Native American stone tools. Better pictures and more finds. Part 2

[Backwoodsbob]

I kind of feel that these should not be posted here unless rock composition and ID of, is asked for. Otherwise it is cluttering up this forum. I really would prefer NOT to see a part 5 of this....JMO.

You are the one who pick this tread, it didn't pick you.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[JasonG]

This is the rocks and gems forum, these are rocks not artifacts...

DT2016

Salt is a mineral but the place to discuss it's relevance to cooking is in a cooking forum. Almost everything non-organic on Earth is a rock or from a rock but that doesn't mean a geology forum is the place to discuss it.

These threads were moved here from elsewhere near as I can tell, they do no belong here and should be moved to the Artifacts forum.

Wether someone believes they are artifacts or not is irrelevant, OP doesn't want to talk about natural rocks, and both the subject and title of the posts are "Artifacts. Further, see this forum rule about disputing people's finds. If people insist on debating OP about wether it is or isn't an Artifact then again, the place for that is the artifact forum.

Please move these to the relevant Artifact forum.

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Well JasonG, that was well put and I agree.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Jason, this is Rock and Mineral Forum, these are rocks they are not artifacts....The rule your discussing is on authenticity of an item, example is an arrowhead that was knapped by a Knapper then being posted as an ancient artifact a painting that is a copy being posted as original or a find was bought, yet posted as a detecting find. Rule has nothing to do with rock being moved by mod to rock forum regardless of the title. Mods move threads all the time that are in the wrong forums.....

 

[Deft Tones]

I've no dog in this fight. Very little knowledge of artifacts beyond a scientific curiosity. Exactly the audience you seek to convince?

So....

The burden of proof always falls upon the claimant. It's not incumbent upon those in disagreement to disprove your claims. You, by making any claim, shoulder the burden of proof to those you wish to convince. Very basic stuff. So get with the program an let's see your verified artifacts, to include, but not limited to, detailed supporting doccuments and research used in determining your conclusion.

Human eyes are unreliable information collection devices...our brains have inbuilt biases....there is no argument against this as the scientific proof is overwhelming. So, your eyes have the same potential properties as any other human eye. You're not special unless everyone else is too.

I'm a student of life...show me your proof. Educate me, and present your evidence to let me formulate my own conclusion based upon what you can present for evidence in support of your claim. I don't know much about this stuff, but I love to learn about science related discoveries.

If your first claim is gut feeling....lol, forget it. Intuition is not good enough.
Or, special eyes are needed.... lmao...you must do better. It sounds foolish and silly because you now need to provide evidence for that claim. Evidence you have special eyes the majority lack...got any? Evidence for this claim?

Be careful of the claims you make, or you may find the edge of the hole you've dug to soon be above eye-level.



Can you do it?

 

[Backwoodsbob]

There needs to be just a north American artifacts. Because they are artifacts. It's only here because it's made of stone. The flint boys can't handle the truth that there is another kind of artifact they know nothing about.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[RGINN]

Without passing any judgement on the pics, this is a very good book for folks interested in prehistoric tools. This group worked in experimental archaeology. They went out and determined what materials would actually work, the proper manufacture of those tools, and the proper use of tools. Hands on field usage. Covers not all, but a whole lot of everyday prehistoric activities. Just gives you a little insight into what something was used for, how it was used, and how to make them if you want to. I don't know if it's still in print, I got my copy about 15 years ago, but it shouldn't be lame as I didn't contribute anything to this book.

 

[Backwoodsbob]

I very seen that one before.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[jamus peek]

Matt, thank you for taking better pictures and re posting them along with some new ones in the other threads. I'm sorry but none of these items you have posted are Native American stone tools. Please don't think that I am being offensive in any way with my reply. Yes, you are correct in thinking that they are different looking rocks than what you normally see in your hunts for Native American artifacts. This is simply the hand of Mother Nature. There are plenty of examples of Native American stone tools in the many threads of the Indian Artifact Forum. Man, I remember going out and collecting these same type of rocks in my early days of hunting. I had at least 10 wheelbarrows full. I wound up making a stone garden out of them in my backyard while I was living down in McAllen, Texas. Those were some fun days. Learned a lot about what I needed to pick up and keep from a couple of old Falcon Lake hunters. Do you have someone in your area that you can hook up with and go out on a few hunts with? In my opinion that is the best way to learn. Also there should be an artifact show every so often, close to your area. That also helps.

I like the way you relay you're opinions. Very mindful of what us newcomers are going through. My input on the logistics here are some of those stones you put in you're wheelbarrows may have been artifacts. The evidence however was way to little for any collector or archeologist to confirm or say with any confidence that they were indeed stone tools. In which the correct opinion based on the research we currently have is they are not. That being stated when you find particulary odd shaped rocks at a known site that differ from rocks outside the site as well as clusters of odd shaped rocks that look like they were stashed it does make you wonder.

Natives were here for 15000 plus years. I am sure we still have a lot to learn. For instance the archeologist I take items to told me all arrowheads were made of lithic material. That to me sounded similar to earlier times when everybody was convinced the world was flat. Logically not every tribe had lithic material to work with all the time. Especially where I am from where tribes traded shells and beads for lithic material. I found 3 non lithic notched arrowhead all in a stash. I am afraid to show him as he made the comment that there was no such thing. All are symmetrically the same. All have a long leg in the back and have a short leg leading to the notch. You can see the tips are broken probably from use as well as two being possibly a sandstone. All found under a large rock with a overhang along with other artifacts. I feel comfortable posting them here because they may end up here anyhow. Do you see the conundrum that I am in or at least think statistically very unlikely that these being found in the same spot along with other artifacts at a site allows the possibility that these are arrowheads.



If a moderator sees this post and thinks they are potentially artifacts you have my permission to move to the artifacts section as what I have posted in the native artifacts section was transferred here in the past.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

New pictures are all natural rocks...




_________________________Tapatalk Signature_________________________

DT2016

 

[weasel1000]

i just wish that the naysayers would precede their statements with "i could be wrong and this is just my opinion" , because, by not doing that, they discourage people. It is very possible that the folks who claim to always be right and who also say that everything under the sun is "just a rock" are wrong !! Don't be discouraged. I personally feel that your things have some validity. And "ps" it's awfully hard to be so "certain" as "they" claim to be since they are not holding the actual item, examining it, viewing it with a magnifier, etc.... I personally think it's pretty brazen to declare things as invalid when the only evidence you have is an iffy photo. Just sayin'. Please don't shut people down and shut them out -- i know for a fact that some of the things on this site are the real mccoy, though they are
referred to as "rocks" by the "experts."

 

[civil_war22]

I have a very nice geofact thread you can post your "artifacts" made by God on..

 

[weasel1000]

we are remaining polite in spite of that. why so hostile it's just a discussion after all. do you know that a good # of you have made a name for yourselves? not a good one. I've heard the opinions of other people who've popped in here and they found the climate so controlling and hostile that they felt driven off. by the very clear attitude (unwarranted) i can see that they're right. sorry, that's just wrong.

 

[civil_war22]

we are remaining polite in spite of that. why so hostile it's just a discussion after all. do you know that a good # of you have made a name for yourselves? not a good one. I've heard the opinions of other people who've popped in here and they found the climate so controlling and hostile that they felt driven off. by the very clear attitude (unwarranted) i can see that they're right. sorry, that's just wrong.

If this climate is so controlling then why do we have so many members that post on a daily basis with real legit finds and not geofacts or finds that you mentally picture as being legit. If someone doesn't like someone opinion when they ask a question or post a thread with pictures saying "what is this" or "look at these Native American artifacts", and they really aren't then you have to accept the fact that people who have done this for decades and know what they are talking about then don't post them on here and just keep collecting a pile of rocks till you find a real artifact. It's very simple. I am always calm, cool, and collective but this arguing over geofacts and keeping the boards tied up over just that is getting tiring. I for one won't be the one arguing nor will I fall for the trick of some newbie trying to ruffle my feathers just to get me banned. Do some research, look for worked pieces that aren't naturally weathered rocks and then present them to the forum so we can congratulate you on a job well done. Thanks for the post.. I need a cigarette now

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

we are remaining polite in spite of that. why so hostile it's just a discussion after all. do you know that a good # of you have made a name for yourselves? not a good one. I've heard the opinions of other people who've popped in here and they found the climate so controlling and hostile that they felt driven off. by the very clear attitude (unwarranted) i can see that they're right. sorry, that's just wrong.

CW wasn't being hostile, he was polite.

We are not going to tell a new artifact hunter their rocks might be an artifact when there are no signs on them being touched by man. Every pointed rock or rock with scratch or scar is not an artifact. It does new artifact hunters no good to encourage them to collect rocks as artifacts.




_________________________Tapatalk Signature_________________________

DT2016

 

[Charl]

I like the way you relay you're opinions. Very mindful of what us newcomers are going through. My input on the logistics here are some of those stones you put in you're wheelbarrows may have been artifacts. The evidence however was way to little for any collector or archeologist to confirm or say with any confidence that they were indeed stone tools. In which the correct opinion based on the research we currently have is they are not. That being stated when you find particulary odd shaped rocks at a known site that differ from rocks outside the site as well as clusters of odd shaped rocks that look like they were stashed it does make you wonder.

Natives were here for 15000 plus years. I am sure we still have a lot to learn. For instance the archeologist I take items to told me all arrowheads were made of lithic material. That to me sounded similar to earlier times when everybody was convinced the world was flat. Logically not every tribe had lithic material to work with all the time. Especially where I am from where tribes traded shells and beads for lithic material. I found 3 non lithic notched arrowhead all in a stash. I am afraid to show him as he made the comment that there was no such thing. All are symmetrically the same. All have a long leg in the back and have a short leg leading to the notch. You can see the tips are broken probably from use as well as two being possibly a sandstone. All found under a large rock with a overhang along with other artifacts. I feel comfortable posting them here because they may end up here anyhow. Do you see the conundrum that I am in or at least think statistically very unlikely that these being found in the same spot along with other artifacts at a site allows the possibility that these are arrowheads.

View attachment 1370716

If a moderator sees this post and thinks they are potentially artifacts you have my permission to move to the artifacts section as what I have posted in the native artifacts section was transferred here in the past.

Excuse me, but the definition of lithic is:

Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.

Since the 3 items you show are in fact stone or rock, they are, by definition, lithic. They are not, as you claim, non-lithic. So you should not fear showing the archaeologist you refer to. I believe he will assure you, however, that they are rocks, not artifacts. Another point to keep in mind is that many weapons were made of bone, not lithics. Bone points, bone harpoons, etc. And the archaeologist will know this if you mention it to him. But, your comment above demonstrates that you did not know the definition of lithic, so I can at least correct that mistaken assumption on your part.

 

[jamus peek]

Excuse me, but the definition of lithic is:

Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.

Since the 3 items you show are in fact stone or rock, they are, by definition, lithic. They are not, as you claim, non-lithic. So you should not fear showing the archaeologist you refer to. I believe he will assure you, however, that they are rocks, not artifacts. Another point to keep in mind is that many weapons were made of bone, not lithics. Bone points, bone harpoons, etc. And the archaeologist will know this if you mention it to him. But, your comment above demonstrates that you did not know the definition of lithic, so I can at least correct that mistaken assumption on your part.

Thanks Charl for clearing that up. I did post them in the right section this time. I am trying to not be so open minded. So basically if they didn't have good rock material they would use bone as bone would be more effective. The arch was on a dig when I called I might of misunderstood he didn't elaborate. Possibly what he said was they wouldn't use that type of lithic material. I also can't flood the artifact forum with geofacts so thanks for looking. Can you see why I thought they maybe arrowheads or is my perception way off?

 

[jamus peek]

we are remaining polite in spite of that. why so hostile it's just a discussion after all. do you know that a good # of you have made a name for yourselves? not a good one. I've heard the opinions of other people who've popped in here and they found the climate so controlling and hostile that they felt driven off. by the very clear attitude (unwarranted) i can see that they're right. sorry, that's just wrong.

The guys and gals here call it how they see it. They are not trying to be mean. Yes it hurts to here the rock you have been staring at for 3 days and fantasizing about is just a rock. Trust me i know. The truth is if you look at the quality items the guys here who are saying "it's just a rock" are posting you can see a huge difference then in what we are posting. Unless you can provide enough evidence to prove you have an artifact you should not post if you don't like to get turned down. This is clear to me now and it's taken more time then i would of liked for me to get it. I'll tell you one thing these guys will take time out of there day to educate people willing to learn and personally i think it is admirable. As far as being rude goes. Well there is rudeness on both sides. I guess this story plays out over and over here and really we are probably lucky to have the items looked at all.

 

[jamus peek]

New pictures are all natural rocks...





_________________________Tapatalk Signature_________________________

DT2016

Thanks for looking Treasure hunter. I was hoping for no Jamus those are arrowheads. LOL! Also geofact forum is better then geology forum. I can see why you moved these threads. There is to much clutter on the Artifact forum.

 

[CRUSADER]

The guys and gals here call it how they see it. They are not trying to be mean. Yes it hurts to here the rock you have been staring at for 3 days and fantasizing about is just a rock. Trust me i know. The truth is if you look at the quality items the guys here who are saying "it's just a rock" are posting you can see a huge difference then in what we are posting. Unless you can provide enough evidence to prove you have an artifact you should not post if you don't like to get turned down. This is clear to me now and it's taken more time then i would of liked for me to get it. I'll tell you one thing these guys will take time out of there day to educate people willing to learn and personally i think it is admirable. As far as being rude goes. Well there is rudeness on both sides. I guess this story plays out over and over here and really we are probably lucky to have the items looked at all.

OK great answer.
I'm blunt & have upset a few on here with my opinions. I say it as I see it, but with a weight of knowledge behind me. Do I get it right all the time, hell no. But I do put my hand up when I've worked out I'm wrong or others point it out. Sometimes we like to joke about these things as well, does it upset people,,, probably. But its much better to laugh it off & move on than stay entrenched & blame those that disagree with you.

However, sometimes in life there is no helping some people, & in which case its better to give up & back off.