New user here to get help with these stones that I found these on a private beach in Washington state. Are they tools, and if so, what were they used for?
Are these tools?
- Thread starter NicF
- Start date
- Jul 27, 2006
- 48,462
- 54,906
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Welcome to TreasureNet.
Sorry, they are not artifacts, normal rocks with erosion.
Sorry, they are not artifacts, normal rocks with erosion.
antmike915
Silver Member
Negative, natural rocks
uniface
Silver Member
I would guess that those in pictures number 4 & 6 well might be, but can't say for sure. IOW, it wouldn't surprise me if they were.
Any idea what the mineral in nr. 4 is ?
Any idea what the mineral in nr. 4 is ?
Tdog
Silver Member
Welcome. No, they are natural formations IMO. Keep looking.
uniface
Silver Member
Here we go again. Pictured below are Mousterian TOOLS. Not open to debate. Check any textbook you care to dealing with Neanderthals/early Homo sapiens. They did the jobs people needed done for well over a hundred thousand years.
Others, which were not pointed, were tools as well. Sparing you these, except for one:
Others, which were not pointed, were tools as well. Sparing you these, except for one:
Attachments
Last edited:
- Jul 27, 2006
- 48,462
- 54,906
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Please keep in mind this is North American Indian Artifact forum only. Mousterian was associated primarily with Neanderthals in Europe, North Africa and West Asia.
Last edited:
JKicker
Jr. Member
- Jul 10, 2017
- 63
- 124
- Detector(s) used
-
Ace 250
Minelab X Terra 705
Garrett AT Max
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Context is important, without it, most of what you show would be just rocks. With it, you have artifacts.
Where's the supporting evidence in the original post?
Tdog
Silver Member
My opinion is addressing NicF's rocks only. No need to get the dander up over a difference of opinions. I thought you liked the discussion to progress contrary to the "Straight and Narrow"!
uniface
Silver Member
This is discouraging.
It's not that people only care about what they like, and don't care about what they don't, because that's just human nature. It's that they paper over the holes in the big picture that result from this selective attention with ideas they imagine are true, but aren't. Like, in years past, that big bifaces were "buffalo points," that artifacts were worked by dripping water on heated flint, and (this one's still an uphill fight) that "soft hammer percussion" was done by using the "antler billets" there's no evidence of in the archaeological record, and not the small punches found everywhere that antler survives in the ground.
Worse, people grow attached to their beliefs. They love them, and are ready to go to war over them like gangs defending their turfs, the same way the Piled-Higher-and-Deepers were over "Clovis first" (until they realized that the people whose respect they valued, peers in other fields who were able to review the evidence and think for themselves, were laughing at them).
That, in my unwelcome view, is the movie that's playing here, and why we're getting nowhere.
I've tested people's patience (and worn myself out) posting information about Levallois industries here in the eastern United States. And it's made no impression. Due, probably, to the combination of several facts: 1) because these artifacts are not pretty the way that nice "arrowheads" can be. 2) because learning to recognise them -- and the thinking patterns that went into their creation -- requires starting from scratch. (People in Europe don't find this difficult. But Europeans have at least what's left of an educational system). And the big one: 3) because the official, virtually mandatory belief is that there were no people of any sort here before, say, 20,000 BC. This survives on its own momentum as a pure, evidence-free belief in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary like the Hueyatlaco Site in Mexico. It's like the midwestern farmer who was asked by a neighbor whether he now believed there were animals like elephants and giraffes after he had seen them with his own eyes at the state fair? "Ain't no such animals." He knew horses and cows and sheep. And those things didn't fit the pattern of the familiar. The discomfort revising his beliefs involved went against the grain, and simple denial was the easy way around the problem, so denial it was.
If I declared for a fact that I was a competent judge of earth moving machinery because I was an experienced auto mechanic, or that I had a good grasp of western classical music because I played in a heavy metal band, the disconnect between assumption and reality would be obvious to everybody. That it's not here (in fairness, most of it was on the old Arrowheadology board) is not the result of not trying. Two I'm sure I've referenced are
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/march-april2015.pdf
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/may-june2015.pdf
and discussion at
levallois in the United States - Archaeologica.org
A third I'm pretty sure I've cited is
www.researchgate.net/publication/33...Like_Flaked_Stone_Technology_in_North_America
A couple points in conclusion: dogmatic carrying on about the alleged necessity of "context" is refuted by John Witthoft having recognised, defined and established the Paleoindian era in 1952 based entirely on the out-of-context artifacts surface collected at the Shoop site. What was needed was not "context" but the ability to see what he was looking at, and understand what it was.
As far as the Mousterian industry being associated in the public mind with Neanderthals, and those with Europe, might I point out that people who dig for artifacts here are associated in the public mind with tweakers funding their meth addictions ? Or is that taking being a wiseass over the line ? OK then. Sorry. But "I keep those two in separate mental boxes," Levallois and USA, does not mean "those are two separate things." Especially when abundant evidence like Rick Donninger's proves there were hominids of some sort here* who were making them, and in large quantities -- they didn't make themselves, and the patterns they show repeat so many times, and match European examples so perfectly that claiming otherwise is absurd.
My request in closing: Don't be that farmer.
________________
* A story I've told before that I don't expect anyone to believe but is nevertheless true: I held the fossilized cranium of an Anthropopithecene of the type Leakey found in East Africa in my hands when I was 17. It had come out of a coal mine in western Virginia.
It's not that people only care about what they like, and don't care about what they don't, because that's just human nature. It's that they paper over the holes in the big picture that result from this selective attention with ideas they imagine are true, but aren't. Like, in years past, that big bifaces were "buffalo points," that artifacts were worked by dripping water on heated flint, and (this one's still an uphill fight) that "soft hammer percussion" was done by using the "antler billets" there's no evidence of in the archaeological record, and not the small punches found everywhere that antler survives in the ground.
Worse, people grow attached to their beliefs. They love them, and are ready to go to war over them like gangs defending their turfs, the same way the Piled-Higher-and-Deepers were over "Clovis first" (until they realized that the people whose respect they valued, peers in other fields who were able to review the evidence and think for themselves, were laughing at them).
That, in my unwelcome view, is the movie that's playing here, and why we're getting nowhere.
I've tested people's patience (and worn myself out) posting information about Levallois industries here in the eastern United States. And it's made no impression. Due, probably, to the combination of several facts: 1) because these artifacts are not pretty the way that nice "arrowheads" can be. 2) because learning to recognise them -- and the thinking patterns that went into their creation -- requires starting from scratch. (People in Europe don't find this difficult. But Europeans have at least what's left of an educational system). And the big one: 3) because the official, virtually mandatory belief is that there were no people of any sort here before, say, 20,000 BC. This survives on its own momentum as a pure, evidence-free belief in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary like the Hueyatlaco Site in Mexico. It's like the midwestern farmer who was asked by a neighbor whether he now believed there were animals like elephants and giraffes after he had seen them with his own eyes at the state fair? "Ain't no such animals." He knew horses and cows and sheep. And those things didn't fit the pattern of the familiar. The discomfort revising his beliefs involved went against the grain, and simple denial was the easy way around the problem, so denial it was.
If I declared for a fact that I was a competent judge of earth moving machinery because I was an experienced auto mechanic, or that I had a good grasp of western classical music because I played in a heavy metal band, the disconnect between assumption and reality would be obvious to everybody. That it's not here (in fairness, most of it was on the old Arrowheadology board) is not the result of not trying. Two I'm sure I've referenced are
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/march-april2015.pdf
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/may-june2015.pdf
and discussion at
levallois in the United States - Archaeologica.org
A third I'm pretty sure I've cited is
www.researchgate.net/publication/33...Like_Flaked_Stone_Technology_in_North_America
A couple points in conclusion: dogmatic carrying on about the alleged necessity of "context" is refuted by John Witthoft having recognised, defined and established the Paleoindian era in 1952 based entirely on the out-of-context artifacts surface collected at the Shoop site. What was needed was not "context" but the ability to see what he was looking at, and understand what it was.
As far as the Mousterian industry being associated in the public mind with Neanderthals, and those with Europe, might I point out that people who dig for artifacts here are associated in the public mind with tweakers funding their meth addictions ? Or is that taking being a wiseass over the line ? OK then. Sorry. But "I keep those two in separate mental boxes," Levallois and USA, does not mean "those are two separate things." Especially when abundant evidence like Rick Donninger's proves there were hominids of some sort here* who were making them, and in large quantities -- they didn't make themselves, and the patterns they show repeat so many times, and match European examples so perfectly that claiming otherwise is absurd.
My request in closing: Don't be that farmer.
________________
* A story I've told before that I don't expect anyone to believe but is nevertheless true: I held the fossilized cranium of an Anthropopithecene of the type Leakey found in East Africa in my hands when I was 17. It had come out of a coal mine in western Virginia.
Fat
Bronze Member
- Oct 22, 2020
- 2,191
- 6,887
- Detector(s) used
- I took the battery out because I like my bacon crispy
- Primary Interest:
- Other
....I feel like I’ve tried to follow along and read your few references..... and it leads to east anglia... just because they “fudged all the global warming climate data” just because....
.... I think you’re confusing the already confused. 250k, 25k, 15k years past. Your coal reference would predate that times 100? Or Is it 10,000?
Lithics break the same way the whole span. Unless found in context to something to Check the balance, Ma nature breaks them with the same results today, tomorrow and yesterday’s for millions even billions.
I’m not putting my thoughts to words, correctly, when trying to explain my questions about what your trying to plant.
Conjecture..? It all is.?
False hopes? It is all we really have.?
Im really am NOT trying to argue with you, I just don’t follow along with your cut and dried, this is how it is, gospel.
But I’m still here, waiting to learn about all the fill in the gaps..
.... I think you’re confusing the already confused. 250k, 25k, 15k years past. Your coal reference would predate that times 100? Or Is it 10,000?
Lithics break the same way the whole span. Unless found in context to something to Check the balance, Ma nature breaks them with the same results today, tomorrow and yesterday’s for millions even billions.
I’m not putting my thoughts to words, correctly, when trying to explain my questions about what your trying to plant.
Conjecture..? It all is.?
False hopes? It is all we really have.?
Im really am NOT trying to argue with you, I just don’t follow along with your cut and dried, this is how it is, gospel.
But I’m still here, waiting to learn about all the fill in the gaps..
Tesorodeoro
Bronze Member
- Jan 21, 2018
- 1,241
- 1,932
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
You gotta look a little bit further at the first two links..check out pages 10 and 13 respectively.
I think I kind of get the gist...that you gotta stop jumping to judgement based on what you think you know.
With an open mind, evaluating all the possibilities....it’s an ever changing conclusion.
I’d be interested in hearing the full story about the fossilized skull in coal. That stuff fascinates me.
Maybe after the dust settles.
I think I kind of get the gist...that you gotta stop jumping to judgement based on what you think you know.
With an open mind, evaluating all the possibilities....it’s an ever changing conclusion.
I’d be interested in hearing the full story about the fossilized skull in coal. That stuff fascinates me.
Maybe after the dust settles.
H.P.
Hero Member
Interesting...I wasn’t gonna post but Donninger mentioned This technology found in Florida, that peaked my interest...and me having an open mind, well I just naturally wanted to see the actual artifacts, and lacking the skill to do reasearch, well maybe you could find some pics, and specific information ...Would like very much to learn something new.otherwise, I’m stuck with the knowledge backed by experience that Levalois, didn’t exist in Florida
Fat
Bronze Member
- Oct 22, 2020
- 2,191
- 6,887
- Detector(s) used
- I took the battery out because I like my bacon crispy
- Primary Interest:
- Other
.....I’ve read it several times..... I’ve seen it all before.... I think you are the confused and are getting mislead. Your open mind is willing to believe anything. What I know and what I’m trying to learn with an open mind also involves critical thinking.
I have some “pine cones” that are coal. I plucked them out of the “mud tank” when I was working on a drill rig in eastern Montana, I think came from about 4000 ft below. Study how long it takes for coal to form.
Tesorodeoro
Bronze Member
- Jan 21, 2018
- 1,241
- 1,932
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
You had mentioned you were confused about the first two links. I was simply pointing you in the direction of the actual 2 part article that Uniface was sharing. I too got sidetracked with the article on the front page.
If I’m being misled, it’s just down a little holler that I had a few minutes to check out. I’m always interested in reading other people’s thoughts here when they take the time to present them. Critical thinking IS a requirement of having an open mind. However there are a couple different ways to “think”. Linear and non-linear (lateral). Most of the very best discoveries were developed by non-linear thinkers. I’m really not sure how my mind exactly works, but most of the time I can think clearly.
“Your open mind is willing to believe anything”
I find that a little bit insulting.
BELIEVE is a very strong word if you stop and think about it. Extremely few people in this world are capable of making me believe anything. I really don’t care even if it’s presented in written form by someone highly educated or respected.
==========
I understand the current THEORY is that coal can ONLY be formed naturally under extreme heat and pressure over a period of hundreds of millions of years. That’s a really big number.
Can you post some pictures sometime of your pine cones?
If there is one thing for sure, it’s that nothing is for sure. Something like that anyway.
Last edited:
uniface
Silver Member
You've handled it all your life, H.P. Levallois technology was used by everybody from Paleo on, because it's simple, it's efficient, and it works. But where later people often used it in the earlier steps involved in producing things, everybody also used it "as is." Remember this one ? Absolutely classic Levallois core. From Kentucky. Second one, from Ohio, is a tool struck off from a prepared core. If you'd found either one, would you have said to yourself, "Aha ! Levallois !" ?
These three cover a lot of ground clearly and comprehensively. Dig in.
https://www.thesilo.ca/more-dogma-in-north-american-archaeology-euro-style-tools-being-discounted/
https://www.thesilo.ca/tag/levallois-lithic-technology
https://www.thesilo.ca/tag/dogma/
Last edited:
uniface
Silver Member
Fat said:
Textbook, missionary position Levallois points. Maybe 50 of them from one site alone. Made by an identical, planned reduction system. And Ma Nature made them? If there's a "leap of faith" involved in this, I think it would be in the contention that these are all "geofacts" that are somehow, miraculously, identical and identical to European examples.
Last edited:
uniface
Silver Member
uniface
Silver Member
Fat
Bronze Member
- Oct 22, 2020
- 2,191
- 6,887
- Detector(s) used
- I took the battery out because I like my bacon crispy
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Failed post or hijacked post. All this stuff your post is in context with nic? The original poster?
Your insistence is insulting. Nothing to see here, move along folks.....
Your insistence is insulting. Nothing to see here, move along folks.....
Top Member Reactions
-
2324 -
1123 -
1043 -
891 -
834 -
778 -
745 -
744 -
607 -
504 -
489 -
475 -
457 -
419 -
397 -
O
393
-
392 -
382 -
382 -
376
