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!

[The Grim Reaper]

Looks like a naturally polished stone to me. Or it could be a Gastrolith, but I'm sure it's not been altered by man.

 

[quito]

Nice!
Field or creek find?

 

[arrow86]

Some nice polish on it

 

[tnmudman]

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.

 

[Jon Stewart]

I agree with Reaper.

 

[quito]

Good to see you posting again Jon!!

 

[Ponchosportal]

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

 

[Charl]

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.

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.

 

[quito]

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

One location has far more potential than the other.

 

[mainejman]

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

 

[Gaspipe]

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

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.

 

[mainejman]

Can't disagree and won't...my point is that there are things that show up on sites that can't be regarded as just random rocks.Archeolgists find things in sites that they don't believe are random and either do I..mjm

 

[quito]

The way I see this piece, if it were found on a gravel bar or in a creek, it could likely been water worn and polished. I wouldn't think artifact.

If it were found on a known site and where it was likely not deposited by any flooding after the big one, laying in dirt doesn't really bring things or keep things to a high polish. And it Might be what is suspected.

It's about impossible to call this an artifact based on what we know. Maybe rock will break his silence and fill us in a little more?

 

[The Grim Reaper]

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.

 

[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...