Stone artifacts

[cmenokla]

Hi all... there seems to be disagreements on whether or not these are actual artifacts, from which period in time, and the value. I was told to bring them here... that you all know more about these types of items. Thank you for your input and ~Blessings~

 

[Charl]

Perhaps the photos are not the best... all have work marks, drawings, and/or flaking except 2 items. They have been confirmed relics by the university and Cherokee here... hmmmmm

I want to add that we often hear this. Confirmation by a university. I really don't understand what the heck gets into some "university folk". I think, ofttimes, folks go to the Geology Dept., where there are very seldom people who have the necessary experience with actual artifacts. If they instead go to the Anthropology/Archaeology Dept., well, at one level, I am inclined to say "shame on them" if they are that clueless where ordinary rocks are concerned as to tell someone that ordinary rocks are artifacts. Shame on them if that is happening.

Also, newcomers should understand one fundamental fact: experienced collectors, many times with decades of experience, have far more experience handling genuine artifacts then any archaeologist alive. Archaeologists see artifacts during active digs, and in cataloging such dig collections after the fact. Surface hunters, on the other hand, spend FAR MORE TIME hunting and finding and understanding artifacts. That may seem counterintuitive, but it is absolutely true. We experienced surface hunters/artifact collectors actually have scads more experience with Native American artifacts then the professionals do. But, even though that is absolutely true, in general, I would still be astounded and disappointed in any professional archaeologist dealing in prehistoric North America who would tell you or anyone else that these rocks are anything other then rocks showing absolutely no alteration by human hands.

Edit: there is one category of an exception where a professional's experience compared to a surface hunter's experience is concerned: many professionals, I personally know of at least 2, were once surface hunters themselves growing up. It's often what got them interested in archaeology as a living in the first place. But no such professional, familiar with NA artifacts, would tell you these rocks are artifacts. Unless one were really pestering him and saying "nice artifacts, now if you'll excuse me...." struck him/ her as their only option to get someone out of their office. And, needless to say, I'm not saying that is what happened here.

 

[oxbowbarefoot]

The material in your fourth picture is beautiful. Could you take a picture in better lighting? As to the other finds, judging solely from your photos, I have to agree with the other posters here: I believe you have mostly geofacts.

 

[Thunderbolt]

From what I've gathered over the short time I've been a member on this site, those chyming in as "experts" are far from it when one goes beyond arrowheads, etc.. Apologies for anyone taking offense, as I think they genuinely are trying to help but simply are not skilled at imagery identification nor are they able to identify anything that the mainstream has not stamped their approval on. I recommend going elsewhere such as Facebook and Google+, unless you get a kick out of "raising their hackles" here.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

This is the "North American Indian Artifact" forum.... There is a difference between genuine artifacts and imaginary shapes and images formed by nature on rocks... We have a separate rock and mineral forum for them...

 

[quito]

From what I've gathered over the short time I've been a member on this site, those chyming in as "experts" are far from it when one goes beyond arrowheads, etc.. Apologies for anyone taking offense, as I think they genuinely are trying to help but simply are not skilled at imagery identification nor are they able to identify anything that the mainstream has not stamped their approval on. I recommend going elsewhere such as Facebook and Google+, unless you get a kick out of "raising their hackles" here.

Well please chime in and give us some of your expertise. Maybe you can give us a clue on these pieces. You know, tell us what imagery we are missing. Go ahead, one piece at a time, Show us un-enlightened what you see in them rocks.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

From what I've gathered over the short time I've been a member on this site, those chyming in as "experts" are far from it when one goes beyond arrowheads, etc.. Apologies for anyone taking offense, as I think they genuinely are trying to help but simply are not skilled at imagery identification nor are they able to identify anything that the mainstream has not stamped their approval on. I recommend going elsewhere such as Facebook and Google+, unless you get a kick out of "raising their hackles" here.

I have to beg to differ with you sir. I have collected artifacts since I was 6 years and will be 57 in March. I have handled and studied more artifacts than most people will ever see or touch. I put together a collection of artifacts from every state in the United States except Hawaii so I think I have enough experience and knowledge to know a natural rock from an actual artifact.

There are certain things to look for on items that were man made. There will be peck marks on most all Stone Tools unless they are polished completely smooth and even those will show grind marks, have blade edges, or be grooved sometimes. None of his pieces exhibit any of those traits. Ancient Effigies were normally very precise in their depiction of the thing or animal it represented. You don't have to hold it at a certain angle to the light to see it. While small carved stones do exist and some with very elaborate designs like Adena Tablets for example, none exhibit "writing" since there was no written language in North America at that time and none of his stone exhibit any carvings, effigies, or writing on them. They are plain and very common creek stones found anywhere and everywhere in the country.

As Charl posted above, check out his link to one of the best threads I have seen on the subject.

By the way, Facebook is so full of people who are clueless to artifacts it isn't even funny.

And lastly, no offense to you, but would care to point out on these stones the "imagery" we "so called experts" aren't seeing. Thanks.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Well please chime in and give us some of your expertise. Maybe you can give us a clue on these pieces. You know, tell us what imagery we are missing. Go ahead, one piece at a time, Show us un-enlightened what you see in them rocks.

LOL! You posted as I was typing my response.

 

[Wyoming Valley Relics]

Just rocks . I'll give you this, maybe some medicine man collected all them and had them sitting around his tee-pee as totems ,charms , or whatever . but how do you prove that? Natives were all over this continent for at least 10,000 years, all the time picking up, moving , and working rocks. with your logic ever stone we find is an artifact.

 

[tamrock]

I promise you cmenokla you will gain little credibility on your rocks as being native America or Viking created artifacts by anyone who is familiar with such things. You have one core stone and that's where if I were you would go and look for the real stuff. It's not you being a newbie that is gaining the opinion of you being naive. Your argument on these finds, goes without saying your being naive imo. Most of what you have are just natural rocks and I now think you'll never believe that. Keep posting your stuff as I know there are a small few on this site that'll just about sugarcoat anything ya.

 

[autographcollector11]

Hey cmenokla
I am not an expert by any stretch, however it is with about 100% certainty that other than a possible core on #4, these are all naturals. You've got to listen to the guys on this forum. They know what they are talking about. I have learned a ton from them. In fact, you may want to send your contacts at the "university' to this forum-they may learn a thing or two.....
Cheers

 

[sandchip]

I agree. No. 4 and none of the others are artifacts. And although this may raise yet another stink, "friending" archaeologists is not my thing. Although a tiny fraction are pro-collector, the rest will be nice enough to your face to find out what may benefit them, but turn right around and actively lobby for legislation to ban collecting by anyone but the ivory tower professionals.

 

[mcb66]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt
From what I've gathered over the short time I've been a member on this site, those chyming in as "experts" are far from it when one goes beyond arrowheads, etc.. Apologies for anyone taking offense, as I think they genuinely are trying to help but simply are not skilled at imagery identification nor are they able to identify anything that the mainstream has not stamped their approval on. I recommend going elsewhere such as Facebook and Google+, unless you get a kick out of "raising their hackles" here.


I think you misspelled imaginary.

 

[latrans]

You guys are being trolled.

 

[Charl]

You guys are being trolled.

Think so? Because, this is a very common occurrence, and predictable(unfortunately)reaction to the truth, from newcomers, on virtually every single Native American forum on the net, and that has been the case for years. I imagine that does in fact happen, but not always.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Latrans, we consider calling someone a troll and/or accuse them of trolling as an insult and it violates our rules.

 

[rginn]

OK, I'll chime in. The various 'rocks' that cmenokla posted pics of remind me of similar rocks Dr. Lee Woodard claimed were relics of the Ouachita 'Atlantian Era' and Cenis-Assonis Civilization. (Dr. Woodard believed the Heavener Runestone was not Viking, but rather a monument to the explorer La Salle, who he claimed died in the Poteau area rather than down in Texas as history claims.) I thought history was a little weighted against Dr. Woodard and I had a little trouble agreeing with his interpretation of certain rocks as artifacts. I didn't subscribe to his ID's or his theories, but some people did I guess. Maybe that's what this is. He was a nice guy in my correspondence with him so I let him have his opinion and admired him for havin one, however misguided I privately thought it was. One thing I will correct you on, cmenokla, the Cherokee did not inhabit SE Oklahoma. The South Canadian was the southern border of their nation. That area below to the Red River was the Choctaw nation. This was in historic times, and neither tribe was using much stone tools at all. Who ID'd your artifacts for you? I used to know a few folks who could do that when I lived in Oklahoma, but it's probably a whole new crew now.

 

[rginn]

Well, looks like that put the quietus on that for now.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Isn't it funny how people like this come here or other sites such as these, post rocks like this thinking they have found the Holy Grail of American artifacts, and then when they don't hear what they want to hear they just disappear and post them somewhere else hoping someone will eventually agree with them. They will have a hundred people tell them they are natural and not artifacts, but after that one single person agrees with them then that is what they believe.

 

[Jon Phillips]

And....That final destination is the "Portable Rock Art" website folks.

 

[cmenokla]

I ment choctaw...lol. my property boarders quachita national forrest which l find interresting. I recently learned of Dr. Woodard and will research him. Thank you.