1st Hard Stone of 2019

[mainejman]

These are two examples that just don't fit in..these were dug up on a site that has yielded hundreds of artifacts and although it is streamside I believe them to be more than rocks..

[Charl]

Bottom line it is very likely not a true”artifact “ . People like me who are new to the hobby appreciate the knowledge. So when a find is posted as artifact those who know should say when it is not. Why sugar coat it? Heck if that’s a relic then any stone on any site where an arrowhead was found could have been used by the arrowhead makers at some point. So I guess any thing found on a site can be considered an artifact if it has the right look. For me if a rock requires a big imagination to say it’s an artifact I don’t take it or want it.

Its an artifact when it can be established it was made by humans( for instance, a projectile point), altered by humans(for instance a pebble with notches created to create a net weight), or if it shows utilization by man(for instance, a rock picked up and used as a hammerstone. Utilized, but not crafted or altered for use as whatever kind of tool, but showing battering to establish it was utilized). Now, when you say it can be called an artifact "if it has the right look", no, you are misunderstanding. It may be a manuport, but not an artifact. Now, in a controlled, professional dig, a manuport may show up in direct association with obvious artifacts, and its status as a true manuport established. But, if found out of context on the surface, it cannot always be known with certainty. But, as I mentioned, the finder, if he or she is very experienced on the site, is in the best position to make a call.

Manuports also include raw materials, such as chunks of graphite or hematite, that were used to produce pigment. For instance, I find chunks of graphite in one field, that show raw material was gouged and dug out of it. I can know with certainty that it is a manuport for that reason. But it's not truly an artifact. It's just raw material, but I can be certain a human transported it to camp to use for the creation of black pigment. I think you are just judging these things too harshly here, due to your lack of experience. If you were hunting a field a long time, and found a big, killer quartz crystal, and had never found such a thing in that field in 20 years of walking it, if you left it, you would likely be the only collector who would. But I don't believe you would. Why? Because crystals were common in shaman's kits. And we know this from the fact that shamans still exist today.

[mainejman]

I expect these had a use just not sure what��

[Charl]

Here are two types of manuports found on sites. The term "magic stone" may be interpreted as somewhat loaded, since anybody could bring an attractive stone back to camp, and not just a shaman. But, the illustration at least shows some typical examples, and the reason why Rock's piece could be a manuport, depending on all the circumstances of his find, and what he knows about his site. Unless found in context, these are judgement calls. I have a few, it does not bother me in the least that I can't prove a thing, it does not hurt me to collect them, on that experienced hunch, and add them to the site assemblage. The other type of manuport is a large graphite paintstone, found by an acquaintance of mine many years ago. Called paintstones for obvious reasons.

[mainejman]

According to Bruce Bourque...water rolled pebbles,most of which were oddly shaped,or quartz banded are common in some cemeteries.Thoughnaturally formed..it is clear that they were purposely included as grave offerings..this may be reaching in this case...

[Gaspipe]

Its an artifact when it can be established it was made by humans( for instance, a projectile point), altered by humans(for instance a pebble with notches created to create a net weight), or if it shows utilization by man(for instance, a rock picked up and used as a hammerstone. Utilized, but not crafted or altered for use as whatever kind of tool, but showing battering to establish it was utilized). Now, when you say it can be called an artifact "if it has the right look", no, you are misunderstanding. It may be a manuport, but not an artifact. Now, in a controlled, professional dig, a manuport may show up in direct association with obvious artifacts, and its status as a true manuport established. But, if found out of context on the surface, it cannot always be known with certainty. But, as I mentioned, the finder, if he or she is very experienced on the site, is in the best position to make a call.

Manuports also include raw materials, such as chunks of graphite or hematite, that were used to produce pigment. For instance, I find chunks of graphite in one field, that show raw material was gouged and dug out of it. I can know with certainty that it is a manuport for that reason. But it's not truly an artifact. It's just raw material, but I can be certain a human transported it to camp to use for the creation of black pigment. I think you are just judging these things too harshly here, due to your lack of experience. If you were hunting a field a long time, and found a big, killer quartz crystal, and had never found such a thing in that field in 20 years of walking it, if you left it, you would likely be the only collector who would. But I don't believe you would. Why? Because crystals were common in shaman's kits. And we know this from the fact that shamans still exist today.

Thanks for the info I truly appreciate it. Having said that if I found a big beautiful quartz crystal I would bring it home because people like my wife would say wow that's a big beautiful crystal .I may sound like I'am being shallow but I look to collect things that people look at in a display and say wow that's a nice arrowhead, or nice hand ax etc etc. Reason is I'am not an archaeologist nor do I want to be one.If I have to explain that's its not just a shiny rock well I am not interested. Bottom line I'am glad to know some experienced collectors have said its just a rock and for me that is good information.

[Fred250]

Thanks for the info I truly appreciate it. Having said that if I found a big beautiful quartz crystal I would bring it home because people like my wife would say wow that's a big beautiful crystal .I may sound like I'am being shallow but I look to collect things that people look at in a display and say wow that's a nice arrowhead, or nice hand ax etc etc. Reason is I'am not an archaeologist nor do I want to be one.If I have to explain that's its not just a shiny rock well I am not interested. Bottom line I'am glad to know some experienced collectors have said its just a rock and for me that is good information.

Sounds honest, not shallow. I am not that interested in typing points or knowing the proper name of every tool. I like the shiny what-the-heck is that stuff, that’s what I come here to see.

[joshuaream]

As is usually the case Charl is spot on in his observations. You need to look at the site as a whole to understand if something is out of place enough to be a curated item or manuport. In my home state of Indiana unworked chunks of Flintridge from Ohio are good examples of manually carried items, glaciers didn’t run backwards and rivers don’t flow that way. I have fields where banded slate is likely just glacial moraine, and sites 90 miles south where every piece of banded slate should be flipped because geologically it has no business being there naturally.

When I used to dig pottery sites I would often find little abnormal pebbles, rocks, fossils, etc. down in the jars. Some likely worked their way in when the pots were buried, but I have no doubt that some were placed in there because the rocks are completely out of place at the site.

[Jeff H]

I find Fossils and odd rocks that just don't fit in with the site material and I too bring them home. I just don't believe they are artifacts and never altered by man, but just like us I'm sure they brought home pieces like this.

Very true. Me and a buddy were excavating a small bluff once and finding some archaic goodies. All of a sudden I hear him burst out laughing and say "Look at this!". He had the most phallic looking rock I had ever seen. Definitely just a natural stone though. No evidence of any work by a human hand. But I am sure the person that found that stone 5,000 years ago probably laughed as much as we did when they found it, and they brought it home with them to show their friends.

[NCPeaches]

It's an awesome piece and a great find!

[The Grim Reaper]

Very true. Me and a buddy were excavating a small bluff once and finding some archaic goodies. All of a sudden I hear him burst out laughing and say "Look at this!". He had the most phallic looking rock I had ever seen. Definitely just a natural stone though. No evidence of any work by a human hand. But I am sure the person that found that stone 5,000 years ago probably laughed as much as we did when they found it, and they brought it home with them to show their friends.

Or to give to the wife when he's gone on a month long hunt.

[arrow86]

Man Rock , who would have thought that stone would spark all this ??

[quito]

Man Rock , who would have thought that stone would spark all this ??

Questionable rocks often do that. I’m not surprised at all.

One site that I hunt has a river running through it. One side is flood plain and the other way to high to see flooding. Most artifacts by far are found on the high side. If I found something like that on the low side I would think likely not anything but a nice rock, take it home and really polish it. Now if I found it out of the flood plain, I would think differently.

There has been a lot of good information, stories and speculation presented, but I’m starting to suspect it was a creek find since rock has remained silent so long.

[Jon Stewart]

Glaciers did funny things with rocks.

[Charl]

Thanks for the info I truly appreciate it. Having said that if I found a big beautiful quartz crystal I would bring it home because people like my wife would say wow that's a big beautiful crystal .I may sound like I'am being shallow but I look to collect things that people look at in a display and say wow that's a nice arrowhead, or nice hand ax etc etc. Reason is I'am not an archaeologist nor do I want to be one.If I have to explain that's its not just a shiny rock well I am not interested. Bottom line I'am glad to know some experienced collectors have said its just a rock and for me that is good information.

Sounds like perfectly good reasoning to me!