First Post: Are most of these just random rocks? Or are they something more?

[Indiana_acklac]

So, the reason I'm posting here is this site has helped me out A LOT when it comes to research.

Guys, Admins, I spent a solid hour trying to configure my (photo) submissions such that they would default to hi-res!

The thumbnail pictures are hideous! Is this is a joke!?

At least post a sticky on how to view the hi-res version(s) I originally uploaded!?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kray Gelder]

"Is this a joke"? Yes.

 

[sandchip]

90% of the time, if you have found an artifact, you will know it and will not have to ask, especially on that great a quantity. Welcome to the forum and please understand that there are some very knowledgeable collectors here with hundreds of years of combined experience who are more than glad to help, but will by no means sugar coat the truth. Also remember that every one of us started out the same way to at least some extent.

 

[Charl]

While we're on the subject: How do I link high-res photos in my post? I want to be a part of this forum, but it's going to bother me to no end if I upload Hi-Res photos, only to be immediately judged on pixelated thread thumbnails.

You need to understand, that for highly experienced eyes, your thumbnails are actually sufficient to judge what we are seeing to be rocks unaltered by human hands. And we can click on them to enlarge. You've come to the right place. But, if one comes here with the opinion "I believe these are artifactual, and, if that opinion is disputed, I'm just not doing a good enough job with my photos", you're depriving yourself of the opportunity to learn from experienced collectors. The truth may be that your photos are plenty good enough for experienced hunters and collectors to render good opinions based on, in many cases, decades of experience in distinguishing artifacts from rocks. This is a good place to learn.

 

[Charl]

Whoops, almost forgot this one.

Tell me this doesn't look extremely similar. I mean come on...

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

View attachment 1806810

You're making a comparison with Denisovan material? You have got to be kidding?!

Whatever, Native American pendants will be biconically drilled. Do you know what biconical drilling is? You can research it, and should, because your research is not based on any understanding of Early Man archaeology, any understanding of how Native Americans drilled stone, you're just trying to re-invent things to meet your expectations. You've made up your mind on this, and other items in your presentation. If the answers you receive are not what you expected, and that most certainly seems to be the case, you need to remember it is you who are inexperienced. Why even bother to inquire at all if you are unwilling to acknowledge your lack of experience and learn from those with decades of experience?

So, show us the biconical drilling in your rock.....

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It would help if you dont upload dozens of rocks and ask are they artifacts. 99% of them could have been eliminated and left in creek when first examined, they have no signs of being worked by man at all. Suggestion, 1st mistake new hunters make is how a object fits in their hand.

The ones with holes are called hag Stones and natural.Google them.

Here are a couple picture of hag Stones all natural.

 

[Fred250]

This piece has what I consider a manufactured hole, yet doesn’t appear drilled. I can only assume an inclusion was somehow popped out of it. More than one way to produce a hole is the point.

 

[Indiana_acklac]

You're making a comparison with Denisovan material? You have got to be kidding?!

Whatever, Native American pendants will be biconically drilled. Do you know what biconical drilling is? You can research it, and should, because your research is not based on any understanding of Early Man archaeology, any understanding of how Native Americans drilled stone, you're just trying to re-invent things to meet your expectations. You've made up your mind on this, and other items in your presentation. If the answers you receive are not what you expected, and that most certainly seems to be the case, you need to remember it is you who are inexperienced. Why even bother to inquire at all if you are unwilling to acknowledge your lack of experience and learn from those with decades of experience?

So, show us the biconical drilling in your rock.....

Good good, this is the type of discussion I'm looking for

 

[Indiana_acklac]

90% of the time, if you have found an artifact, you will know it and will not have to ask, especially on that great a quantity.

Is that right...

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Honest to god guys I'm not trying to troll.

My main concern at this point is the following: I bypassed the forums and went straight to the top with a few of my items. Straight to an Institution. Now "they" want pictures of every last thing I've found. "They" have made it rather clear: "They" do not wish to discuss the first thing with me, however, "They" very much want what I have.

I'm just concerned at this point I'm not going to get credit (or even worse, going to get informed) should the items turn out to be historically significant.

This item. This item is man-made. This item strongly resembles a plummet. Please, do not insult my Intelligence and say it is "Naturally Occurring". Bullshit. I'm going to ask you how in the hell nature sculpted it, and argue, again, that it looks almost identical to a plummet.



This item. This item is man-made. Please, do not insult my Intelligence and say it is "Naturally Occurring". Bullshit. I would like an explanation, along with a comparison to other like-items.





Pretty damn convenient, huh?

 

[Indiana_acklac]

At any rate, there are other forums I'm going to go browse. I need to find an (additional) scholarly source of feedback.

If said feedback can be found on this forum, please advise the individuals to view this thread, and send me a private message.

Thanks,

IA

 

[tomclark]

I postulate that the hole is the remains of a fossil worm burrow in fossiliferous limestone/sandstone?. If not a burrow then it's maybe a dissolution hole. A worm burrow could also have originally been "filled" with material that dissolved out. Charl pointed out the discrepancy of the "drilled" hole vs a very obvious one from the shape/work in the hole.

 

[Gaspipe]

I always find it interesting when people post asking for advice, etc and when they receive it ( from multiple sources and people who know) they get all bent out of shape if they don’t like what they hear.

 

[Baribal]

Nice video though!
But what is the point of smashing those two rocks? In what context did people do that and what was the use?
Just keep your eyes open and you'll find plenty of those rocks.

Also your question how nature formed that.
Might be roundish cause it was in a river for a while and water formed it that way?
Doesn't look like an artifact to me.

 

[tomclark]

that dark rock has one weathered (you say "ground") surface that runs into the rock itself in a crack. I would think if you broke it open it would have a similar change in color and surface. The other side you say is etched is just a fresher break and shows the inside of the stone, not etching. When it broke off it revealed that stain/surface that was inside along the crack. IMHOP

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Baribal, your comment is an attack and was deleted.

FYI, implying or calling a member a troll is an insult and will be treated accordingly.

 

[Indiana_acklac]

Baribal, your comment is an attack and was deleted.

FYI, implying or calling a member a troll is an insult and will be treated accordingly.

I'm not trolling. You have to believe that.

 

[Indiana_acklac]

that dark rock has one weathered (you say "ground") surface that runs into the rock itself in a crack. I would think if you broke it open it would have a similar change in color and surface. The other side you say is etched is just a fresher break and shows the inside of the stone, not etching. When it broke off it revealed that stain/surface that was inside along the crack. IMHOP

But that clean-cut? I mean, that perfect angle? I'm only arguing this because I know I can...

 

[Indiana_acklac]

I always find it interesting when people post asking for advice, etc and when they receive it ( from multiple sources and people who know) they get all bent out of shape if they don’t like what they hear.

I have every last reason to challenge the origin of these two particular items.

 

[tomclark]

NA's made a lot of different type of plummets and there seems to be no limit to human imagination and artistic talent in producing them. Effigies, SUPERFINE, shell, bone, hard stones, crystals, even pottery. But many of them are what I call Jack Plummets. Badly made but apparently still used. These were not finery/jewelry. Just fishing weights. There is definitely a preponderance of these vs really nice ones. Some of them are FINE but have such "Jack" grooves that we scratch our heads about suspension.... Your stone looks like a river cobble, even glacial. It is not symmetrical. NA's made some bulbous ones but again that one is weird bottomed. The groove doesn't appear to have been worked by grinding and it is also oddly offset. The "top" is a funky other mineral (or iron concreted..) that is oxidizing or breaking down.