Lets try and avoid the lock?

[Tdog]

Rocks posted and the holes in them are natural, openings left behind when minerals dissolve or when dead organisms decay. The material that subsequently fills a mold is a cast over time it falls out and holes are left.

This is what I believe.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Indiana_acklac]

This is what I believe.

So some minerals dissolved from either side, at a diagonal angle, and met directly in the middle at a smaller circumference?

Totally makes sense!

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Or, since the darn thing looks like an axe head, has grooves for a shaft, and has a damn blade...

IT'S AN AXE HEAD!

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Wouldn't it be ironic if my inexperience led me to find something amazing? Something 90% of you would have immediately dismissed, or not even noticed. Wouldn't that be something.

(I got more by the way)

 

[Inspector Comet]

So, guys, I'm a newb. I'll be the first to admit.

That said, I'm a smart newb, I'm an educated newb. I'm a newb that does his homework, and does his homework but well.

My other thread? My apologies for coming off like a cockwallet. Yeah, poor taste on my part. (http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/n...se-just-random-rocks-they-something-more.html)

That said: I've done my research, I've done my homework, and I've gained the respect of highly educated individual's in the process. I've gained that respect by engaging in the following. (Be forewarned: I will thoroughly challenge explanations that lack logic or evidence - or worse: both)

If you are going to state that something is "natural" I expect an explanation as to how nature was able to form it along with a comparison to other like-items.

If an item looks like an axe head, has a (crude) blade like an axe head, has a worn spot in the rear where an axe shaft would rest, and last but not least, has inexplicable diagonal holes on either side, that are pre-bored, and meet at a smaller circumference in the center: How do you argue it's not an axe head? How do you argue it is not man-made?

I don't care (and shouldn't care) how much research you've done. How many artifacts you've collected. We're talking logic here. We are constantly, every day, finding out new information in regards to our ancestors. How some of you have lost sight of that fact is beyond me.

Logically speaking: How is this not an axe head? How was this piece naturally formed?

And before the NA guys chime in with their NA knowledge: What I'm finding, and where I'm finding it, doesn't indicate NA.

Please don't take offense at this, because I don't mean any offense. Hear me out. You have asserted a theory about what you've found, and asked for people's input. It seems to me you are genuinely interested in hearing what others have to say about your finds. With that in mind, I offer some humble advice.

I suspect you will get more input if you welcome the experience that others on this site have. Nobody will ever know for sure what your finds are, the best we will ever have is an educated guess. Educated guesses become more accurate the more education goes into the guess, so when you said in your first post, "I don't care... how much research you've done", I think it would be worth reconsidering this position. It sounds like you've done plenty of research and analysis of these finds yourself, and nobody can definitively say you are wrong, because they don't know for sure what these items are. By the same token, you will never be able to definitively prove that the alternative theories posed in this thread are wrong.

All that to say, if you want help, advice, theories, knowledge, and the benefit of the cumulative experience of people on this site, it's not going to help you in your quest for information to "thoroughly challenge" the replies you get, or to disregard the amount of homework the other people on this site have done. I agree that logic is helpful to have. Logically it is not likely that people on this site truly believe that we are not "constantly, every day, finding out new information in regards to our ancestors", even if it may seem that way. Take these conversations with a grain of salt. If you're out to pick a fight, then all of what I just wrote won't matter. If you're looking to learn from others here, I would gently encourage you to consider what others hear have to say. You're allowed to disagree, but challenging other people's responses may not be the best way to encourage more input.

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Please don't take offense at this, because I don't mean any offense. Hear me out. You have asserted a theory about what you've found, and asked for people's input. It seems to me you are genuinely interested in hearing what others have to say about your finds. With that in mind, I offer some humble advice.

I suspect you will get more input if you welcome the experience that others on this site have. Nobody will ever know for sure what your finds are, the best we will ever have is an educated guess. Educated guesses become more accurate the more education goes into the guess, so when you said in your first post, "I don't care... how much research you've done", I think it would be worth reconsidering this position. It sounds like you've done plenty of research and analysis of these finds yourself, and nobody can definitively say you are wrong, because they don't know for sure what these items are. By the same token, you will never be able to definitively prove that the alternative theories posed in this thread are wrong.

All that to say, if you want help, advice, theories, knowledge, and the benefit of the cumulative experience of people on this site, it's not going to help you in your quest for information to "thoroughly challenge" the replies you get, or to disregard the amount of homework the other people on this site have done. I agree that logic is helpful to have. Logically it is not likely that people on this site truly believe that we are not "constantly, every day, finding out new information in regards to our ancestors", even if it may seem that way. Take these conversations with a grain of salt. If you're out to pick a fight, then all of what I just wrote won't matter. If you're looking to learn from others here, I would gently encourage you to consider what others hear have to say. You're allowed to disagree, but challenging other people's responses may not be the best way to encourage more input.

Not out to pick a fight. Excellent post.

I want to learn.

Not only that, I have learned. What I've learned I'm prepared present.

In the end all I'm after is good discussion.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Help should equal "Yes, I've seen this before, please see such and such document and such and such picture"

I don't quite consider "I know what I'm doing, go f yourself" comments to be helpful. I didn't catch that at an Institution, I shouldn't catch it here?

Post by our rules or lose the right to post, no one here said go f your self which violates our rules.

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Post by our rules or lose the right to post, no one here said go f your self which violates our rules.

Edited. My Bad.

Not quite a quote, but sort of the feedback I'm getting.

Look, I trust you guys, I just want to learn more. I want to read articles and stuff.

 

[Baribal]

I'm supposed to write my thesis at the moment but this is way too entertaining.
I've found many rocks in my life that resembled for example tools. Almost none of them were tools. Your piece is a rock.
There are definitely no signs that someone has used this rock as a tool or worked on it.
Compare those two:


One has typical marks on its sides. It has been used as a knife. The other one is just a regular stone resembling the first one.

Regarding your question: No one can tell you how exactly nature formed one specific rock out of billions. Why would you even ask that?
There could've been a river that formed your rock, who knows?
One question:
That rock resembles an elephant. Does that mean it IS an actual elephant?

 

[Indiana_acklac]

I'm supposed to write my thesis at the moment but this is way too entertaining.
I've found many rocks in my life that resembled for example tools. Almost none of them were tools. Your piece is a rock.
There are definitely no signs that someone has used this rock as a tool or worked on it.
Compare those two:
View attachment 1808278
View attachment 1808279
One has typical marks on its sides. It has been used as a knife. The other one is just a regular stone resembling the first one.

Regarding your question: No one can tell you how exactly nature formed one specific rock out of billions. Why would you even ask that?
There could've been a river that formed your rock, who knows?
One question:
That rock resembles an elephant. Does that mean it IS an actual elephant?
View attachment 1808280

So basically what you're saying is this article is full of it, and shouldn't be trusted?

Everybody who's anybody produced tools with the markings you cited, and nothing less. Correct?

https://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/did-denisovans-usher-in-the-stone-age-in-mongolia/

 

[Baribal]

Everybody who's anybody produced tools with the markings you cited, and nothing less. Correct?

My english isn't the best. I'm not quite sure what the question is.

Out of interest regarding my picture. IS that an actual elephant?

 

[Indiana_acklac]

My english isn't the best. I'm not quite sure what the question is.

Out of interest regarding my picture. IS that an actual elephant?

The Elephant is "curious". "I would have to do some further investigation"

What I was trying to say was "Man never created any other forms of tools, other than what you pictured, correct?"


https://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/did-denisovans-usher-in-the-stone-age-in-mongolia/

 

[Baribal]

The Elephant is "curious". "I would have to do some further investigation"

What I was trying to say was "Man never created any other forms of tools, other than what you pictured, correct?"

That's wrong. There were many different forms due to different cultures that developed. Their techniques developed over the time and changed the tools they used.
You can't really compare those cultures and say you've found a rock that resembles for example an arrow head, which was found in Africa. That's why it has to be an arrow head. It doesn't work like this.

 

[DizzyDigger]

Edited. My Bad.

Look, I trust you guys, I just want to learn more. I want to read articles and stuff.

If you really want to learn more, maybe try a college course
or an online group specific to your subject of interest?

​

 

[Baribal]

By the way: As far as I'm informed, the first people came to America around 15.000 years ago. The archaeological finds mentioned in the article you constantly use to prove your rock is a tool are 45.000 - 90.000 years old. They place where they've been found isn't even close to America. There is NO linkage between your rock and this article.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

As Grim Reaper said earlier if you want to learn drive to the artifact show Grim told you about, for $10-$15 entry fee you will learn more in one day than a month of reading books with pictures, attend every show you can get to.

 

[releventchair]

So, guys, I'm a newb. I'll be the first to admit.

That said, I'm a smart newb, I'm an educated newb. I'm a newb that does his homework, and does his homework but well.

My other thread? My apologies for coming off like a cockwallet. Yeah, poor taste on my part. (http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/n...se-just-random-rocks-they-something-more.html)

That said: I've done my research, I've done my homework, and I've gained the respect of highly educated individual's in the process. I've gained that respect by engaging in the following. (Be forewarned: I will thoroughly challenge explanations that lack logic or evidence - or worse: both)

If you are going to state that something is "natural" I expect an explanation as to how nature was able to form it along with a comparison to other like-items.

If an item looks like an axe head, has a (crude) blade like an axe head, has a worn spot in the rear where an axe shaft would rest, and last but not least, has inexplicable diagonal holes on either side, that are pre-bored, and meet at a smaller circumference in the center: How do you argue it's not an axe head? How do you argue it is not man-made?

I don't care (and shouldn't care) how much research you've done. How many artifacts you've collected. We're talking logic here. We are constantly, every day, finding out new information in regards to our ancestors. How some of you have lost sight of that fact is beyond me.

Logically speaking: How is this not an axe head? How was this piece naturally formed?

And before the NA guys chime in with their NA knowledge: What I'm finding, and where I'm finding it, doesn't indicate NA.

Education aside , what practical method of hafting such a potential head exits?
Go ahead and experiment. Learning by testing hypothesis or theory beats speculation any day.

Using cordage through the holes (and lets ignore the holes not reamed smooth or consistently to reduce fraying cordage or creating slop from irregular diameters) how will cordage be used to secure a handle?

We are now faced with a conclusion , the holes don't suit the designed task. Nor does the "groove".

The lithic material is next.
I'm guessing without better testing....But it looks like sedimentary material ,or clay. That ups the odds of the holes being related to decayed sticks or crustations,ect. leaving the holes. Or just inclusions outside of the majority of the original material.

Mostly though , and again I'm not able to deduce the quality from pictures in this instance , if suspicion of it being a mild sedimentary material are accurate , a single whack with a harder stone would break the "axe head".

Would some one work a mild stone in such a manner as prescribed (the drilling in particular) into an axe?

Knowledge in the past was not only hands on ,but likely shared.
The rule of "a cutting tool must be harder than the material being cut" holds as ever true.

If we hafted your piece and whacked a mastodon bone to extract the marrow ,how successful would we be after repeated attempts?
If we wanted a small axe to bonk heads with , would your piece suffice?No it wouldn't due to ergonomics of leverage and flex with the extended "blade".
Tools for such are a short study when you/we wield them and use them.

Yes labor was available when success allowed the leisure of craftsmanship.
But how many axe making hours are expected?
How many holes need to be drilled in ancient manners to realize drilling holes that are not needed sucks?

Then beyond ergonomic balance , is the balance of art meets craftsmanship.
Material choice is included in that.
Basic rude tools of short use function exist , no doubt. Yet the labor spent on them can be deemed conservative. Obvious by looking at examples.
Time spent drilling multiple holes could be spent folding a split over a lithic piece and wrapping below. Multiple times.
Or put in a split limb still growing if time is not a concern.
With less blisters and carpal tunnel....

Or cutting a piece and trimming a branch to create a L shape and lashing to it.
Or , seating a lithics end in a root knot. Ect,Ect...

Feel free to haft your piece and test it. It would add much to it's potential function and qualities.
I can see it not being practical as an axe. Even if only decorative. And it certainly is ungainly in it's means/proportion. (No offense to crude tools.)

 

[danloop]

Indiana_acklac:

Validation is a hands-on process. A photo is not enough information for more than an opinion.

 

[Georgivs]

And before everyone gets all pissy and accuses me of being a troll: What if I actually found something?

It's obvious that you don't really want input from the forum unless they agree with you.

 

[chub]

That said: I've done my research, I've done my homework, and I've gained the respect of highly educated individual's in the process. I've gained that respect

Chub -The End. Its validated. You are right. Its an axe head. Youv'e earnt respect with your knowledge and *find.... It's been *confirmed what more do you want?

(Be forewarned: I will thoroughly challenge explanations that lack logic or evidence - or worse: both)

Chub - you can only challenge this if your knowledge is superior -so there is really no need to ask for further validation

"we know nothing"..."we are learning"....

Perhaps best to speak only for yourself. Personally my mind is blown at times by the accumulated knowledge of members here. From cannon balls to meteorites to the most accurate IDs of the most obscure items.

Lastly - Respect -

All the best

Chub