Hosein, the one on the left appears to be from a prismatic core. I think it would be difficult to assign an age without other diagnostic tools in association with them, such as Acheulean or Mousterian bifaces. If these were found in the U.S. they would just be classified as prehistoric. From the photos, both appear to be utilized flake tools that have not been retouched. That, in itself, does not really give a clue, since expedient flake tools were used and discarded throughout prehistory.

Someone might be able to source the lithic materials if the Paleolithic quarry has been identified. That then could give you a cultural association.

Hossein, I am not convinced that these tools are Palaeolithic. They could just as well be Neolithic, depending on context and local weathering. As James Green has already stated, the artefact morphology does not provide a more specific hint.

Dear Hosein, several people from Tübingen University are currently engaged in extensive surveys and excavations of Paleolithic and Neolithic material in Iran (Tübingen-Iranian Stone Age Research Project (TISARP)) and they might well be of help (and interested) in your finds in general. Here is the link to the project homepage and people to contact http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/arbeitsgruppen/urgeschichte-und-naturwissenschaftliche-archaeologie/grabungen/iran.html

Dear Hosein, it would be unrealistic to assign a date to these pieces coming from unspecified stratigraphic context. I’m not familiar with this area, but for me both seem to be rejuvenation flakes knapped from Blade/ bladelet cores and the one on the left seems to be retouched into truncated piece. All the best.

hi dears...(James A Green,Graham Avery ,Marc Händel,Manuel Will and Latifa Sari )

Thanks a lot for your responses. By the way,i recorded two short movies from these pieces that could be useful for their dating... however,as Manuel will and Graham Avery guided me to other experts, i'd do it too.

I'll be waiting for your responses

best regards...

Impossible to tell without any additional information. Look for what surface layer they were uncovered and try to date that layer as a whole. The approximation will be 'give or take' thousands of years though without any other archaeological evidence.

hi Travis James

thanks for your attention. unfortunately, there isn't any archaeological layer or context on the surface. moreover,regardless of whether these stone pieces belong to which archaeological site or context, what is important is that they mainly belong to  which stone industries or periods in area that i mentioned earlier. any way, i grateful for your on time response...  

best regard

From the perspective of lithic reduction technology, these appear to be blade core rejuvenation debitage, especially the piece on the right (rather than deliberate, finished "tools.")  Both show platform selection oriented at vertical ridges (flake scars) to transmit the force and fracture resulting in (sub-)parallel flake scars and blade production.  A typical problem occurs because the thickness of the bulb of force on  blade removals causes the platform to recede faster than the sides of the core.  The shape becomes "barrel-like", i.e. the side becomes markedly convex.  Thus, the mass of the side "bulge" resists the vertical removal force and a common result is a hinge or step fracture on the side near the platform which ruins the core at that location for further removals.  This is clearly evident on the example on the right.  Rejuvenating the core involves removing the step fracture and the convexity.  Note that the flake was struck precisely at a vertical ridge of the step fracture which was directly transmitted to a vertical ridge on the convexity serving to assist in the elimination of the problem.

Presence of such technology may be expected from the Upper Paleolithic through Neolithic, i.e. where core and blade techniques occur.  You might even find it in the context of gunflint manufacturing.  Out to context, it is virtually useless as an indication of age.

hi Irwin Rovner,

thanks a lot for your accurate and detailed response. actually, your guidance is suitable because when i compared your answer to other collective data on the internet, it was very perfect and enough. your explain was comprehensive... now, i'm very glad and i don't forget your help.

thank you again.

best regard... 

Dear Irwin, thank you for your accurate description; however, I want to clarify that my diagnosis about the assumed truncation which seemed to me on the distal part of the piece on the left was made on the picture, before that Hosein downloads the video sequence. While nothing can replace the direct contact with flint. Regards. 

I concur. On further inspection of the left piece, I agree that the distal end appears to be a deliberately flaked "tool", perhaps more than just expedient use.    I found such modified flake tools to be ubiquitous virtually throughout the sequence of stone tools industries produced by the PreColumbian Maya Civilization.  However, the absence of context is compelling.  Therefore, I cannot begin to speculate on the nature of the language used by the flintknapper to utter an obscenity in response to the the step fracture instead of a successful blade removal.  I do -- every time.  You have to listen very closely to the stone.

Hi Latifa, Thanks for your accurate attention to details... these challenging categories show that there are many unsolved and ambiguous subjects in Paleolithic studies between the scientists and scholars. by the way, all dears who responded to my question tried to help me and this encouraged me and other young researchers that with high morale to continue our investigations. Thanks from all dears and colleagues. Best regard.... (Hosein)

Hi Irwin, as you said, however, the left piece shaped deliberately, but its size and form is uncommon for me. On the one hand, as you said it might be a blade core rejuvenation debitage and on the other hand, it might be a stone tool that belongs to unknown or local stone industries because it's been formed with relatively complex techniques than during the middle Paleolithic! Of course, According to your opinion and my researches, Attributing it to Upper Paleolithic period or even Neolithic period could be right.

Again, i grateful if other dears have any ideas .

best regard.... 

Tech details are nicely explained. In our Narmada valley collection we find similar tools we attributed to Upper Palaeolithic but we do not find such in the Neolithic. So dated may be around 40 kya.

Hi Dr.R Sankhyan,

As some friends told, these pieces could belong to Upper Paleolithic and maybe Neolithic period. So, I like you think they are attributed to the UP period. Actually, the applied technology in shaping is a little coarser than Neolithic period with dedicated stone industries as we know. anyway, I grateful for you.

best regard

Dear Hosein,

It is difficult to assign a date to these as I am not familiar with the Paleo/Neolithic lithic industry of Iran, but I have excavated a dacite tool much like the left one in your photographs in Armenia just a couple of years ago. It comes from an undisturbed context, securely dated to the Neolithic (ca. 5700 BC). Here is an image for comparison.

Dear Hosein,- I have similar tools in our collection. and we do not assign to Neolithic but to Upper Palaeolithic- blades have been removed from these. Absolute dates may vary from place to place. In our Narmada stratified contexts we attribute these to >40 kya.

hi kristine and Anek

thanks a  lot for your attention.According to appearance, often colleagues- similar to you- believe that these pieces belong to Upper Paleolithic or Neolithic periods. whereas it found in the Non-Archaeological contexts,so, we couldn't dating them correctly.by the way, i'm grateful you.

best regard

Certainly their date is uncertain as they were found in non-archaeological context as you say or in stenographic context-I say. From yoour statment, I am unable to understand your purpose of bringing such stray finddings for discussion here and that too supplying very poor images

I would completely agree with the first comment by Latifa: "...it would be unrealistic to assign a date to these pieces coming from unspecified stratigraphic context...", all the more as you say that the two objects are from different places - i.e. one does not help to date the other.

Indeed the one on the right is simply a flake, which can hardly be dated at all (e.g. in the tribullum [threshing sledges] similar flakes were used until the 20th century AD!). The one on the left does seem to be a distally retouched flake/blade, which is very difficult to date again. Here too even a rather modern date (e.g. as gun-flint) can not be excluded judging from the thickness apparent in the picture - but as Latifa wrote, a proper diagnose should be done directly on the object.

Hi Nikolaus,

As you and other colleagues said,the possibility of dating these out-site pieces is difficult but in according to apparent features and the archaeological backgrounds of this area,often co-workers draw back their dates to the Upper Paleolithic's Period(UPP). However,It seems this is the only solution!!

Typo_technologically these tools are Upper Palaeolithic but fates vary from regions to regions; could be as old as 50 kya or as young as 20 kya.

Hi dears(Allen & Sankhyan) and thank you for your attention and suppose.