Need Help - Possible Waco Sinker and Large/Heavy Unknown Perforated Tool??

[Arsenal]

Hello,

I have meant to get these rocks pictured so I could post them. Years ago when I began hunting, every notched round rock was momentarily thought to be an infamous Waco Sinker. This rock is heavy flint with a pecked bottom and what appears to be a pecked groove. Again, I am always cautious because I have never found one.

The second piece is a large, rounded heavy flint/chert rock that is about 2" thick. It has a hole on the middle and what appears to be fracturing from the hole being made. It fits the groove in your hand perfectly and I cannot imagine the hole is natural due to the rock and the testing chips/fracturing around the centered hole. Neither photographed well.

As always any help is greatly appreciated and accepted knowing many people on here know more than me. Thank you.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Arsenal]

I forgot to add these were found in an Austin creek bed I frequent.

 

[Indian Steve]

The first big rock looks like a natural rock to me . The hole is not uniform enough to be drilled. I would say that the other big rock is natural too but it does look interesting. It looks like you found some nice points, tools and flakes. You are in a good spot. Keep at it. Good Luck!

 

[The Grim Reaper]

These are Waco Sinkers. Not all of them are made this well but they will all look like these. What you have looks to be natural to me.

 

[weasel1000]

i've got around 4 finds that are similar to this, sans holes though... i found through trial and error, just by playing around, testing how it fit in different positions, etc that mine ended up being choppers.... what i would term to be the "pizza wheel" variety. You might have something like this..... experiment with it some more and see..... in my case, the chunk missing from the edge perfectly fit the web of my hand (similar to one of your shots)..... from the heavy use/contact, that spot was worn slick and shiny..... when i looked at the "cutting edge" of the disc, it too was very worn and shiny..... i found that i could hold it, edge side down, and roll it just like a pizza wheel..... many, many eons ago, this certainly could have been useful in breaking up or chopping something. I'm just saying , consider and check everything before you toss it on the heap as "just a rock."

 

[weasel1000]

sure would like to know if you learn anything new about the perforated one -- if you're able to conclude, finally, what it is.

 

[Arsenal]

sure would like to know if you learn anything new about the perforated one -- if you're able to conclude, finally, what it is.

I will take more pictures because while I respect the opinions above, something about that rock seemed unique. After reading your thoughts, I realized what made me think it was some kind of chopper was the way it is slowly cracking from the hole in pizza slice shapes. It is a HEAVY stone.

As for the hole not being uniformed enough to have been drilled, I need to take better pictures. It is pretty darn uniform for the thickness of the rock and does not have the earmarks of a slow, natural hole.

 

[Arsenal]

The more I looked at it and held it, the more validity your questions held. I took a few pictures of the puncture and I have never seen a natural hole on the middle of a round, thick hard stone without periphery evidence of other parts getting worn down naturally. It is not a perfectly created hole but does have some uniformity.





Thank you for raising my interest. Probably too often I just accept the first answer as the unequivocal truth.

 

[Ohio_Doug]

The perforated rock is natural IMO, not even close to showing signs of being drilled.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Arsenal, that hole is 100% natural and formed by something eroding out, not by drilling. And the stone itself shows no evidence of ever being altered or utilized by man.

 

[Arsenal]

Arsenal, that hole is 100% natural and formed by something eroding out, not by drilling. And the stone itself shows no evidence of ever being altered or utilized by man.

Thanks as always GR.

 

[Charl]

Arsenal, prehistoric Native Americans practiced what is called biconical drilling. Meaning they drilled from both sides of a piece(Hence bi-conical), and the hole tapered toward the center, assuming a conical shape on both sides. Here are two artifacts, the first a slate gorget, the second a slate pendant. Both sides shown for each of the two artifacts. You can see that the hole tapers toward the center(hence cone shaped), and you can see that drilling was commenced from both sides of the object to be drilled. And they met and broke through at the center. Your rock does not display biconical drilling and is a natural hole. I imagine there will be exceptions. Sometimes holes were actually pecked into the stone from both sides, and then punched through when thin enough. But mostly, you will see this biconical drilling as seen on these artifacts, and which is not seen on your rock.

 

[weasel1000]

and that is the saddest thing, to me...... that you (at first) received totally negative input and took it to heart..... you rejected a find that can certainly have some validity --- solely on the word of some people that do NOT know everything..... trust me, they don't. So many people have been "put off" of their finds and tossed them on the heap, just because of grumpy know it alls that DON'T know it all.
i think that's such a big disservice..... how many interesting things will never be considered because they were rejected by the "authorities" SAD. And unnecessary. what "they" say isn't gospel.... it's just THEIR opinion. Let's fully consider everything before rejecting same. Let's admit that you can't be dead certain when judging from a photo or two of dubious quality / clarity. Give everyone and everything a chance. At least leave the thought out there that "i could be wrong, it's just my opinion." And that was my point : don't shut anyone down..... and don't shut anyone out. PS as noted, i do have around 6 of these items that look remarkably like yours..... while they are NOT pierced, i notice that a fair # have clear "divots".....obvious and created marks...... yes, in the same spot as yours. what do it all mean ? not sure..... but that's what we can do here..... exchange information and ideas...... but not be negative and turn people away.

 

[Charl]

and that is the saddest thing, to me...... that you (at first) received totally negative input and took it to heart..... you rejected a find that can certainly have some validity --- solely on the word of some people that do NOT know everything..... trust me, they don't. So many people have been "put off" of their finds and tossed them on the heap, just because of grumpy know it alls that DON'T know it all.
i think that's such a big disservice..... how many interesting things will never be considered because they were rejected by the "authorities" SAD. And unnecessary. what "they" say isn't gospel.... it's just THEIR opinion. Let's fully consider everything before rejecting same. Let's admit that you can't be dead certain when judging from a photo or two of dubious quality / clarity. Give everyone and everything a chance. At least leave the thought out there that "i could be wrong, it's just my opinion." And that was my point : don't shut anyone down..... and don't shut anyone out. PS as noted, i do have around 6 of these items that look remarkably like yours..... while they are NOT pierced, i notice that a fair # have clear "divots".....obvious and created marks...... yes, in the same spot as yours. what do it all mean ? not sure..... but that's what we can do here..... exchange information and ideas...... but not be negative and turn people away.

I know that on several occasions I have made an effort to explain how these differences and misunderstandings occur on this forum, and all the Native artifact forums. And it is entirely due to human nature. Sometimes a newcomer will be greeted with sarcastic/unfriendly comments. Right off the bat. They should not, of course. That they do results from the very real human reaction of impatience. If an experienced collector sees "still another rock" for the umpteenth time, they may react impatiently. Human nature. The problem with that, and the reason to avoid it, is that, if the newcomer has absolutely no knowledge that "just rocks" have been posted hundreds of times before, that newcomer will have no idea whatsoever why people are responding with jokes or sarcasm.


At the same time, this forum and all the others has members with a combined experience of hundreds of years collecting artifacts. None of us here know everything. That much we can all agree on. But, when an experienced member knows with certainty that a rock is a rock is a rock, the correct answer is not "I think it's just a rock, but that's only my opinion." The correct answer is some version of "my considerable experience tells me that that is simply a rock, and not an artifact. And you can take that 'opinion' to the bank".


In other words, while it is important to understand that a newcomer should not be treated like a foolish person, it is equally important to convey the truth of the matter when the truth of the matter is known with certainty by said experienced eyes. It can be done without poking fun, but it does not have to be done in such a manner that the newcomer thinks "well, they don't seem certain, so maybe they are mistaken".
To suggest that experienced eyes can never know the answer with certainty is to say experience counts for absolutely nothing. That is simply not the case. If experienced eyes know with certainty, they need not, nor should not, phrase a response that appears to hedge their bets. Newcomers deserve as much respect as anyone. We all deserve respect. But newcomers deserve the truth, when that truth can be politely conveyed to them. We owe something to the truth, do we not? If it can be conveyed, convey it.


For heaven's sake, just because we can agree that none of us know everything, does not, for one second, mean that we do not in fact know with certainty that a rock is just a rock many, many times. And we should convey that fact, with certainty, when certainty is present. Many times, the opinions of experienced collectors are 100% correct. And when that is the case, to convey doubt in our own experienced opinions will only create doubts in the mind of the newcomer, and for no good reason at all.

 

[Arsenal]

and that is the saddest thing, to me...... that you (at first) received totally negative input and took it to heart..... you rejected a find that can certainly have some validity --- solely on the word of some people that do NOT know everything..... trust me, they don't. So many people have been "put off" of their finds and tossed them on the heap, just because of grumpy know it alls that DON'T know it all.
i think that's such a big disservice..... how many interesting things will never be considered because they were rejected by the "authorities" SAD. And unnecessary. what "they" say isn't gospel.... it's just THEIR opinion. Let's fully consider everything before rejecting same. Let's admit that you can't be dead certain when judging from a photo or two of dubious quality / clarity. Give everyone and everything a chance. At least leave the thought out there that "i could be wrong, it's just my opinion." And that was my point : don't shut anyone down..... and don't shut anyone out. PS as noted, i do have around 6 of these items that look remarkably like yours..... while they are NOT pierced, i notice that a fair # have clear "divots".....obvious and created marks...... yes, in the same spot as yours. what do it all mean ? not sure..... but that's what we can do here..... exchange information and ideas...... but not be negative and turn people away.

I have learned who is on here that first and foremost that they could be wrong without seeing/holding something. I also learned to be wary of some posters that are on here so often, you wonder if they ever play in the dirt??

Thank you very much for the comments. They are greatly appreciated.

 

[Arsenal]

I know that on several occasions I have made an effort to explain how these differences and misunderstandings occur on this forum, and all the Native artifact forums. And it is entirely due to human nature. Sometimes a newcomer will be greeted with sarcastic/unfriendly comments. Right off the bat. They should not, of course. That they do results from the very real human reaction of impatience. If an experienced collector sees "still another rock" for the umpteenth time, they may react impatiently. Human nature. The problem with that, and the reason to avoid it, is that, if the newcomer has absolutely no knowledge that "just rocks" have been posted hundreds of times before, that newcomer will have no idea whatsoever why people are responding with jokes or sarcasm.


At the same time, this forum and all the others has members with a combined experience of hundreds of years collecting artifacts. None of us here know everything. That much we can all agree on. But, when an experienced member knows with certainty that a rock is a rock is a rock, the correct answer is not "I think it's just a rock, but that's only my opinion." The correct answer is some version of "my considerable experience tells me that that is simply a rock, and not an artifact. And you can take that 'opinion' to the bank".


In other words, while it is important to understand that a newcomer should not be treated like a foolish person, it is equally important to convey the truth of the matter when the truth of the matter is known with certainty by said experienced eyes. It can be done without poking fun, but it does not have to be done in such a manner that the newcomer thinks "well, they don't seem certain, so maybe they are mistaken".
To suggest that experienced eyes can never know the answer with certainty is to say experience counts for absolutely nothing. That is simply not the case. If experienced eyes know with certainty, they need not, nor should not, phrase a response that appears to hedge their bets. Newcomers deserve as much respect as anyone. We all deserve respect. But newcomers deserve the truth, when that truth can be politely conveyed to them. We owe something to the truth, do we not? If it can be conveyed, convey it.


For heaven's sake, just because we can agree that none of us know everything, does not, for one second, mean that we do not in fact know with certainty that a rock is just a rock many, many times. And we should convey that fact, with certainty, when certainty is present. Many times, the opinions of experienced collectors are 100% correct. And when that is the case, to convey doubt in our own experienced opinions will only create doubts in the mind of the newcomer, and for no good reason at all.

Just to be clear, I think he was put off by the tone and self righteousness which seemed to drive your responses. I was. One other thing, just because someone is "new" to this forum should not categorically place them in the dreaded batch of Newcomer. I bring rocks on here that I find odd, I do not bore people with the nicer pieces just to get a few Likes.

Maybe that is why you address people so curtly?? You think because we may be returning to this board from 8-10 years ago that we are Newcomers to hunting in general. The need to always be right leaves you very little room to learn by being wrong. Maybe you are always right, who knows? All I know is you are an anonymous piece of this anonymous forum and at least weasel1000 addressed me pleasantly with a similarly shared experience. So from my current purview, his opinions and posts are just as important as the guys I know to be real people like Rock or GR.

He makes some great points.

 

[weasel1000]

am i new to this site? yes. Am i "new" in general? no. I will put my intellect and experience up against anybody's. So, no, i don't cherish someone telling me something is wrong when i know it is right.
Also, from a poor photo or two, it is NOT possible to be right all the time about all things or to reach accurate conclusions. I think it might be nice to concede that. I get annoyed too.....for plenty of reasons..... just one is that some people proclaim their expertise, though this is not borne out by their conclusions. I had one "expert" tell me that my pestle can't be a pestle (this is just one instance). Oh really? when it comes from a well known indian site that's yielded many arrow heads and all sorts of other tools.....even though it has every earmark of having been handmade and shows such obvious wear marks that it is actually worn glassy from grinding and holding, etc ? Yeah, sorry if i don't believe in these experts. I think they have big heads and want to discredit other people and other people's things and they have a complete inability to recognize that they can't ALWAYS be right, and are, indeed, pretty often wrong.
"