✅ SOLVED Ancient iron? Unlikely. So then what the heck is this?

[Wandermore91]

To my surprise I found this in a creek. I’m completely puzzled as to what it is. Please do not tell me that it is a natural rock, or that it is not in your handbook so it isn’t an artifact. It may be unfinished, and unclassified, but it’s clearly modified for a purpose and I am racking my brain trying to figure out what that could’ve been. Has anyone seen a stone piece anything quite like this before? A google search failed me. That’s when I know I’ve got something quite good. This piece was clearly worked over for a long time. The grooved edge goes completely around the top and this stone was intricately flared, angled and narrowed perplexingly enough into a shape, well... like an iron! 🤔






Large and heavy


May be unfinished in back but it is very interesting like this as you can see the natural texture of the stone contrasted against the worked stone

Underside

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[1320]

So you see it too. In fact I dug an oblong flat but curved stone out of the bank of the river by these three items which appeared to be some kind of mortar but it was not smooth, the surface matched these rocks. Perhaps that was significant and I should’ve grabbed it, too. I’ll go back.

The cracking nuts comment....you didn't see that as sarcastic?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

Why in the world would you come to a site, as a self described "newbie", and where there is hundreds of years of combined experience, and insist on bending us to your will? How very, very silly of you. You just have a great deal to learn. That is not our fault. You show how naive and newbie you are by even thinking we all bury ourselves in our books to determine if your rocks are artifacts, or that we should use our imagination, when using one's imagination has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with recognizing artifacts!

One, I suggest you visit the Robbins Museum of Archaeology, run by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, in Middleborough, Ma. to see the complete range of artifact classes known from New England. See hundreds, thousands of genuine artifacts from local collections. Learn to recognize artifacts from geofacts. Would you start medical school by saying, "hey, I got brain surgery down pat, can I skip the classes"?

Two, there are in fact two superb publications dealing with artifacts and classes of artifacts from the New England region. Both available from the Massachusetts Archaeological Society(MAS):

A Handbook of Indian Artifacts from Southern New England - Massachusetts Archaeological Society / Robbins Museum of Archaeology

And this most recent point typology guide, by my dear late friend Jeff Boudreau is pricy but perhaps the finest typology guide in print today:

A New England Typology of Native American Projectile Points Exp.

Frankly, you are making a fool of yourself, and all because you think you somehow know better then people with hundreds of years of combined experience, all while describing yourself as a newbie. SMH!

 

[Charl]

I am open to all of your opinions and I appreciate them much more than a sarcastic or quick dismissal comment that doesn’t really offer me anything so thank you everybody who has chimed in. I especially appreciate that you took the time to draw this diagram which is something that I did not consider but makes a lot of sense. However, I found this rock laying sideways which I know does not mean that it was always in that position but it was among two other rocks of the same texture which appeared to be rough but possible axe heads. In the case this rock was actually eroded like that by the water wouldn’t the bottom be left preserved and smooth in its original texture like the pieces on the backside of it? Being under the mud I would think it would be protected from the rush of the water. The bottom of this stone is raw just like the front and sides of it. Another issue I have with accepting this explanation is that the remaining surface of the stone that did not chip off either by erosion or water is not smooth edged. Would such strong erosion like that not smooth the entire stone like any river rock? I know it is not a smooth texture but why does this mean that it wasn’t created, maybe it just wasn’t a tool they used much friction on. I will show you a closer photo of the texture and of the other two rocks of very similar texture. One of them was on the bank of the creek where it was not exposed to water. Yet has the same exact look. I’m not trying to be fresh and I know I may sound stubborn, but I would like to explore all of the possibilities before accepting a no answer. I am very open to learning and that is what I am hoping to do here. You have already taught me a few things in the few short days I have been on the forum and for that I’m grateful. Please check out the next set of photos. If it doesn’t make you say “hmm” or reconsider even slightly then I’ll rest my case. Thank you!


View attachment 1554137
View attachment 1554138
If this was all work of erosion and rushing water would it actually have remained that rough? The creek it was in is only a few inches deep and a few inches wide. Although the water was quick moving shallow banks tell me it couldn’t get all that deep.

View attachment 1554139
Is this the work of water as well? Is there no chance those could be pecking marks? The ridge?

View attachment 1554141
View attachment 1554142
View attachment 1554143
I might go really crazy and present the idea that maybe these were intended to be hafted
View attachment 1554144
View attachment 1554145
View attachment 1554146
View attachment 1554147
View attachment 1554148
View attachment 1554149
All found together.

Lol! These are rocks, for heaven's sake. You are not yet at the point of learning to distinguish geofacts or rocks from artifacts. Take your rocks to the Robbins Museum of Archaeology in Middleboro, Ma., and try convincing them with your reasoning! SMH....

 

[Charl]

Here is another mistake you are making. It's one that is not your fault. Or ours. Explaining why a rock is not an artifact can be extremely difficult to do in a virtual venue. Just using myself as an example, the best way to educate you is face to face. Where we can hand the rock back and forth. Where I can show you rocks displaying pecking, displaying grinding, etc. Where I can hold your rock in hand and explain what differential weathering is, and how it occurs. None of this can be easily done in an online venue. It needs to be done in person.


The folks at the Robbins Museum would be happy to help you. They are open on Wed. and Sat. Maybe you're a long ride from them, but if you want an actual, live, hands on education as to why your rocks are rocks, gather the ones you favor the most, make the drive, and show them. Expecting this to be done online, where none of us can hand the rocks back and forth, and explain your errors to you, is, I'm sorry, but sometimes expecting way too much.


Unless you can meet a mentor, who can take you to sites and show you how to find and recognize, it's going to be a pull yourself up by the bootstraps operation. As it is/was for most of us. In your first thread on this site, you demonstrated you were able to recognize both quartz and argillite bifaces. That sure seems like a good start to me. Many times, it takes newbies a long time just to do that. Good luck and try to resist bending us to your will when we know you are mistaken. Bring your rocks to the Robbins. They will try to educate you in person.

There, I've tried my absolute best to describe the difficulties in understanding and imparting education in the limited format of the internet....

 

[newnan man]

Really there is zero evidence of anything being man altered on that rock. It is unusual looking but then again so am I!

 

[IAMZIM]

I am open to all of your opinions and I appreciate them much more than a sarcastic or quick dismissal comment that doesn’t really offer me anything so thank you everybody who has chimed in. I especially appreciate that you took the time to draw this diagram which is something that I did not consider but makes a lot of sense. However, I found this rock laying sideways which I know does not mean that it was always in that position but it was among two other rocks of the same texture which appeared to be rough but possible axe heads. In the case this rock was actually eroded like that by the water wouldn’t the bottom be left preserved and smooth in its original texture like the pieces on the backside of it? Being under the mud I would think it would be protected from the rush of the water. The bottom of this stone is raw just like the front and sides of it. Another issue I have with accepting this explanation is that the remaining surface of the stone that did not chip off either by erosion or water is not smooth edged. Would such strong erosion like that not smooth the entire stone like any river rock? I know it is not a smooth texture but why does this mean that it wasn’t created, maybe it just wasn’t a tool they used much friction on. I will show you a closer photo of the texture and of the other two rocks of very similar texture. One of them was on the bank of the creek where it was not exposed to water. Yet has the same exact look. I’m not trying to be fresh and I know I may sound stubborn, but I would like to explore all of the possibilities before accepting a no answer. I am very open to learning and that is what I am hoping to do here. You have already taught me a few things in the few short days I have been on the forum and for that I’m grateful. Please check out the next set of photos. If it doesn’t make you say “hmm” or reconsider even slightly then I’ll rest my case. Thank you!


View attachment 1554137
View attachment 1554138
If this was all work of erosion and rushing water would it actually have remained that rough? The creek it was in is only a few inches deep and a few inches wide. Although the water was quick moving shallow banks tell me it couldn’t get all that deep.

View attachment 1554139
Is this the work of water as well? Is there no chance those could be pecking marks? The ridge?

View attachment 1554141
View attachment 1554142
View attachment 1554143
I might go really crazy and present the idea that maybe these were intended to be hafted
View attachment 1554144
View attachment 1554145
View attachment 1554146
View attachment 1554147
View attachment 1554148
View attachment 1554149
All found together.

I will be honest and frank with you, although I collect artifacts myself, I am no expert. However, I have been involved in mining and mineral collecting for 35 years and I am very, very familiar with many types of stone. I am only telling you what I see. Where I live and dig for minerals, is in the Boulder Batholith in Montana, which is made of the same type of granite that your stone appears to me to be. Here, we have house sized boulders in any shape you can think of, and many are slick, smooth, and polished on one side from just the wind, and rough on the other side. I can't speak on the "pecking" your stone might have, but to my eye, I just don't see it, but that could be because I can't see the rock in person. Pics can be tough! We have again, house sized boulders here, and many of them actually have names because of the crazy shapes that they have naturally eroded out of. One rock is called Moby Dick, because it is shaped like the white whale from the story, tail and all, but it was not carved that way by any man. There are rocks here like mushrooms, one that looks like a buffalo, all kinds of shapes. You will have to decide for yourself what to do with the information I give you! Just know I am trying to help with my experience in rock and minerals, and letting you know that with granite, that shape of the rock you posted looks to me like natural erosion. No ill will toward you! I can tell you have a scrutinizing eye, and whether or not it is an artifact, you will in the future be able to find one!

 

[quito]

I agree with the majority as well, except for some charl pointed out, these are all natural.

 

[Kray Gelder]

Don't be angry at me, but this is what I see with your rock, which to my eye appears to be a Mozanite Granite. View attachment 1554060 You will need to click the image to read it. It's not that great a drawing, I know, I'm much better with a pencil than the paint program on the computer! I truly believe your rock is completely, naturally eroded.

Iamzim, that is truly an outstanding illustration, and must have taken a bit of your valuable time. It demonstrates in understandable terms how that mystery rock was likely formed. Very nice job, and generous of you.

 

[Wandermore91]

The cracking nuts comment....you didn't see that as sarcastic?

No. Not good at detecting sarcasm over the internet. Didn’t seem all that far fetched either. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Wandermore91]

Here is another mistake you are making. It's one that is not your fault. Or ours. Explaining why a rock is not an artifact can be extremely difficult to do in a virtual venue. Just using myself as an example, the best way to educate you is face to face. Where we can hand the rock back and forth. Where I can show you rocks displaying pecking, displaying grinding, etc. Where I can hold your rock in hand and explain what differential weathering is, and how it occurs. None of this can be easily done in an online venue. It needs to be done in person.


The folks at the Robbins Museum would be happy to help you. They are open on Wed. and Sat. Maybe you're a long ride from them, but if you want an actual, live, hands on education as to why your rocks are rocks, gather the ones you favor the most, make the drive, and show them. Expecting this to be done online, where none of us can hand the rocks back and forth, and explain your errors to you, is, I'm sorry, but sometimes expecting way too much.


Unless you can meet a mentor, who can take you to sites and show you how to find and recognize, it's going to be a pull yourself up by the bootstraps operation. As it is/was for most of us. In your first thread on this site, you demonstrated you were able to recognize both quartz and argillite bifaces. That sure seems like a good start to me. Many times, it takes newbies a long time just to do that. Good luck and try to resist bending us to your will when we know you are mistaken. Bring your rocks to the Robbins. They will try to educate you in person.

There, I've tried my absolute best to describe the difficulties in understanding and imparting education in the limited format of the internet....

Yes I have heard of Robbins from a few people before you, and it is definitely somewhere I would like to visit. I will try to get up there one of these days. I agree with what you are saying, and I wish there wasn’t the virtual/educational boundary but consulting a site like this one I figured would be my second best option. Thank you.

 

[Wandermore91]

Oops see next post

 

[Wandermore91]

Iamzim, that is truly an outstanding illustration, and must have taken a bit of your valuable time. It demonstrates in understandable terms how that mystery rock was likely formed. Very nice job, and generous of you.

Yes that is a fascinating and well thought out illustration, I absolutely agree and I admit I keep looking to it because I find it so interesting. I am clearly outnumbered and outsmarted here so I will stop pressing the issue. I am also only 26 so I understand I have quite a lack of experience compared to a lot , if not all of you. Unfortunately stubborn is my middle name! I do want to ask you guys a few more questions about these rocks if I may. You say I need to learn, so I’m attempting it.

How come we don’t see more rocks shaped like this in more rivers and streams if this is a (very common) stone’s natural erosion pattern? One of you said you have seen this before but I never have. Granted I have not been to too many places, but still. Having grown up in the woods of New England I have seen and physically gone into a great many rivers and streams and this is the first rock I have ever seen in my life quite like this one. Am I naive to feel it is weird that this isn’t a more common sight if you guys are all correct about it? How come I’ve never seen rocks shaped anything like this even in big rivers with much faster and more powerful currents? This little creek is nothing compared to a wide roaring river, yet when I visit places like New Hampshire and see the rivers descending steep mountainsides most of the rocks appear normal and in somewhat “ordinary” shapes, almost unfazed compared to this. I am just wondering why this particular rock in this small scale calm and shallow backwoods creek would be the only one that eroded in this strange and very malleable fashion. Something else I feel I have to add is that this creek feeds off a small pond. The water level fluctuates constantly depending on rainfall and season. Wouldn’t consistent erosion like this depend on consistent water levels? Wouldn’t there be indications of where the water levels dropped to instead of a uniform indentation at only one height on the stone?




But where are all the wedges there? Why just here?


Of course since I am so darned stubborn, as I have effectively demonstrated to you all, my natural instinct is to go back to where I found this. I now want to examine the other rocks in this creek. I want to find rocks that I know for a fact are nothing and look at the texture of them and compare them. If I find the same type of stone and do this, and this particular one is truly nothing, then it should share similar characteristics with the rest, correct? I know you are all firm in your beliefs as I was, but could doing this possibly prove anything or reveal more information? I walked that creek for probably over a mile and did not see anything else like these rocks that is just why I grabbed them. And maybe rocks is all they are, but I feel that I should return to investigate my surroundings more thoroughly than I did that day.

My final stubborn question is this: User Charl took the most time on my first post to respond (Props, Charl[emoji106]🏼), citing a lot of helpful information on the stones I found that are undoubtedly artifacts. He said that one of my fishing weights dates back to the Early Archaic period. Are Native American stone tools harder to identify the further back they date? Were they created more “roughly” and did they not appear as complete as tools in the later years? This question is completely out of curiosity. Maybe though, in the back of my mind, I’m wondering if there is the slightest chance that these may just be something very very old, perhaps Archaic? ......Lol. Thanks again everybody! [emoji8]

 

[arrow86]

Short answer to older artifacts being harder to ID is no, in my opinion the most beautiful artifacts found are Paleo which is the oldest and most of the archaic points I have found are unmistakable with some of the nicest flaking you will see. Some of the ugliest or crudest points I have are woodland period which isn’t very old in relation to the others
I have several larger rocks that when I found them a long time ago I was on cloud 9 telling people I found something amazing looking back now they were nothing but it takes a long time to know for sure and having a place like this site helps the process if you take the good advice offered. Now every time I let my dog out I walk past them in the garden and say “what the hell was I thinking “ but that’s what living and learning is all about. More than anything have fun while your out there looking ,good luck

 

[Charl]

Yes that is a fascinating and well thought out illustration, I absolutely agree and I admit I keep looking to it because I find it so interesting. I am clearly outnumbered and outsmarted here so I will stop pressing the issue. I am also only 26 so I understand I have quite a lack of experience compared to a lot , if not all of you. Unfortunately stubborn is my middle name! I do want to ask you guys a few more questions about these rocks if I may. You say I need to learn, so I’m attempting it.

How come we don’t see more rocks shaped like this in more rivers and streams if this is a (very common) stone’s natural erosion pattern? One of you said you have seen this before but I never have. Granted I have not been to too many places, but still. Having grown up in the woods of New England I have seen and physically gone into a great many rivers and streams and this is the first rock I have ever seen in my life quite like this one. Am I naive to feel it is weird that this isn’t a more common sight if you guys are all correct about it? How come I’ve never seen rocks shaped anything like this even in big rivers with much faster and more powerful currents? This little creek is nothing compared to a wide roaring river, yet when I visit places like New Hampshire and see the rivers descending steep mountainsides most of the rocks appear normal and in somewhat “ordinary” shapes, almost unfazed compared to this. I am just wondering why this particular rock in this small scale calm and shallow backwoods creek would be the only one that eroded in this strange and very malleable fashion. Something else I feel I have to add is that this creek feeds off a small pond. The water level fluctuates constantly depending on rainfall and season. Wouldn’t consistent erosion like this depend on consistent water levels? Wouldn’t there be indications of where the water levels dropped to instead of a uniform indentation at only one height on the stone?


View attachment 1554755

But where are all the wedges there? Why just here?


Of course since I am so darned stubborn, as I have effectively demonstrated to you all, my natural instinct is to go back to where I found this. I now want to examine the other rocks in this creek. I want to find rocks that I know for a fact are nothing and look at the texture of them and compare them. If I find the same type of stone and do this, and this particular one is truly nothing, then it should share similar characteristics with the rest, correct? I know you are all firm in your beliefs as I was, but could doing this possibly prove anything or reveal more information? I walked that creek for probably over a mile and did not see anything else like these rocks that is just why I grabbed them. And maybe rocks is all they are, but I feel that I should return to investigate my surroundings more thoroughly than I did that day.

My final stubborn question is this: User Charl took the most time on my first post to respond (Props, Charl[emoji106]🏼), citing a lot of helpful information on the stones I found that are undoubtedly artifacts. He said that one of my fishing weights dates back to the Early Archaic period. Are Native American stone tools harder to identify the further back they date? Were they created more “roughly” and did they not appear as complete as tools in the later years? This question is completely out of curiosity. Maybe though, in the back of my mind, I’m wondering if there is the slightest chance that these may just be something very very old, perhaps Archaic? ......Lol. Thanks again everybody! [emoji8]

Addressing the last paragraph, grooved weights are dated by the MAS as Early through Late Archaic, so your weights are likely within that entire range, not necessarily at the earliest end of the range.

I do believe, if you truly stick with the hobby, that you're bound to get to the point arrow86 was describing, namely finding yourself saying "God, what in the world was I thinking when I was so certain those rocks were actually artifacts"?

The learning curve varies with the individual. Take my wife for example. She's been surface hunting with me for near 30 years. One day, I thought I'd "teach" her how to do it. I'd show her a particular lithic. She'd walk a field and come back with half a pound of exactly that lithic. I'm like "how the hell did you make it look that easy?!" Another type of lithic. Same result. Within a week, it was obvious the student was a whole lot better then the so-called teacher had ever been.


She got a reputation. Friend saw her out in one of the fields one day, ran over and rubbed her head. "Just hoping some of the luck you have will rub off on me!" Lol. Even I was getting pissed at times, even though all the stuff found was winding up in the same home. Walked into a field once together. Not 10 seconds in, comes "Oh, look what I found!" I say "for God's sake, could you at least give me a fighting chance?! We just got here!" Another time, we're in a huge field with an old timer I greatly admired. Dean of artifact hunters in southern New England. Last of his family of collectors. His dad donated 50,000 relics to what became the Robbins Museum. He himself once drove from NM to Ma, on a motorcycle, in 1945, with a 2 foot stone statue he had found in a canyon strapped to his back! Yeah, I looked up to old Earl, lol.


So, here we are walking over to where Earl is in the field, her with half a dozen, me with zilch. "Here, give me a couple of those points. Well, I can't let Earl know a girl can skunk me this bad!!" Lol. Eventually, I pulled myself up to match her skill. Eventually I grew up and realized I was a lucky guy to have such a skilled hunter as a partner in the hunt.

But, in time, I became damn good at what I do. Including developing the ability to recognize even the most minimal alteration of a rock by a human. You develop an eye for the most subtle clues. It takes time, and eventually that knowledge, understanding, and recognition becomes second nature. Ironically, at that point, it can also become more difficult to explain to a beginner, more so in an online format, why a rock is simply a rock. When the recognition becomes second nature, the recognition also becomes near instantaneous, meaning the experienced eye no longer has to go through a long reasoning process in the mind to deduce that a rock is simply a rock. Thus educating a beginner actually becomes more difficult, not less....

 

[Wandermore91]

Short answer to older artifacts being harder to ID is no, in my opinion the most beautiful artifacts found are Paleo which is the oldest and most of the archaic points I have found are unmistakable with some of the nicest flaking you will see. Some of the ugliest or crudest points I have are woodland period which isn’t very old in relation to the others
I have several larger rocks that when I found them a long time ago I was on cloud 9 telling people I found something amazing looking back now they were nothing but it takes a long time to know for sure and having a place like this site helps the process if you take the good advice offered. Now every time I let my dog out I walk past them in the garden and say “what the hell was I thinking “ but that’s what living and learning is all about. More than anything have fun while your out there looking ,good luck

That is very interesting, thank you for answering my question. I love that you said you walk past them in the garden because someday that’s where I’d like to put my rocks as well. Although it is officially nothing now I still find it very cool to look at. It is hard for me to believe my grooved weight is older than the notched weight as it looks so much more cleanly done but it’s good to know that there is no correlation between looks and age. That’s valuable information for me either way and something I wouldn’t have expected but now I know. I appreciate it!

 

[Mine Shaft]

For what its worth Wandermore, i thought i had a bunch of artifacts worked rocks until i went to a expert on the matter that expert was Mary Leakey believe it or not, i was hell bent on thinking i found hundreds of ancient stones never found by anybody else she set me straight lol. Listen to what these members are telling you they know there $hit.

 

[Wandermore91]

For what its worth Wandermore, i thought i had a bunch of artifacts worked rocks until i went to a expert on the matter that expert was Mary Leakey believe it or not, i was hell bent on thinking i found hundreds of ancient stones never found by anybody else she set me straight lol. Listen to what these members are telling you they know there $hit.

Thank you for the advice and thank you for understanding. I feel a bit stupid but I don’t regret asking, you guys are so lucky to have had such amazing mentors, but I am lucky to have met down to earth people like yourselves open to sharing the knowledge. If you check my first post there are a few confirmed artifacts in there. If it wasn’t for finding those I would not be looking at everything so closely now! Opened up a can of worms in my brain, you know? I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you guys lol. You’re awesome!

 

[Wandermore91]

Addressing the last paragraph, grooved weights are dated by the MAS as Early through Late Archaic, so your weights are likely within that entire range, not necessarily at the earliest end of the range.

I do believe, if you truly stick with the hobby, that you're bound to get to the point arrow86 was describing, namely finding yourself saying "God, what in the world was I thinking when I was so certain those rocks were actually artifacts"?

The learning curve varies with the individual. Take my wife for example. She's been surface hunting with me for near 30 years. One day, I thought I'd "teach" her how to do it. I'd show her a particular lithic. She'd walk a field and come back with half a pound of exactly that lithic. I'm like "how the hell did you make it look that easy?!" Another type of lithic. Same result. Within a week, it was obvious the student was a whole lot better then the so-called teacher had ever been.


She got a reputation. Friend saw her out in one of the fields one day, ran over and rubbed her head. "Just hoping some of the luck you have will rub off on me!" Lol. Even I was getting pissed at times, even though all the stuff found was winding up in the same home. Walked into a field once together. Not 10 seconds in, comes "Oh, look what I found!" I say "for God's sake, could you at least give me a fighting chance?! We just got here!" Another time, we're in a huge field with an old timer I greatly admired. Dean of artifact hunters in southern New England. Last of his family of collectors. His dad donated 50,000 relics to what became the Robbins Museum. He himself once drove from NM to Ma, on a motorcycle, in 1945, with a 2 foot stone statue he had found in a canyon strapped to his back! Yeah, I looked up to old Earl, lol.


So, here we are walking over to where Earl is in the field, her with half a dozen, me with zilch. "Here, give me a couple of those points. Well, I can't let Earl know a girl can skunk me this bad!!" Lol. Eventually, I pulled myself up to match her skill. Eventually I grew up and realized I was a lucky guy to have such a skilled hunter as a partner in the hunt.

But, in time, I became damn good at what I do. Including developing the ability to recognize even the most minimal alteration of a rock by a human. You develop an eye for the most subtle clues. It takes time, and eventually that knowledge, understanding, and recognition becomes second nature. Ironically, at that point, it can also become more difficult to explain to a beginner, more so in an online format, why a rock is simply a rock. When the recognition becomes second nature, the recognition also becomes near instantaneous, meaning the experienced eye no longer has to go through a long reasoning process in the mind to deduce that a rock is simply a rock. Thus educating a beginner actually becomes more difficult, not less....

I completely understand what you’re saying, you have to go backwards in your knowledge to try to get where I am coming from. I thank you for doing so regardless of how difficult and aggravating that must be for the sake of expanding a stranger’s knowledge. I realize none of you are obligated to share anything with me over a free forum so I am not taking any of your words for granted!

Those are some amazing stories you’ve shared. I think it’s great that you and your wife are hunting partners. Now that’s romance if you ask me! I have been the one getting my boyfriend out there looking a little. He pretends he’s not into it but I think he secretly is. He just has a lot of catching up to do so far so he’s gotta play it cool lol. Even though we have Native American roots my parents never showed much interest in collecting and don’t own a single artifact (upset with them) so indeed this entire learning experience began only a few months ago, regrettably, but I am just glad it has begun at all. Better late than never right.. My father always loved his rocks but saw them in a different light, his passion is building stone walls. He wouldn’t just throw stones on top of each other he would sit there and chisel for hours and make them fit like a puzzle. Something I truly admire about my dad to this day. As a girl I’d go with him to quarries and help him load up his truck with granite. If I hadn’t been so young I would have recognized those times as prime opportunities to hunt for relics but it wasn’t even a thought then. Anyway, starting to see that his rock obsession could be hereditary!

Back to your wife and Earl- sounds like you got yourself a keeper, some great friends, and a very meaningful collection. The wife is lucky that she gets to see what she is looking for before she goes to look, for me that would help so much. I have a good eye in general, maybe not so much for artifacts, but for things that stand out from the rest. I’ve been browsing the forums a lot lately trying to memorize what I’m looking for and I’m blown away by the things you guys find. I can already see where my finds are pretty ordinary now. I hope you are all right that I have what it takes to come up to your level even if it takes most of my lifetime to get there.

I wanted to share with you a couple more finds that I think could make you proud. I did find myself a quartz point in the creek that day, maybe you could tell me a little more about it. I also have something similar to the fishing weights that I believe could be a rare find. I think it might be a canoe weight, but forgive me if I’m off. I am only speculating this due to its size. I did try to do some research on it and that’s all I was able to come up with. If you know anything I don’t, I’m all ears and I promise not to argue! Lol Thank you so very much, friends! [emoji4]




Broken I believe but I am still thrilled.




This is a strange stone, ordinary in shape but clearly grooved by man. Took me a minute to figure out what was going on here. I figure it is either a large fishing weight or a canoe weight. I am really hoping it’s the latter because I know these are not too common. ( at least I think I know this)

Groove on the front continues about an inch over backside of stone and is then discontinued.


If you look closely you can see the notched edge beneath this stone where the line would’ve wrapped around.



The groove is only about 1/2 in wide.. if that, and not that deep which I find kind of odd given the size and weight of this rock.


My boyfriend keeps yelling at me to find smaller stones [emoji20] haha. I know you can agree that I am actually finding stuff, even if I have much more of nothing than I do of something... but that is what’s making me crazy and think twice about everything I see now!!! [emoji30]

 

[unclemac]

for the most part if an item doesn't have an obvious use or isn't obviously worked...it is natural. this is pretty sure-fire meathod of determining what you have. stone tools made the world over have modern day equivalents that still take the basic forms. yours is just one of many natural stones we see here every day. ancient folk didn't waste time making crude stone forms with no function...nor would you today. in this respect we are not all that different.

 

[Wandermore91]

for the most part if an item doesn't have an obvious use or isn't obviously worked...it is natural. this is pretty sure-fire meathod of determining what you have. stone tools made the world over have modern day equivalents that still take the basic forms. yours is just one of many natural stones we see here every day. ancient folk didn't waste time making crude stone forms with no function...nor would you today. in this respect we are not all that different.

Which stone are you referring to?