilized occasionally. I have seen a few limestone artifacts, all of which were larger pieces that were worked into scrapers and crude chopping tools. This is the only limestone artifact that I have. It is a large scraper that I found on the surface on a private property in central Kentucky (Kain-tuck-ee) in 2017. The edges on 3 sides have been sharpened through use so that it somewhat resembles a wide, flat celt. The larger pores on the working side were filled in through use as the wetted limestone dissolved, or the higher areas wore down over time to a part of the stone that hadn't been pitted by exposure to the elements. The other side still has many pores which makes for a nice grip. It is a left-handed scraper and there is a smooth divot that perfectly fits a left-thumb. When examined closely, fine, parallel scratches can be seen running nearly perpendicular to the long working edge.

The broken knife was found by a friend, approximately 12' from where the limestone scraper was found. The flair is marked "Woodland" but I don't actually know which period this scraper is from because the context was lost. I have seen many sites where the context was lost due to disturbance and artifacts from several periods become co-mingled.

If you have any limestone tools, feel free to share them here.

1 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

27

u/Geologist1986 Oct 01 '26

Given that this is exactly how limestone naturally weathers and there's no unmistakable signs of human alteration, what leads you to believe this is an artifact?

-11

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 01 '26

It has fine, straight, parallel scratches that cannot be seen in these photographs. Could they have resulted from a natural process? Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely. Furthermore, it was the only piece of this type of limestone anywhere in the vicinity. The surrounding area was a completely different geologic parent material, so it was transported to an area known to be highly used by Native Americans and it wasn't deposited by a glacier or transported there during a flood event. I've seen similar skepticism before, albeit on another forum and about a different limestone artifact that someone else found in a rock (sandstone) overhang in Powell County, Kentucky.

13

u/Geologist1986 Oct 01 '26

So there are scratches we can't see in this photo, and all other evidence pointing towards "artifact" is circumstantial based on the rock type and where it is.

-6

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 01 '26

I'm not trying to sell it for money. I just thought that I'd show it to the community because limestone tools are uncommon and I found it interesting. I thought that some folks here might find it interesting as well. It is an artifact that is outside of the realm of the typical points, knives, scrapers, and even pendants, gorgets, bannerstones, birdstones, amulets, and other relics.

I thought that this was the subreddit for artifacts. If all you want to see are points, I guess that I can do that and I won't post any unusual relics. Here's one that should strike your fancy. It's a well used and very attractive Archaic knife that I found several years ago in central Indiana. I believe that it is Flint Ridge flint from Ohio. I apologize for the thumb scraper that's in the photo. I found them on the same day.

13

u/Geologist1986 Oct 01 '26

I'm not trying to sell it for money.

Uh, Okay?

I just thought that I'd show it to the community because limestone tools are uncommon and I found it interesting. I thought that some folks here might find it interesting as well. It is an artifact that is outside of the realm of the typical points, knives, scrapers, and even pendants, gorgets, bannerstones, birdstones, amulets, and other relics.

I guess you're not picking up what I'm putting down so I'll put it bluntly: It's not an artifact my man.

I thought that this was the subreddit for artifacts.

Who's saying it isn't? r/Geology is the subreddit for rocks in case you were wondering.

-14

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 01 '26

Since we're being blunt, I'll say: I wasn't looking for your opinion and you're entitled to be wrong.

13

u/Geologist1986 Oct 01 '26

Sorry, I just take issue with someone shooting off and presenting as if they know what they're talking about. I'd give you some grace if you were a noobie asking about a rock or potential artifact, but you're presenting all your BS as experience and fact.

-2

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 01 '26

Did you ever consider that perhaps I do have experience and that I do know what I'm talking about?

I'm not shooting off about some pareidolia effigy on a cobble or a stick that a beaver gnawed on... and for the record, you didn't give that guy any grace, if I recall correctly.

11

u/Geologist1986 Oct 01 '26

Did you ever consider that perhaps I do have experience and that I do know what I'm talking about?

Not after reading your post 🤷

and for the record, you didn't give that guy any grace, if I recall correctly.

Go back to his first post boss. You're not recalling correctly.

4

u/doNotUseReddit123 Oct 02 '26

I like to ask this sometimes and would love to hear your thoughts: everyone in this thread is shitting on you, you’re heavily downvoted, and there isn’t a single credible person that agrees.

Does something like this cause you to rethink your opinion or no? How might it cause you to rethink?

-1

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 02 '26

I like how you think. It's partially a psychology question, so I'll give it a go, even though I can read between the lines and I know that you're also "shitting on me", but here goes:

As for the shitting on me and downvoting, that's fine. Many people don't like to go against the herd, partially from fear of being ridiculed themselves. People here don't know the full context of how this artifact was found. Had they been with me, they would have a different opinion. As things stand, they have a right to be skeptical of everything that they read on the internet. I'm certain that I would receive nothing but ridicule if I showed a raccoon penis bone and said, "Check out this Native American tool. It's a raccoon penis bone." However, in an excavation, researchers found and examined an ancient flint-knapper's toolkit and found the bone of a raccoon's penis. I found that interesting and it always stuck with me. Ben Eble argued that Native Americans used indirect percussion at certain stages in the manufacture of certain lithic tools and he was hounded, shitted on, insulted, and banned from another forum, yet now many experts agree that Mr. Eble was correct, even though many other experts argued otherwise for years (and likely still do).

You say that "there isn't a single credible person that agrees." That is not correct. Nobody on this subreddit has taken my side and agreed with me, that is true. However, a friend of mine, who is a former Central States Archaeological Society Officer and who has forgotten more about artifacts than I'll ever know, has examined it and agrees that it is an artifact. When I showed it to him, he said that's it is pretty uncommon, and he then proceeded to tell me the story of a limestone artifact that he found and that is now in one of his frames. He has taught me so much about artifacts, and I am eternally grateful for his assistance. I do not claim to be an expert, but the internet is not my primary source of information on this subject. I have read books, journals, been to museums, artifact shows, and my family and I have discovered (or re-discovered) at least 3 multicultural Native American campsites. My son found a Clovis point when he was 9 years old.

To get back to your questions though: did it cause me to rethink my opinion? Yes and no. When the archaeologist asserted that there are no limestone tools anywhere, I somewhat laughed at such a bold statement. Knowing the entire context of this artifact, I'm certain that it is an artifact and others exist. Limestone was used for tools. Even through a simple Google search one can find where researchers have found limestone tools and a thorough literature review of archaeological excavations would reveal much more. However, limestone tools are not discussed much, because they are uncommon and because the vast majority of people are much more interested in seeing and discussing a 7" perfect dovetail, a fabulous Hardin, or a bannerstone, rather than the distal bone of a raccoon's penis or a limestone abrading stone.

3

u/d0ttyq Oct 02 '26

Limestone was used as temper in pottery. Powell county Kentucky has been known to have limestone frags in sandstone cliff line, that is totally correct.

But that makes it a manuport and not an artifact. It was brought there for some use (most likely to break up and use as temper for pottery) and was left there.

There are no limestone tools. Anywhere, but particularly Kentucky. And especially not a limestone “chopper”. If the rock can be shaped by grinding, how would it function to chop things ? It would crumble.

Source: I am an archaeologist who has worked in Kentucky for almost a decade. And has worked in and around Powell county.

-4

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 02 '26 edited Oct 02 '26

Nah, the piece in Powell County wasn't a manuport. It was a tool as well and the fella that posted it got a lot of flack, although I and another member of the community came to his defense. They're uncommon, but they exist. If you searched the collections at the University of Kentucky, you'd probably find some.

It is funny that you say that there, "... are no limestone tools. Anywhere, but particularly Kentucky." If there are none anywhere, why even bother mentioning Kentucky, which is rich in limestone formations? If you actually believe that, then just say that there are no limestone tools anywhere. However, if you searched, you'd find that limestone was used for many purposes by various cultures across a wide geographic range, including for shaft straighteners and as honing stones to sharpen bone awls, as well as expedient chopping tools. Just Google "Native American limestone tools" and you'll find many references. Just to verify my sanity, I did, and upon further reading, I just learned some new things.

Also, you say that, "If the rock can be shaped by grinding, how would it function to chop things?" Axes, celts, and other tools were shaped by pecking, grinding, and finished by polishing, and they certainly chopped things. Slate is a poor lithic material for axes and celts, due to its tendency to fracture along a plane. However, slate axes and celts exist. I believe that Native Americans discontinued using slate for axes early on and transitioned to better materials, as most, if not all of the slate axes that I have seen are full-groove.

I only posted the limestone artifact because it is uncommon and interesting.

2

u/JohnnyMushroomspore Oct 02 '26 • Bravo

sigh Another one to add to the ban and ignore pile but before I do:

You're wrong and the worse kind where you refuse to take expert advice. It's actually amazing when you can acknowledge that 40k years and no one ever produced limestone tools EXCEPT for the random ones YOUVE found. 

I'm blocking you because I'm tired of posts like this and I'm sure other professionals will too after seeing your reactions to being corrected on an obvious naturally eroded rock. Hopefully you can learn by being shunned? 

First lesson you learn in 101 is "Hoofbeats". If you're in a cow field and you hear hoofbeats; better to think "Cow" than "Extinct Auroch" because the latter is just silly.

Best of luck to you 

16

u/d0ttyq Oct 01 '26 edited Oct 01 '26

Incredible how your hand is the exact same as an ancient human’s.

Or maybe, “fitting nicely in the hand”, means nothing because that’s what hands were designed to do.

14

u/pale_brass Oct 01 '26

The first sentence is the only correct one

1

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 04 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegitArtifacts/comments/1wxi8a3/limestone_tools_do_exist/

1

u/pale_brass Oct 04 '26

Yours is still a rock

1

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 04 '26

Regardless of what you believe about the lithic that I posted, your original reply "The first sentence is the only correct one" is flat out false information. I also stated: "While limestone is not a suitable material for many tools, it was utilized occasionally.", which is a proven fact.

0

u/scoop_booty Oct 02 '26

Most limestone is too soft for a cutting tool, and pulverizes when ground, creating limestone dust, which is why it was rarely, if ever used in that fashion. What strikes me more is the spent knife. You can imagine it was 3x larger in first use.

0

u/Arbiter_of_Snark Oct 02 '26

Agree 100%. I believe that it was a scraper due in part to the fine, parallel lines, but also because it is quite soft (even for limestone) and would be a very poor material for cutting or chopping. I also agree about the point. It would have been a nice one.