1st Hard Stone of 2019

[rock]

I found this well polished Game Stone not even a week ago. Its my 1st polished game piece I have ever found. Im dating it by some pottery I found seeing all of the points have been Archaic so far Id say its Late Woodland. Ive done some research on it and havent really came up as a use for it. I get a image of the NA holding a handmade deer skin bag with different colors of game stones in it and each one is a different meaning as one is pulled out of the bag. Maybe for the rights of a hunt as to who goes 1st or something like that. Its a very interesting piece to say the least. Hope you enjoy, rock.
Personal surface find on private property with permission, North Georgia.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[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.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[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!

 

[rock]

Okay Im back the reason I left was due to all of the negative response I was getting. Let me describe the creek for you and yes its a private creek where I am the only person allowed. #1 it is very close to a historical spot but not on that property. This area has very known history. The creek is made up of these types of rocks as I have been looking in it for about 6 months maybe 6 trips total. Schist, Slate, Quartz, Sandstone and creek sediment. No natural flint nodules what so ever. It flows off a small mountain and into the river. I am allowed on the lower end but cant get to the river due to its deeper and very muddy. The section I am allowed on has many gravel bars and can have some deep spots. I believe it is spring fed cause it hardly ever gets low so some place upstream there might be a bigger campsite. The pics I am providing are my best finds from there. I have given some to the owner for her grand kids so not all is shown. Any flint or other material would of had to be brought in due to the flow noway any of these finds could of traveled upstream. Think what you like I have been doing this type of hunt for 7 years I can find them better than most Im good at it. rock

 

[rock]

Thats a cool looking stone. I could see something like that being some type of charmstone. The great plains indians had medicine bags with stuff like that in it. Im not sure the eastern woodland indians did or not. I would guess they probably did too though.

Thanks that is the second person that has said Charm Stone the other is a local hunter.

 

[rock]

I doubt gastrolith for the lack of luster and worm holes. Just an opinion.

Very true statement 1st thing I did was go online and look at them doesnt look anything like it.

 

[rock]

When a hunter knows a site like the back of his/her hand, they will recognize when something "out of place" for their site shows up. And sometimes these are true manuports. As a surface find, it will be a judgement call, and that's why whoever knows the site best is best equipped to make the call. They are not true artifacts, because they were not altered by man, but they were still transported to a camp, for whatever reason. I have found both fossils, and beautiful polished pebbles at sites I know well, which I judge to be manuports. I can't prove it, just my best judgement based on knowing a site well. In this instance, it could be a manuport, and here in New England they are often speculated to be part of a shaman's kit.

Very logical Charlie I can agree with that

 

[rock]

Kinda why I asked where he found it, surface or creek.

One location has far more potential than the other.

The creek is cutting through a site

 

[rock]

Completely agree with this as it has happened to me.When posting these types of finds expect these reactions.They are to be expected under the circumstances.I have things from a site I have been digging for years..Although they show no signs of being worked.They just don't fit in with the usual materials found on the site....I keep them...mjm

Thank you for explaining it so well with examples

 

[rock]

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.

Seeing you are new to this I wont block you yet.

 

[rock]

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

I didnt expect that type of response and wasnt looking for it either. I believe it is an artifact just like I posted in the start.

 

[Jon Stewart]

I hunt sites where you can't take a step without stepping on pottery and pebbles like that. Potter yes , pebbles no. No need to get upset because some don't agree with you. One of my hunting buddies tells me when I find something that is supect,it can be anything I want it to be. I don't get mad, I laugh and toss it.

 

[quito]

Game piece