Porphyritic granite Biscuit discoidal

[Treasure_Hunter]

Mn9000, thread was moved because it is full of rocks, discussion is not in our na artifact forum, it can be discussed here in rock forum.

And again if members have issue with moderation actions discuss it via pm with mods, not in open forum per our rules.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[oryancochran]

I don't see the point in confirming glacial wear on a separate thread since every stone collected from a glacial kame is guaranteed to exhibit some level of existing glacial wear. Glacial wear on each stone he's posted has already been confirmed.

Oryan is looking beyond the glacial wear of each stone with a high level of detail, unfortunately the detailed minutia of his findings don't translate well to photographs-- especially if you view this thread on a cell phone like I do.

If he is examining & discarding 100-150 stones for every single one stone he keeps, then I for one want to hear more of what he has to say. While it may be on a level a bit too advanced for me, I still enjoy the heck out of reading & learning more about hardstones & utilatarian tools and I really enjoy the Q & A and the respectful back & forth by the senior members knowledgeable enough to challenge some of his positions. Please keep it up Oryan and senior members please keep pressing these advanced questions, when enough back & forth takes place with intelligent points made by each party, the end result can sometimes turn into something really cool: KNOWLEDGE.

More like 1 piece to every 500-1000 stones completely cleaned and inspected, both natural and unnatural light, magnified, wet, dry, and to other same of type materials to compare surface differences. Pictures don't show well, especially when understanding our acceptance is hard for people.

 

[oryancochran]

View attachment 1462931

Here is a message excerpt circled in green asking me to set up and teach others about ground stone analysis and identification at the Dillard Ohio ASO show last month. I blacked out name and pictures to protect the identity of person, they are a well respected in hobby, Board member of the ASO, well known author of a couple books, and archeologist. Also take in mind I don't even live in Ohio, and I'm not a member of ASO, but we're willing to give me membership and free tables to set up at show. I was unable to attend because of my job, but will at a future show. It's just kinda weird the society would want me their and advertise it, especially if all I have is rocks.

But all I have rocks, and even in showing others in thread I understand their points and with pictures to show examples of both tools and different worked surfaces. I'm still the black sheep.

 

[Charl]

Well, it's a little late, but after you posted a few examples you felt were the result of human use, I was beginning to feel they were in fact showing usage wear produced by humans. Sorry that things went south on you. As I said in an earlier comment, I have found rocks I felt showed striations that were not glacial in origin. We even have a type of artifact found here in southern New England, and classified with Abrading Stones in the Massachusetts Archaeological Societiy's Handbook of Indian Artifacts from Southern New England, and known as "Rubbed/Rubbing Stones". These are described as: "These are usually bar-shaped rocks or slabs of soft stones which have been roughly shaped. They often show parallel striations across one or more of their surfaces indicating rubbing wear. Their function is unknown". I have found an example, made of shale, with several facets, and striations, and it was nice enough, that I put it in its own small frame. At some point someone told me it showed glacial striations. Although I appreciated his opinion, I left it in that frame, as I do in fact believe it is a Rubbing Stone.

 

[oryancochran]

 

[Charl]

View attachment 1463276

I have an account at academia.edu, but I require a paid premium account to download the PDF of this book. I assume it deals with the actual ground stone tools, and do not know how much it covers the actual hammerstones, pecking stones, abrading stones, whetstones, etc., that were used to make an axe, or a celt, or a gouge, etc., etc., etc. I think the doubts people had were expressed throughout this thread and had to do with distinguishing human usage wear on a rock and abrasion wear produced by natural means. There are a number of artifacts classified as abrading stones, including whetstones(which themselves are often pecked and ground into shape, and often perforated for suspension), abrading stones, shaft abraders, sinewstones(definitely used as part of a knapping kit), and Rubbing Stones. As well, End Picks were flaked tools used for creating soapstone artifacts, as well as for pecking. I believe what you needed to do was demonstrate how those stones you felt were crude abrading tools were in fact used for that purpose. If you in fact developed a method, either on your own, or in learning from books such as this one, that allows one to distinguish, I believe a much more detailed description with better photos was needed. I also don't expect such a thing can be expected to be easily achieved in the format/venue of a forum thread. It is best attempted in person, or perhaps a detailed video presentation.

 

[mn9000]

Very well put Charl, I think a seperate issue was also the amount of photos posted. He was attempting to show the large amount of stones that ended up in his rock garden versus the small amount of stones that ended up on his shelves. Some members didn't make the effort to read closely enough & saw nothing more than "a bunch of rocks" & incorrectly took issue with it.

Oryan please continue to post, I'm very interested in reading & learning more about your findings.

 

[oryancochran]

I have an account at academia.edu, but I require a paid premium account to download the PDF of this book. I assume it deals with the actual ground stone tools, and do not know how much it covers the actual hammerstones, pecking stones, abrading stones, whetstones, etc., that were used to make an axe, or a celt, or a gouge, etc., etc., etc. I think the doubts people had were expressed throughout this thread and had to do with distinguishing human usage wear on a rock and abrasion wear produced by natural means. There are a number of artifacts classified as abrading stones, including whetstones(which themselves are often pecked and ground into shape, and often perforated for suspension), abrading stones, shaft abraders, sinewstones(definitely used as part of a knapping kit), and Rubbing Stones. As well, End Picks were flaked tools used for creating soapstone artifacts, as well as for pecking. I believe what you needed to do was demonstrate how those stones you felt were crude abrading tools were in fact used for that purpose. If you in fact developed a method, either on your own, or in learning from books such as this one, that allows one to distinguish, I believe a much more detailed description with better photos was needed. I also don't expect such a thing can be expected to be easily achieved in the format/venue of a forum thread. It is best attempted in person, or perhaps a detailed video presentation.

The stones I posted we're not posted as crude abrading tools but as tools that had been abraded on and I showed pictures up close of the abrasions and what they look like for identification. Then so on with pictures of stones with glacial striations or grinding on them for comparison to the ones I posted before. I do realize I didn't put pictures of the whole stone in question or the tool to show what was abraded or why. I would love to show anyone in person that would be willing to see it you are very correct it is hard to show a picture and even in a video becomes difficult.

The book covers everything you ask a question about and more here is a list.

Table of Contents:
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments

PART 1: A Foundation for Research
1. The Groundwork
2. Grinding Technology and Technological Analysis
3. Resources for Modeling Tool Use and Technological Behavior

PART 2: Artifact Descriptions
4. Abrading, Smoothing, and Polishing Tools
5. Grinding and Pulverizing Tools
6. Percussion Tools
7. Hafted Percussion Tools
8. Spinning Tools
9. Perforating, Cutting, and Scraping Tools
10. Paraphernalia
11. Containers and Container Closures
12. Structural Stones

Appendix A: General Artifact Form
Appendix B: Handstone Form
Appendix C: Netherstone Form
Appendix D: Hafted Tool Form
Appendix E: Grooved Artifact Form
Appendix F: Perforated Artifact Form

Glossary
References Cited
Index

 

[oryancochran]

Very well put Charl, I think a seperate issue was also the amount of photos posted. He was attempting to show the large amount of stones that ended up in his rock garden versus the small amount of stones that ended up on his shelves. Some members didn't make the effort to read closely enough & saw nothing more than "a bunch of rocks" & incorrectly took issue with it.

Oryan please continue to post, I'm very interested in reading & learning more about your findings.

I will try to post when I have time Im trying work out a better way to explain this and not become a problem with others like it has. Pictures videos etc are all needed but in person is always different. I'm visiting the author of the book " The Glacial Kame Indians " in a few weeks to go over more details, and have a look at my artifacts I've found. Don't worry I'll get pictures.

 

[Charl]

Looking at the first photo here(actually, see correction on photo sequence at end of this comment. I'm actually referring here to the second photo of rocks on shelves) it's safe to assume very few collectors would pick up such rocks to examine them for evidence of usage by ancient man. That's not to say they don't show such usage, but clearly, you are picking up rocks few would even notice, and as photographed here, most would just assume, rightly or wrongly, that they were looking at rocks. The second photo here is but one of several you show of this rock. I assume the one I'm showing is the "business end" of your suggested tool. To my eyes, that end does not look like human usage at all. In the third photo here, I assume the rough surface seen in one photo is what you are interpreting as usage, perhaps showing battering wear? You described that rock as a utilized cobble. I do not believe that weathered over surface shows human battering at all. The last photos are hammerstones I have found that show what battering wear looks like on a hand held hammerstone. The very last photo is one of your finds that I thought possibly showed human caused grinding( correction, that one came through as the very first photo)

 

[georgia flatlander]

It's very difficult to determine usage when there is an abundance of stones or natural rocks in an area frequented by Indians, simply because of the vast number they had access to. I'm sure each had his or her favorite grindstone or hammerstone which will show damage through visible peck marks or wear, but in an area such as the one described their selection would have been easy and plentiful. It's much easier to determine some sort of usage when a non-natural rock is found in an area. For example, a piece of granite found in Florida would have some sort of meaning or usage, rather than being naturally occurring.

 

[justinberry]

Is it cupped? (Indent)

 

[oryancochran]

Is it cupped? (Indent)

No convex one side almost flat other