Sujit,

Without more detailed photos it would be hard to say conclusively. However, based on the surrounding rocks, these look to be natural. I would have said that they and the other rocks were the result of colluvium rather than fluvial transport because there appears to be very little wear or rounding from stream transport. However, if they are not from colluvial deposits, then they have not been fluvially transported far from their parent material or within the stream bed for any length to time.

I do not really see any regular flaking on either specimen that would suggest that they have been modified by man. The top one does have some flakes removed from the wide end, but the crispness of the flake scars (i.e., no weathering or patination) strongly suggests that the damage is recent. The bottom specimen does not appear to have any conchoidal flake scar typical of lithic artifacts. However, the stone to the left is interesting. It does have some large flake scars on two surfaces that could (could) be the result of someone striking large flakes off to be used in tool production. Still, those could be the result of natural processes like freeze/thaw.

Thanks for the reply. I too was skeptical while collecting, but as I am not an archaeologist thought to share with experts for their opinion. I can send better photographs (front-back-side views) to experts before totally rejecting it. Can write me: [email protected].

Dont' throw the idea away so quickly. It depends on the context of the rock. did you expect this type of rock to be there? Often I come across palaeo-factories where the failures or rocks used to make other tools are strewn about.  Better care will be taken of the good ones!

The main rock type of Rajgir hills is  Proterozoic Quartzite-Phyllite. Both the samples are quartzite.

It is the sort of thing that would have been used. Unless you can identify to populations of rock shapes (a natural and an anthropogenic) this is gonna be contentious! However that's what we need to keep us sharp!

Sujit,

I would concur with Mark and James. Though both samples look like they could have been used as a hand axe, they show no signs of flaking. And these kind of shapes are very common in massive (e.g. lacking foliation) quartzite.

Thanks to all......

Sujitda,

I have seen both the photographs. Close view from different angles may help to identify both the specimens. I am not a expert. Apparently, flaking is absent. Please search for better samples. 

Thanks

I do not want to be a show stopper, but if you have a shear conjugate fracture set, you will end up having the same time of broken blocks, if you look at the other samples around, you will see they have the same nature.

The first photo shows some thing which can be a paleolithic tool with rounded head that can be used for mortaring, as well the small triangular rock that can be used as a head for spear. I have seen a lot of such tools during my  career in Iraq Geological Survey in different parts of Iraq.

Thanks for all the replies. I shall make additional effort to collect convincing samples during my next visit to Rajgir. Early explorers reported Paleolithic stone tools from first order rain fed streams within the Rajgir hills. But have not come through any authentic document  on the issue. Rajgir site is otherwise historically important. Well known historically as Gautam Buddha visited the site and has reference in Buddha's writings. King Bimbisara (543-492 BCE) was a friend and protector of Lord Buddha. From that period the history of Rajgir is well establish though the Capital of Magadha was shifted to Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar State) from Rajgir during the time of Ajatasatru, son of Bimbisara. 

During my present field trip also collected BRW potsherds  from Panchana River section, east of Rajgir (see G+).

Concur with most respondents that the photos are insufficient to be conclusive.

Just to help you along, some pointers (based on working with Anthropologists; and I am not one please, so this is derived knowledge):

Hope this helps.

In parting from experience, I can share your excitement at the possibility of the findings....  .... All the best. 

Dear Sujit,

In fact it is very difficult to say some thing on the bases of these photographs, but to me, this specimen does not looks like an artifact. The broken edges are due to transportation by river and even broken surfaces are very random. please have a look to literature about the place which you have found it, and try to find some archeological linkage in that area. If there are reports about the artifacts from this area, then try to see surrounding areas and you may find better specimens.

Good luck!

Sujit,

See JPG of hand axes from India.

Hi Mr. James, it is not easy to decide, since they are hand drawings, it will be better to add the photos of the specimens rather than the drawings; however, they look like tools.

Varoujan Sissakian

Private Consultant Geologist

Iraq, Erbil

e-mail: [email protected]

Varoujan,

I have analyzed thousands of bifacial tools. The rocks in Sujit's photographs do not have the clear man-made flakes scars seen on authentic artifacts.

James,

I didn't confirm they are !! I just have said, they look like and if they were photographed, then would be more clear.

Varoujan

I supported the views of Dr. James A Green, USA. It is very difficult to say something on the bases of photographs only. It is true that the rocks samples in Sujit's photographs are not identical bifacial tools or it does not looks like an artifact. It does not show clear man-made flakes scars. These may be broken pieces of rocks of nearby source as these were found along hilly stream in Rajgir, Bihar, India.

For me they look like any normal rock loosely found as transported pebble. It is difficult to assume on the basis of these photographs, that they are tools-artifacts. They are normal in appearance with surfaces reflecting breakdown, transportation and slight alteration. Nothing specific about these rocks to think them as ancient tools.

Thanks; see the report on Rajgir in RG