A Point, Stone Awl, and a Stone Knife

Shemanese · Jul 12, 2008

I see my finds are not coming across well. I believe it is an early site. Possibly +/- 3000BC. Thinking Laurentian Indians or possibly Lamoka, but I have not found a beveled adze. Or an unknown group. Have ordered 'Archaeology of NY State' by Ritchie, and hope to match things up. Be patient with me as there is not much reference availible. The conical pestles, the mortar, and gouges, are listed in 'Stone Tools of Ohio' by Converse. These are rough stone tools. Very primitive. I also have some stone hand axes I will get pics of eventually. Please have an open mind and bear with me. Thanks

pickaway · Jul 13, 2008

Nice piece bottom 3 pics the rest id say are natural.
keep on lookin...

*Molly* · Jul 13, 2008

pickaway said:
Nice piece bottom 3 pics the rest id say are natural.
keep on lookin...

I agree with Pick, I don't see any Artifacts in any of your posts,except the point, But hey, I'm not expert.
Keep looking, good luck & Welcome, look forward to seeing more posts..

Molly.

Cannonman17 · Jul 13, 2008

I would agree also and would like to add that you really can't attribute artifacts from 3000 years ago to any particular tribe since they were always emerging, diverging, and moving around in general. We only know where the tribes were at the time of contact so when looking at old artifacts we can only attribute them to a known cultural tradition, not tribe.

The Grim Reaper · Jul 13, 2008

I agree with what the others have already stated. I see one artifact in all of your posts and that is the point in the last few pictures of this post. Everything else is just a natural stone. Don't get discouraged though because we all go through that stage when we first start hunting. It seems like everything you pick up looks like it could be an artifact. You wouldn't believe the stuff I was bringing home when I first started hunting.

Shemanese · Jul 13, 2008

Cannonman17--Thank You, you are right of course. I'm just going on the type of tools a culture used. Not trying to apply it to a specific group. Who knows which one? I surely don't. Thanks for input.

*Molly* · Jul 13, 2008

DorkFish said:
I agree with what the others have already stated. I see one artifact in all of your posts and that is the point in the last few pictures of this post. Everything else is just a natural stone. Don't get discouraged though because we all go through that stage when we first start hunting. It seems like everything you pick up looks like it could be an artifact. You wouldn't believe the stuff I was bringing home when I first started hunting.

I brought home some nice ROCKS too. ::)

I laugh about it now, but didn't at the time. >:(

That point looks Archaic,Late maybe. If this is the case, you would see tell-tail signs of workmanship on your Rocks,IF found in the same area. I'm affraid I don't see any such thing. But as I said keep looking, you are doing good, just finding the Archaic point/blade.

Molly. :thumbsup:

Shemanese · Jul 13, 2008

Molly--Thanks--My pics stink. It's no wonder no one sees what I'm referring to. And yes, I'm sure I've picked up rocks too. lol BTW, please see my post under Rough Tools. I tried to match up some Conical Pestles with a book. I'm hoping ppl see the similarity. Thanks

The Grim Reaper · Jul 13, 2008

Shemanese, you say you are from NE Ohio so I found these links to show you what typical NE Ohio artifacts would look like. The first shows some pics of typical artifacts in your area. The second talks about the different cultures that were in your area. If there were Archaic, Hopewell, and Adena in your area then you should finding some very well made tools and points and not the crude pieces you are showing. These cultures were very adept at making some very fine artifacts and I'm sure with a little diligence and patience you will start finding some of them. The third link is to me gallery of pictures of my collection. Take a look at these pics and you will see what typical Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, and Ft Ancient artifacts look like and all of these cultures were right in your area. Good luck and don't get discouraged.

http://www.cmnh.org/site/Researchan...neralAudienceNontechnicall_HistoryNEOhio.aspx

http://www.noaca.org/PREREC.HTML

http://www.dirtbrothers.org/gallery/valentine/

*Molly* · Jul 13, 2008

Sweetheart, your pics don't stink, we've all been through this, it just comes with the hobby. The most important thing is, you are learning, as long as you take in advice from the collector who have been collecting for many many years, you'll learn what's an Artifacts & what's not.
When you are a new collector, its easy to mistake Geofacts/mother natures rocks as Artifacts. The best advice I think is too look for signs of
workmanship, study Artifacts on the sites, this all helps, so don't be disheartened. You are on the right track, the point/blade are good finds,
just go back with an open mind & bring us some more Artifacts/Rocks to look at..
I wish you the best of luck.

Molly.

creekhunter · Jul 14, 2008

Here is a "Rough" Pestle I recovered last winter, from a known site...

And here is a better one from the same site, and they are both Quartz...

They both show obvious signs of the grinding process, you might have one or two there, but it is hard to tell.

Shemanese · Jul 14, 2008

Thanks for the reply creekhunter. It's good to see that these things exist. I also have a quartz one. Thing is, these tools are rough and crude compared to what is normally found in Ohio. It's no wonder they are overlooked. They are not the pecked and finely polished pestles and axes so many are used to seeing.

What kind of site were yours found at? Was it in Ky? Two possibilities re: these are 1. They are what the finely polished pestles and tools evolved from over time and 2. They were used at camps that were not permanent. Why take the time to finely polish a tool when the camp would not be long term? Any creedence to these two thots?

Pics really do not do these tools justice. You have to hold them to see how they were worked to make a comfortable tool. I don't think they liked blisters any more than we do. And there are different sizes and shapes to them. I have many shapes, sizes, and weights. They all show evidence of being worked. There is no 1 size fits all. I would imagine all members, men, women, and children would be using tools to do different jobs. They all had to work to survive. A man sized tool would be too bulky and heavy for a child. And vice versa. It seems they took a stone of the general shape they desired and worked it into the tool they wanted. That would account for the different shapes and sizes.

I believe some of the Pestles did double duty. They had a hammering surface, and if you turn them slightly, they have a grinding surface. Maybe the original multi-tool? As for wear on hand axes, hoes, or choppers, I would think it would depend on how long the tool was used. Used alot, lots of wear, hardly used, little wear or none. I read where some of the Fort Ancient Hoes look like they were never used, no polish at all. It's just that so many of the same type of tools, pestles, choppers, etc. are all found at the same place. I've looked other places and never ran across anything that looked like these. Of course I've been focused on points and it wasn't until I studied Converse's book and found these, that things started coming together.

Again, Thanks for the post as I really didn't want to start doubting myself. I know what I have, at least I think I know what I have

, even if others couldn't see it. I don't blame them at all as the items are unusual. I just know, that all that is, is not known. I will get more of the more obvious ones together and get more pics. My photog skills leave much to be desired as it's hard to show anything sometimes but a 1 dimensional rock. I really wish you lived closer and could see and hold the things I've found. Maybe sometime we can get together.