Serious question for the "experts"

[TheTh3rd]

Why is everyone SO quick to call a possible stone tool artifact "geofacts,natural, river Rock or just weathered stone?" No matter if it fits the description identically everyone will say it's not made by Native Americans simply because you don't find flint or arrowheads. But post that same stone tool with pictures of flakes or points and everyone will say it's man made.

That's like finding an empty McDonald's Big Mac box and saying it's not from McDonald's because the Big Mac wasn't in there.

I know this is true because I've posted pics of "possible artifacts/flakes/worked stone" and was told it's just "naturally chipped"..then I finally found an arrowhead and posted it with a pic of the same "naturally chipped rock" and y'all identified it as a scraper.

With that said please tell me this is a naturally formed stone.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[1320]

First, there are only a small handful of experts that frequent this forum and they are quiet for the most part. Generally, the experts won't chime in (out of kindness) when you post a geofact unless you're being headstrong about it. With that in mind, take the internet opinions with a grain of salt. Having a piece in hand trumps any image you can post and have evaluated here.

Second, I dig for artifacts in rock shelters...only about 1 percent of the "rocks" that come out of them are artifacts. Sure, I see my fair share of pebbles, cobbles and ergonomic looking pieces that are in context with the true artifacts but that doesn't make them artifacts. Sometimes, the McDonalds Box just isn't from McDonalds. Granted, I haven't seen the piece in your images but, judging by the pictures, if I found it laying next to an arrowhead, it would get tossed out.

P.S. I'm not one of the experts.

 

[gollum]

I am not an expert in Native Artifacts, I have a lot of experience in other areas of treasure hunting that apply here.

When I first started posting here in about 2006, I would chime in on almost every Jesuit/Spanish symbol/marker/monument posted. Nobody wants to hear that what they think is a Jesuit Treasure Marker is only a cracked rock. I have had people cyberstalk me arguing that they know it is a Jesuit Treasure Symbol. I stopped commenting on almost everything iffy. I am brutally honest in my evaluations of possible monuments/symbols/markers. Most people don't want that. They want someone knowledgeable to reinforce what they already believe. They don't want the truth........THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! HAHAHA But I have tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of pictures of interesting rock formations, carvings, etc etc etc. 95% of them are pareidolia. Of the remaining 5%, 95% of them are only markers for trails or water sources. Maybe 5% of %5 of all the markers/monuments out there have anything to do with treasure.

When you are asking for opinions in an online forum, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! If you want an accurate opinion from a professional, then take what you found to a Sotheby's or Christie's Auction House, and have one of their experts evaluate it for you. But it will cost you. Although, most experts won't lend their name (or professional credibility) to any artifact they aren't certain of the provenance of. It would be professional suicide for a Paleontologist or an Archaeologist to attach their name to an artifact that may be illegally removed from a site.

Best of luck - Mike

 

[choo]

Hi I think you have a roller pestle there a very nice one!

 

[1320]

Hi I think you have a roller pestle there a very nice one!

It very well could be a pestle.

 

[TheTh3rd]

Thank yall for the honest answers!

1320, when you said "judging by the pictures you would've tossed it" what are you referring to? Pics from my previous threads? Sorry lol just not understanding

 

[1320]

Thank yall for the honest answers!

1320, when you said "judging by the pictures you would've tossed it" what are you referring to? Pics from my previous threads? Sorry lol just not understanding

This is the only post of yours that I've viewed.

 

[Cachefind09]

I do believe that you have something there with that find, even though some might think that it is a naturally weathered rock. Does the ends have a different surface texture than the rest of the piece? Some hunters are just a little too quick to judge a find or just more particular about what's called an artifact and what isn't. Someone might call that one a natural stone but put something like a groove on it and it becomes an authentic piece. I think it just depends on the amount of man made evidence that is present on a stone that convinces someone that it is authentic or not.

 

[Rege-PA]

These are my own criteria. An artifact must be something that is altered either by use or intention to serve some specific purpose. I may not know its purpose but if it shows grinding, flaking, carving or some man made alteration I would consider it an artifact. A round rock found on a site with none of the above is just a round rock, was it used for something? Maybe but without some evidence of alteration, I can`t bring it out of the realm of conjecture, maybe it was a boiling stone or a teepee weight, but I have no proof of such unless excavated from a similar pile or found in a ring. Hope these suggestions help.

 

[releventchair]

Why is everyone SO quick to call a possible stone tool artifact "geofacts,natural, river Rock or just weathered stone?" No matter if it fits the description identically everyone will say it's not made by Native Americans simply because you don't find flint or arrowheads. But post that same stone tool with pictures of flakes or points and everyone will say it's man made.

That's like finding an empty McDonald's Big Mac box and saying it's not from McDonald's because the Big Mac wasn't in there.

I know this is true because I've posted pics of "possible artifacts/flakes/worked stone" and was told it's just "naturally chipped"..then I finally found an arrowhead and posted it with a pic of the same "naturally chipped rock" and y'all identified it as a scraper.

With that said please tell me this is a naturally formed stone.
View attachment 1287307
View attachment 1287308
View attachment 1287310

Firstly every one is not quick to call any thing any thing. Eyes roll when a tumbled "artifact" gets defended as something it is not, a comment is not made if another poster has answered as to what it is ...unless , and rarely contested by another poster.
Postings with no context another fun one, despite some obvious type frost cracks or cliff diving specimens.
.
Find me a buyer for some and I'll post some.

Secondly if you don't want honest opinions ,don't solicit them.

I don't encourage buying or selling , but sometimes wish a poster with an iffy artifact had to price it.
Presented with a hand crafted stone McDonald's box , what about it's age , manufacturer, context in which it was recovered or acquired? We know already what such a box should look like so don't offer a wad of leaves in a squarish bundle caused by blowing under a stump.

 

[justonemore]

Why are some so quick to believe what they have found is an artifact? Don't take this personally, just making an observation. You post pictures of a rock, for us a two dimensional image. That makes identification hard. For you easier, you have it in hand. Does something about it stand out and give you information as to it's use and purpose we don't see? Do you find a lot of rocks/possible artifacts? More than most you see posted by others? A lot more than others post? Are you learning what to look for and what those artifacts should look like?
I looked through many of your posts, most are just rocks. Take the time to go through these forums, other sites, information on the web and get familiar with what an artifact should look like and what it's purpose was. You'll learn that most of the responses weren't so quick and you'll find that you will start getting the responses you want.

 

[BagLady]

I would wash the rock and see if there is a different coloration on one end, that would indicate it was used.
It does look like a nice pestle.

 

[BagLady]

Also, do you know what kind of indians were in your area? Doing some research on that can give you some idea's of where to look, and what type of tools they might have used.

 

[smokeythecat]

If a pestle, there should be a difference in the way the ends look from the side of the rock. They would have used it to bang on stuff, just like a hammer and the ends would have "nibble" marks on them.

 

[stefen]

Any rock that is picked up and thrown or used defensively is therefore a tool, ie. Artifact...Therefore all rocks are artifacts...That's the logic we are dealing with in defense of geofacts, sex rocks, and leverages....

 

[TheTh3rd]

I was on family property less than a mile from Russell Cave. Two trees uprooted and where dug out and removed by a track hoe- leaving roughly a 20ft long wall of dirt about 7-8ft deep. This area was inhabited by paleo indians and Native Americans.

My past threads prove that I had no clue what to look for so I picked up anything that looked "odd". Basically all of my finds have beeN from a natural spring area behind my house aka a lot of rocks. So over time I learned what to look for. Plus this area doesn't have tons of rocks.. It's very different from my spring.

The last 4 on the top row and the 2 chunks on the left were pretty close together. The 3rd and 4th on the top row were parallel to each other in a small clump.

 

[TheTh3rd]

I appreciate all the replies and I'm not taking anything personal so no worries. I'm learning.

These are my own criteria. An artifact must be something that is altered either by use or intention to serve some specific purpose. I may not know its purpose but if it shows grinding, flaking, carving or some man made alteration I would consider it an artifact. A round rock found on a site with none of the above is just a round rock, was it used for something? Maybe but without some evidence of alteration, I can`t bring it out of the realm of conjecture, maybe it was a boiling stone or a teepee weight, but I have no proof of such unless excavated from a similar pile or found in a ring. Hope these suggestions help.

These rocks have been very deep and haven't moved for who knows how long. So to me these look like artifacts. Take it easy on me but my first thought of one on the right was an axe (shape) until I used my finger nail to remove the dirt from the grooves....now I'm thinking sharpening tool And the other 2 Hammer or grinding stones?.....polished grips and areas worn from use??

 

[Ohio_Doug]

Most of your pieces look as if they could be altered by man. Im no expert but they look probable to me. And for the record. There probably isnt a square mile in the United States that a Paleo Indian didnt walk on at some point in pre history.

 

[TheTh3rd]

Any rock that is picked up and thrown or used defensively is therefore a tool, ie. Artifact...Therefore all rocks are artifacts...That's the logic we are dealing with in defense of geofacts, sex rocks, and leverages....

I understand. Trust me I'm not that "everything is an artifact" guy....... anymore......
I only got the ones that looked worked/worm. I truly feel the ones I found have been altered by man in some way, I feel I did everything right.
What is your thought on this one. There aren't many loose rocks or mountains for it to have tumbled and chipped on. I tried to identify the types of rocks around the area before I started and my possible artifacts were different types than the majority of the ones around.

 

[Ohio_Doug]

Thats a rock.