grooved stone tool!

[jamus peek]

Here is a grooved stone piece. It is not an axe. The groove is almost 3/4.

Again this may not match what people usually see. This is a very heavy hard stone.

]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charl]

In order to really know what we're looking at, you need to post photos from many angles, so it can be visualized in the round, so to speak. Including the "business" end, if it has one. The one photo won't suffice.

 

[Injunbro]

I can't verify from the pictures but possibly for smoothing arrow shafts.

 

[T.C.]

We find a lot of those here in S.E.Oregon. Different sizes and shapes. They are classified as a multi-use tool....hide stretcher/canoe anchor.

 

[jamus peek]

In order to really know what we're looking at, you need to post photos from many angles, so it can be visualized in the round, so to speak. Including the "business" end, if it has one. The one photo won't suffice.

Hi Charl thanks for looking. I will post more pics.

 

[jamus peek]

We find a lot of those here in S.E.Oregon. Different sizes and shapes. They are classified as a multi-use tool....hide stretcher/canoe anchor.

Thanks for the reply TC. I will send you a pic of what I also believe to be an anchor found at the same site. I am from CA.

 

[old digger]

Looks like a naturally altered rock. It is not an abrader either.

 

[justonemore]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state, just a rock.

 

[jamus peek]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state, just a rock.

Thanks for the reply justone.

 

[rock]

Limestone in my area isnt heavy at all.

 

[quito]

I wonder why the groove is far from straight?

I wonder if we will get some pics that make that look like an artifact?

So far, all I see is a natural looking rock.

 

[dts52]

I agree with old digger and quito. Looks like natural wear of the stone. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been used as an anchor, however. JMHO.
HH
dts

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Need to post more and better pictures, so far I see nothing that says it is anything other than natural erosion on a rock....

 

[jamus peek]

I wonder why the groove is far from straight?

I wonder if we will get some pics that make that look like an artifact?

So far, all I see is a natural looking rock.

I wonder if I want to show you anything.

 

[jamus peek]

Limestone in my area isnt heavy at all.

It's not lime stone. Very durable blue stone. Also the geological area doesn't harbor limestone. So if it were limestone wonder how it got there.

 

[Charl]

jamus, sorry, but I don't think what you're saying about that being a "man-made fin" is correct. A fin anchor is new to me. You may be depending more on your imagination then anything else. Is that the same rock as the one at the start of this thread? Looks like a different rock? Here are a couple rocks large enough to be anchors, and showing alteration in the form of notches. Essentially they are large notched weights, the second one having 3 notches. First one weighs ~30 pounds, the second one weighs ~80 pounds. I'm not sure what to make of your rock, but created by natives as an aerodynamic fish-like fin it is not. IMHO....

 

[jamus peek]

jamus, sorry, but I don't think what you're saying about that being a "man-made fin" is correct. A fin anchor is new to me. You may be depending more on your imagination then anything else. Is that the same rock as the one at the start of this thread? Looks like a different rock? Here are a couple rocks large enough to be anchors, and showing alteration in the form of notches. Essentially they are large notched weights, the second one having 3 notches. First one weighs ~30 pounds, the second one weighs ~80 pounds. I'm not sure what to make of your rock, but created by natives as an aerodynamic fish-like fin it is not. IMHO....

View attachment 1365148View attachment 1365149View attachment 1365150

Okay Charl!

 

[Charl]

jamus, the easiest way to " get off on the wrong foot" here is to assume you are well educated on knowing how to distinguish between man altered, and nature altered, or artifact vs geofact. In fact, you are not well educated or experienced in that aspect at all. So, one pathway to getting off on the wrong foot is to insist a geofact is an artifact. Nobody here is perfect in interpreting artifacts and geofacts. But it's very likely our experience does exceed your own. And since you are not the first to insist a geofact cannot be a geofact, some may grow impatient. Just try to understand that you have a great deal to learn. We all had to start somewhere. What you say "you know" may be rooted more in your imagination then in reality. That will lead to " the wrong foot" every time......

 

[Charl]

Okay Charl!

Yep, that's a rock, jamus.....

Interpretation based on the imagination does not make a geofact an artifact.

You seem to have deleted completely the post I just commented on, making my comment, number 16 in this thread, appear to be addressing an unknown comment. Lol. What in the world are you doing, lol? Why did you just delete your thoughts and photos like that, after I made an effort to address those thoughts and photos? No biggie, I guess, but I can only conclude you prefer to not have a rational conversation. Okie Dokie....

At any rate, comment #16 in this thread addressed comments made by jamus, including photos, which he then deleted after the fact. But apparently, his contention is that the rock he posted at the end of comment # 17 is, according to jamus, a fin anchor fashioned by a native to serve as an aerodynamic fin anchor(whatever that is) on a native vessel. According to jamus, natives knew what the fin of a fish looked like, and fashioned anchors like such fins in order to slow their canoes down. This was all proposed in the comment that he since deleted.

 

[jamus peek]

Yep, that's a rock, jamus.....

Interpretation based on the imagination does not make a geofact an artifact.

I do have a lot to learn. Would you admit that possibly you still have room to learn.