Possible non-Native American piece

[C.H. Hawk]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone here could help me identify a possible artifact that I have found. It was discovered in mid-Missouri, in a semi-dried creek bed. Upon discovering it, I thought it to be an indian game piece of some sort. However, after inspecting it thoroughly, I have my suspicions that it might be some sort of Freemason tool however, after inspecting it thoroughly, I have my suspicions that it might be some sort of Freemason tool. I say this, only because of what appears to be the "all seeing eye" carved into finely polished hematite. It looks as if it was buffed down by someone who really knew what they were doing. I was wondering if anybody knew what this was, or could possibly point me in the right direction of someone who would know? Thank you.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[C.H. Hawk]

Thanks for your contribution. What I know about the immediate area, in which I found it, is only that it is privately owned property and that the creek is a small tributary to the considerably larger, Auxvasse Creek, in Callaway County, Missouri ...which is the northern most tip of the Ozark Mountains. The ageless argument of where the Ozark Mountains actually and, in the north, varies from Rocky Mount Missouri, all the way up to Guthrie, Missouri, and some even say Auxvasse, Missouri. Personally, I think terrain-wise, Ozark–style landscape can be seen as far north as Kingdom City, or Guthrie. However, there are decent sized areas of land, in between these Ozark-like mountains, that hold little, to no characteristics of the dry, rocky terrain of the Ozarks. This is due to the New Madrid fault lines jagged shape, as it runs down the eastern Missouri border. It doglegs west as few times before it angles west again in the southeastern portion of the state. Anyway, I digress, because it is neither here, nor there, because the area in which the artifact was found, is close enough to the Ozark's, to remain within the handful of indigenous tribes of my region. I am fairly familiar with the handful of tribes that lived in the region. I may be mistaken, but it does not resemble anything from those local tribes, to my knowledge anyway. Although, I will look into any archaeological associations. I was once a member and volunteer for our local Cole County historical Society. Maybe I can begin my search there. However, I am very leery of showing certain entities, for fear of having my piece confiscated out of greed. I know of a few specific incidents, where the University of Missouri has used their clout against several individual's to gain possession of their personal finds. They were taken from them, for MU's own personal use in museums and such.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

It's a somewhat similar shape to the Southern Cult eye, when that eye appears in the palm of a hand, but especially in the second set of photos, what Tnmountains mentioned about a lack of patina in the lines seems apparent. I get the same impression of freshness. If you can let an experienced artifact collector see it in hand, might get a better handle on whether the incised lines are recent.

 

[Charl]

The stone itself has banding. May be a banded slate.....

 

[Tnmountains]

Their work was highly skilled most times.



Here is the weeping eye again

 

[RGINN]

Very good that you have a knowledge of history of that area, C.H. Hawk. Guys I really don't believe that's an eye. Not an Indian depiction of one, anyway. It's kinda like a compass stone. It has markings for the cardinal directions, but you don't really see much Indian petroglyphs denoting SW, SE, NW, NE. And just for speculation, it could be related to a lot of things, like KGC, Spanish entradas, Norse expeditions, or just great uncle Earl carvin on a rock then tossin it years ago. It would have been helpful to see a pic of this find in situ, maybe. Seeing how it related to the surroundings might have been interesting.

 

[Charl]

Very good that you have a knowledge of history of that area, C.H. Hawk. Guys I really don't believe that's an eye. Not an Indian depiction of one, anyway. It's kinda like a compass stone. It has markings for the cardinal directions, but you don't really see much Indian petroglyphs denoting SW, SE, NW, NE. And just for speculation, it could be related to a lot of things, like KGC, Spanish entradas, Norse expeditions, or just great uncle Earl carvin on a rock then tossin it years ago. It would have been helpful to see a pic of this find in situ, maybe. Seeing how it related to the surroundings might have been interesting.

I don't think it has to be an eye. Just based on the region in which he found it, and the fact it looks similar in design to a type of Southern Cult eye, made that option an obvious possibility to consider. Like Tnmountains pointed out, it's crude, which would be out of character. I wonder if the stone itself was an unfinished native piece that was played around with in recent times. The top surface of the stone, other then the lines, seems patinated. And maybe somebody was trying to imitate a Southern Cult eye. Or not. I can see the lines set out as a compass, but of course it couldn't be used as one.
Maybe a UFO? Just kidding.....

 

[1320]

I don't think it has to be an eye. Just based on the region in which he found it, and the fact it looks similar in design to a type of Southern Cult eye, made that option an obvious possibility to consider. Like Tnmountains pointed out, it's crude, which would be out of character. I wonder if the stone itself was an unfinished native piece that was played around with in recent times. The top surface of the stone, other then the lines, seems patinated. And maybe somebody was trying to imitate a Southern Cult eye. Or not. I can see the lines set out as a compass, but of course it couldn't be used as one.
Maybe a UFO? Just kidding.....

Great point Charl! I saw this post in the "What is it" forum and chose not to answer simply because the lines lack patina.....matter of fact, they look very "fresh".

 

[willjo]

Looks a lot like a boatstone, not saying that is what it is but you could research boatstones and see if that is what you think.

 

[rock]

Looks like the flint cobbles I find in my creek by the rings on it. Mine aren't flat on 1 side though. Id like to see a good pic of the flat side to see if it was ever put on a grinding wheel.

 

[NC field hunter]

C.H. A celt is basically an axe without a groove. I do believe the word celt has keltic ties, however, the artifact doesn't. Celts were used later in the archaic era and grooved axes earlier. Here is a pic. Of mine.
I'm not 100% sure that the engraving is not authentic. However, I'm pretty sure it was added by white man. If you would like more pics, let me know.

 

[Tnmountains]

Good thread and knowledgeable opinions.

 

[C.H. Hawk]

willjo, I appreciate your input. I am always open for any new ideas. I will check that out, first thing tomorrow. Thank you!

 

[C.H. Hawk]

1320, like I stated earlier in this thread, it's engraving looks a bit fresh, due to the chalkie-white color in the grooves. However, the picture doesn't really do it justice. In addition, the outer edges of the engravings are rounded and smoothed down, not sharply rigid. Another factor, is that there is quite a bit of limestone in and around the area of where I discovered the rock. I haven't attempted to clean the piece and all, in fear of losing its appeal, as well as its worth.(Not that I have any intention of selling this piece. It is way too unique, pending it's authentication.) I thought that this is possibly the reason for the white coloring in the grooves. What discourages me about the piece, is the sloppiness of the engraving, in a couple of areas. It seems like the engraver accidentally went just a tad bit too far on a couple of spots and went back over it in the correct spot, leaving little fringe engravings, that extend off of the actual design. I am not really sure if this is common in ancient engravings, but I know that I've seen some very detailed and ornate engravings that looked much better than this one.

 

[C.H. Hawk]

rock, I posted a whole new set of pics, about midway through this thread, of the bottom of this piece.

 

[C.H. Hawk]

NC field hunter, this is actually very encouraging. What is yours made of? I would absolutely love to inspect any pics of your rock that you are willing to show me. Thank you!

 

[Charl]

1320, like I stated earlier in this thread, it's engraving looks a bit fresh, due to the chalkie-white color in the grooves. However, the picture doesn't really do it justice. In addition, the outer edges of the engravings are rounded and smoothed down, not sharply rigid. Another factor, is that there is quite a bit of limestone in and around the area of where I discovered the rock. I haven't attempted to clean the piece and all, in fear of losing its appeal, as well as its worth.(Not that I have any intention of selling this piece. It is way too unique, pending it's authentication.) I thought that this is possibly the reason for the white coloring in the grooves. What discourages me about the piece, is the sloppiness of the engraving, in a couple of areas. It seems like the engraver accidentally went just a tad bit too far on a couple of spots and went back over it in the correct spot, leaving little fringe engravings, that extend off of the actual design. I am not really sure if this is common in ancient engravings, but I know that I've seen some very detailed and ornate engravings that looked much better than this one.

Well, this is all interesting. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the engraving is prehistoric. Maybe it was rendered by a youngster. And obviously, not all artists are equal, anyway. I don't think you could eliminate it as prehistoric completely just because it has fringe engravings, little mistakes. It's not as if his peers were going to tell him "that's it, we want you out of our tribe if that's the best you can do". He won't get contracts from anybody, lol, but not all artists are equal.

Here's a portable petroglyph from Ma. The crosshatch design is one of the most common design elements or motifs in petroglyphs from coast to coast. But, as seen here on this quartzite pebble, the maker didn't seem too concerned about staying in the lines at all. Probably wasn't easy to do on hard quartzite.

 

[1320]

Well, this is all interesting. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the engraving is prehistoric. Maybe it was rendered by a youngster. And obviously, not all artists are equal, anyway. I don't think you could eliminate it as prehistoric completely just because it has fringe engravings, little mistakes. It's not as if his peers were going to tell him "that's it, we want you out of our tribe if that's the best you can do". He won't get contracts from anybody, lol, but not all artists are equal.

Here's a portable petroglyph from Ma. The crosshatch design is one of the most common design elements or motifs in petroglyphs from coast to coast. But, as seen here on this quartzite pebble, the maker didn't seem too concerned about staying in the lines at all. Probably wasn't easy to do on hard quartzite.

Great post. Notice how the lines share the same patina as the pebble?!

 

[unclemac]

the patina is a dead give away that this piece has little or no age to it....remember too most (not all..most) artifacts have an obvious and determinable function.

 

[monsterrack]

C.H.Hawks please don't think I am shooting your post down. 1st the groove at the top right edge of the stone, when I zoom in on that it looks to be the shape that a modern tool would make(straight down on one side and a angle on the other. I have never seen another piece of stone make that type of cut JMO. The patina factor is one thing that it would depend on the site where it was found and the stone JMO. In my area you can find points that look just as clean has the day they were made and then in the same creek find one that is covered with patina? If you want to clean it some, take a tooth brush and some mild soapy water and you want hurt a thing. Your best bet is like someone said take it to someone in your area that knows about artifacts or to someone that has a microscope and have them take a look at it. I will be posting a post shortly on something that I picked up at a pawn shop today, that you may like. I have to finish taken photos. Now I'm going to say this just because I have fallen victim to it before, people do salt area's. It is a cool find

 

[rock]

rock, I posted a whole new set of pics, about midway through this thread, of the bottom of this piece.

I see it now. Well as far as I can see it looks the way it should except the etching which is a lighter color. I have to ask cause I know it happens sometimes. Did you happen to soak it in any type of cleaner?