Indian Marble II

[Fred250]

I made a 30 second video of my marble in action I think all would like to see. Is there a way I could email it to someone who can operate a computer and post it. Message me your email if your interested in just viewing it and I’ll send it to you. Thanks for looking.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Fred250]

This is probably my lifetime find and can only be appreciated and evaluated with the video. Please have some compassion for the tech deficient.

 

[Fred250]

Coolest thing I’ve seen in a while, your loss.

 

[fyrffytr1]

Can you post it to Youtube and then give us a link?

 

[Fred250]

http://nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/topic/32349-circular-non-river-rock/

 

[Fred250]

This might work video at bottom

 

[Charl]

I was unable to play the video...

 

[ToddsPoint]

It's a rock spinning on a table. Why do you think Indians ever used it? Do you think the Indians had a nice flat table top to spin that "marble" on? It *might* be a hammerstone if we could see it sitting still, close up. My vote is rock, not artifact. Gary

 

[Fred250]

Ok whatever you need to tell yourself. Should I put it back?

 

[Fred250]

Wow I really thought that spoke for itself. Maybe I am nuts?

 

[smokeythecat]

It is not a marble but due to the outside of it, it is very possible it is an indian game ball. I am certainly no expert on these and have never found one, but you might check out the internet for similar items. There are some on ebay also.

 

[Fred250]

I saw one that might be able to do he spinning trick. It has the marks, it’s weighted to a degree that boggles my mind.

 

[Fred250]

I guess I feel the flat surface is implied by the spinning rock, but who knows?

 

[Charl]

I guess I feel the flat surface is implied by the spinning rock, but who knows?

It sounds like you're using logic incorrectly. You seem to be saying that because this rock can spin so nicely on a flat surface, then therefore natives must have had a flat surface upon which to spin it. However, this presupposes that it is a man made artifact, and that natives would want to " play spin" with such a rock, but such an identity as an artifact is in doubt up to this point, nor is there any evidential reason to just assume natives spun such rocks just because you spin such rocks.

Stone balls do exist. But they will show pecking scars over their entire surface, and thus demonstrate they are man made, and not natural. Does your stone demonstrate that evidence? Remember, round rocks, spherical rocks, are certainly not impossible or non existent in nature. Far from it. But, assuming because it spins that there must have been a surface in the prehistoric past that natives could spin it on is a flaw in the use of logic.

 

[Fred250]

I agree it proves nothing, only implies it. I have other things which also imply the same, so for me it has become a likelihood, but I understand the reluctance to jump to such conclusions. One side shows some pretty good pecking, does it not? I remember a story of scientists inferring the existence of butterflies with a long proboscis due to the length needed to pollinate a certain flower, would not this be similar use of logic.
It starts out spinning on its side, then jumps up on its end. If you can find me a
Non-artifact round rock that does that I’d be admittedly shocked and vow never to show my face around here again.



t it.

 

[Charl]

I agree it proves nothing, only implies it. I have other things which also imply the same, so for me it has become a likelihood, but I understand the reluctance to jump to such conclusions. One side shows some pretty good pecking, does it not? I remember a story of scientists inferring the existence of butterflies with a long proboscis due to the length needed to pollinate a certain flower, would not this be similar use of logic.
It starts out spinning on its side, then jumps up on its end. If you can find me a
Non-artifact round rock that does that I’d be admittedly shocked and vow never to show my face around here again.



t it.

Read the description I left in the "biggest game ball" thread. You cannot infer the past based...solely....on the present. Where the usage is concerned, you need actual evidence in a prehistoric context that leaves no doubt as to usage, or you need eye witness accounts from the Conntact period or later describing the usage. You're trying to infer prehistoric usage based solely on your usage of a round stone in the here and now. You need evidence from the past of your theory, that you lack completely. Prove it. If you cannot prove it, it's your opinion with no historic or prehistoric context presented at all to support your opinion.

As to whether it's an artifact or not in this specific instance, bring it to the Robbins so someone with experience can examine it in hand. Can't do that in a virtual venue.

 

[Fred250]

Thanks man I really do value your opinions whether I agreee or not