Charl
Silver Member
It happens on every Internet artifact forum/community. Someone with less then a good grasp of what constitutes a stone artifact arrives and posts a rock, or several rocks. And introduces them as Native American tools that they found. And, it happens with enough frequency that some members of the community, if they don't express it directly, at least to themselves find themselves thinking "sigh, oh no, not again".
Two conditions exist which make such postings "fraught with danger." And by that, I just mean misunderstandings have a very good chance of arising, which in turn may lead to a thread heading south in a hurry.
Condition One: the poster does not know they are posting rocks, not artifacts, but, perhaps most importantly, they are completely unaware that this happens with some frequency, that they are not the first, and that the community has seen this happen, rocks described as artifacts, time and time again. The poster is unaware of this history, and therefore may not understand expressions of impatience/exasperation from the community.
Condition Two: many experienced collectors, in recognizing that a rock is a rock, and not an artifact, experience that recognition from the position of "second nature knowledge". Think about that. When you, the experienced collector, see a rock that is not an artifact, you do not have to go through a series of logical deductions in your mind that arrives at the conclusion "this is just a rock". It does not take you several minutes to recognize a rock. No, rather your experience bypasses that process. Your experience permits instant recognition, because your understanding, your recognition, is at the level of second nature understanding. You "just know", you don't have to think it through.
And, there are ramifications when knowledge is second nature. It may be the hardest thing in the world to actually describe to the inexperienced poster exactly how you know that a rock shown is "just a rock". In other words, once your own recognition is instantaneous, is second nature, it becomes very difficult to retrace the actual steps your mind would use to describe why that rock " is just a rock".
And this can lead to a rock meeting a hard place. The poster does not really understand why his/her rock is "just a rock", and the experienced collector struggles to actually explain why it is just a rock, and not an artifact.
This situation develops because the lessons that need to be conveyed are best conveyed in person. Both inexperienced and experienced can share and pass that rock back and forth. There is a better chance of an understanding being arrived at, although the experienced is still going to have trouble conveying knowledge that they themselves don't have to think through anymore, since the recognition is second nature. Second nature both where rocks are concerned, and where artifacts are concerned. It will still be tough, but it's really that much harder to accomplish the education in a non-live setting like an Internet forum.
Sometimes, an ugly collision occurs. Sometimes a poster actually says "well, thanks, I've learned something. Now I know my rocks are not artifacts." But, as we know, ofttimes arguments ensue because the poster is simply not prepared to hear people say "those are not artifacts". And his/ her reaction may be anger, not appreciation for being corrected. And sometimes community members, if they react with impatience or sarcasm, etc., only make matters worse. This is why folks posting rocks and calling them artifacts is a situation "fraught with danger.". I am sure my own efforts have been far from perfect at times. I may have said something not diplomatic enough to avoid anger erupting. I regret that for certain.
At the same time, it's nearly inevitable that these situations will appear in the future. Maybe someday someone will publish a thread/book on "how to distinguish rock from artifact", and it can be linked to every time a new poster arrives with a rock and tells the community it is an artifact. Here, I am just making a feeble effort to delineate how these things happen. It all seems to boil down to inexperienced people bumping into second nature knowledge born of lot of experience.
Two conditions exist which make such postings "fraught with danger." And by that, I just mean misunderstandings have a very good chance of arising, which in turn may lead to a thread heading south in a hurry.
Condition One: the poster does not know they are posting rocks, not artifacts, but, perhaps most importantly, they are completely unaware that this happens with some frequency, that they are not the first, and that the community has seen this happen, rocks described as artifacts, time and time again. The poster is unaware of this history, and therefore may not understand expressions of impatience/exasperation from the community.
Condition Two: many experienced collectors, in recognizing that a rock is a rock, and not an artifact, experience that recognition from the position of "second nature knowledge". Think about that. When you, the experienced collector, see a rock that is not an artifact, you do not have to go through a series of logical deductions in your mind that arrives at the conclusion "this is just a rock". It does not take you several minutes to recognize a rock. No, rather your experience bypasses that process. Your experience permits instant recognition, because your understanding, your recognition, is at the level of second nature understanding. You "just know", you don't have to think it through.
And, there are ramifications when knowledge is second nature. It may be the hardest thing in the world to actually describe to the inexperienced poster exactly how you know that a rock shown is "just a rock". In other words, once your own recognition is instantaneous, is second nature, it becomes very difficult to retrace the actual steps your mind would use to describe why that rock " is just a rock".
And this can lead to a rock meeting a hard place. The poster does not really understand why his/her rock is "just a rock", and the experienced collector struggles to actually explain why it is just a rock, and not an artifact.
This situation develops because the lessons that need to be conveyed are best conveyed in person. Both inexperienced and experienced can share and pass that rock back and forth. There is a better chance of an understanding being arrived at, although the experienced is still going to have trouble conveying knowledge that they themselves don't have to think through anymore, since the recognition is second nature. Second nature both where rocks are concerned, and where artifacts are concerned. It will still be tough, but it's really that much harder to accomplish the education in a non-live setting like an Internet forum.
Sometimes, an ugly collision occurs. Sometimes a poster actually says "well, thanks, I've learned something. Now I know my rocks are not artifacts." But, as we know, ofttimes arguments ensue because the poster is simply not prepared to hear people say "those are not artifacts". And his/ her reaction may be anger, not appreciation for being corrected. And sometimes community members, if they react with impatience or sarcasm, etc., only make matters worse. This is why folks posting rocks and calling them artifacts is a situation "fraught with danger.". I am sure my own efforts have been far from perfect at times. I may have said something not diplomatic enough to avoid anger erupting. I regret that for certain.
At the same time, it's nearly inevitable that these situations will appear in the future. Maybe someday someone will publish a thread/book on "how to distinguish rock from artifact", and it can be linked to every time a new poster arrives with a rock and tells the community it is an artifact. Here, I am just making a feeble effort to delineate how these things happen. It all seems to boil down to inexperienced people bumping into second nature knowledge born of lot of experience.
Upvote
0
