If this is natural than I give up!

[Tommybuckets]

Yes its ok to collect rocks. I pick the smallest prettiest ones. These posts crack me up. I throw back tons of stuff that is in the "could be" classification. If its not an obsidian, flint etc point or chip I chuck it for the next guy to appreciate. If he wants to lug it around fine by me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Freemindedclark]

Cool rock, I probably would have carried it home as well. I normally stay far away from these threads so im not sure why I am even typing here but...... Mine opinion is prehistoric man was a master at his art, what he could do with stone is just remarkable, if he were to carve a figure in, on or out of stone there is no mistaking what he was creating, no guessing or maybe about it.
2 more cents worth.
Not every creek has artifacts in it, every rocky creek bed has cool rocks in it. My rock garden if full of rocks that nature shaped into something that looks familiar, brought one home this weekend that looks like a giant sperm.
When you find a good artifact area you will know it, next time I go to my mothers property I will snap a pic, the exposed soil areas on the high areas above the creeks are just littered with flakes. We find way more in the soil than we do in the creeks. Keep at it and good luck!

That's something that has been brought up with me before. I agree that the natives and other ancient peoples were very good working stone. That being said, where I see a problem with saying if it's not masterfully crafted then it's natural. This would imply that there was no learning curve. Also it would imply that only the most skilled( born a master) were allowed to work stones.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes they had to learn, but there are still signs of being worked, knapped, drilled, ground, something, there is signs of their work if they worked on it. With out signs of being work there is no proof it is anything other than a simple rock.

 

[Freemindedclark]

Yes they had to learn, but there are still signs of being worked, knapped, drilled, ground, something, there is signs of their work if they worked on it. With out signs of being work there is no proof it is anything other than a simple rock.

That is a bit subjective if you ask me. On one hand you talk about the skills displayed in workmanship which distinguished it as an artifact. Then you say that it just has to have some kind of visible sign. Also according to what you say rocks can be shaped into almost anything and everything by nature but this same force isnt supposed wear away these signs of being worked. As far as this particular rock goes I see signs of it being worked.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I give up.

I have been collecting artifacts for over 36 years, have 18+ books on collecting artifacts that I have read ever page, been to more than dozen large artifact shows, toured the Museum Of The Plains Indians Museums in Browning Mt and Cody Wy multiple times, (look them up). I have hunted hundreds of miles of creeks, streams and rivers finding over a thousand genuine artifacts. Hunted dozens of farm fields and several that were former villages in the 1600 and 1700, one of them was documented by French explorers in 1673. Van Meter State Park in Missouri sits in the middle of it and I had permission to hunt the fields adjacent to the park.

There are members far more experienced and qualified than I as well on this forum so there is tremendous amount of experience here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utz_Site

https://crownofthecontinent.natgeot...eum-of-the-plains-indian/cotd9238fbc0672cd212

 

[diggummup]

Some people you just can't reach. Look mine has an eye and a mouth carved in it. Not.

 

[ToddsPoint]

When I see Several different things, My Mind says Natural rock.

When I first Glance at Something & see just 1 Figure, I think created.

it would take me some time to see other Figures in this one
because to me the Obvious is Too Obvious to be Natural.
to me even the Mouth looks cut/Worked.

this is why I threw the 50/50 in here

But then every single Indian artifact I see lying on the Ground,
Looks like a Natural Rock to me, Till someone else, Picks it up & says look
it's a (whatever)

and by Contrast even some of the Indian artifacts that the experts I.D. look natural to me.

artifacts are just as Subject to weathering as rocks are.
I would imaging if a 50,000,000 Year old Statue Of liberty
is still standing, there will be a debate over Natural or created
if copper gets Petrified over 50,000,000 years of inactivity.

Justin1978, wow Why so serious ?

Except we are not looking at Indian artifacts that have been weathered for 50M years. Only 15K years. Very big difference. Gary

 

[Freemindedclark]

Can we all agree that there is just as much variance in the quality of artifact workmanship as there would be in comparison to say a highschool art class.

 

[diggummup]

Can we all agree that there is just as much variance in the quality of artifact workmanship as there would be in comparison to say a highschool art class.

I'm not versed enough to know if "artifact workmanship" was a thing practiced by everyone in the tribal community. However, I'd venture to say it was done by a select few in the community who were skilled enough to do it proficiently. Other than maybe common pots and drinking vessels. I'm sure, as with most things though, there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[jeff of pa]

I'm not versed enough to know if "artifact workmanship" was a thing practiced by everyone in the tribal community. However, I'd venture to say it was done by a select few in the community who were skilled enough to do it proficiently. Other than maybe common pots and drinking vessels. I'm sure, as with most things though, there are exceptions to the rule.

& possibly Like today.
Children Mimicking adult practices the best they could.

which in the very young Indians case.
Maybe picking up a rock that reminds them of Something.
& Improving on it by adding an eye hair and mouth
Or Grinding it into a Point

 

[Peyton Manning]

I respect their opinion but I most definitely strongly disagree with those who say it is natural. From my 20 yrs collecting native American artifacts and rock art I immediately recognized your find to be just that. I'm not an expert but I am almost certain by the side profile and the manner it was done it is Portable Rock Art. Things of this nature are becoming more recognized and respected by the archeologists as of recent. They FINALLY recognize the importance of these and the history they hold. Do not treat them as just rocks bc they are so much more than that and should be respected. Great find! I will be posting all of mine in the next few days. I have a huge collection and love to see others that have the "sight" as well.

"portable rock art' ? PLEASE explain

 

[Plumbata]

View attachment 1629839

Very cool rock, and thankfully it's in your possession instead of some unfortunate who would go to their grave convinced it was something that it isn't.

Can we all agree that there is just as much variance in the quality of artifact workmanship as there would be in comparison to say a highschool art class.

Certainly, and just like the items generated in art class most of it is garbage unworthy of a 2nd glance. Even if your stone was actually modified by a human hand, which I see no evidence of, the only remarkable thing about it would be how extremely unremarkable it is. Good stuff is out there, but investing time and energy on items like this is wasting time that could be spent hunting for genuine and unambiguous artifacts.

Just because one can see things in the clouds it doesn't mean someone designed and painted them in the sky. Same goes for the trillions of rocks out there.

 

[Freemindedclark]

You seem like the type whose only interest in artifacts is their potential value. Artifacts are how we learn about the past. By studying them and comparing them them to other artifacts. And to call something "garbage not worth a second glance" says a lot about the type of person you are. Regardless of the quality of workmanship all artifacts are important. Even if it was done by the special kid that ate glue.

 

[Plumbata]

No, my interest is focused on the historical, personal (i.e. talismans etc.), aesthetic or technological significance of an artifact; factors which happen to be highly correlated with market value. Common, damaged, ambiguous, and/or unprovenanced items are generally less significant, and since no one possesses unlimited space or time for the proper storage, study, restoration and display of artifacts it behooves disciplined collectors to focus on the items which tell the most compelling stories and leave behind the items which do not. I've been collecting since I was 5 and recall clearly the sentiments I harbored as a child and the deep ruminations which germinated from a humble pottery shard, flake of debitage, fossil or common old coin, but as I have matured so have my collecting interests and strategies. Perhaps all artifacts are indeed special, but just like human beings they can be plotted within a hierarchy of importance or inherent value. I'd rather surround myself with 1-percenter artifacts just as I'd rather surround myself with 1-percenter intellects, but if you are satisfied by the company of glue-eaters and their artifact equivalents then by all means continue gorging yourself on that "special" low-hanging fruit. The more people investing time in the mediocre the less competition there is for the good stuff, so if you're hell-bent on filling your property with plain rocks then knock yourself out if it truly makes you happy.

By the way, your indefatigably unperceptive insistence that natural rocks are artifacts in spite of the freely offered advice distilled from hundreds of years of collective experience says a lot about the type of person you are. Intuition and imagination are extremely important, but it is dangerous to build your perception of reality upon such a foundation as it will inevitably lead you astray. We all want you to enjoy true success and to feel the ancient energy of a genuine long-lost artifact imbued with the blood, sweat and tears of ancient man instead of erroneously imagining that normal rocks possess such qualities, but just as one can lead a horse to clean water, ya can't stop him from taking a steaming dump in it.

 

[Freemindedclark]

No, my interest is focused on the historical, personal (i.e. talismans etc.), aesthetic or technological significance of an artifact; factors which happen to be highly correlated with market value. Common, damaged, ambiguous, and/or unprovenanced items are generally less significant, and since no one possesses unlimited space or time for the proper storage, study, restoration and display of artifacts it behooves disciplined collectors to focus on the items which tell the most compelling stories and leave behind the items which do not. I've been collecting since I was 5 and recall clearly the sentiments I harbored as a child and the deep ruminations which germinated from a humble pottery shard, flake of debitage, fossil or common old coin, but as I have matured so have my collecting interests and strategies. Perhaps all artifacts are indeed special, but just like human beings they can be plotted within a hierarchy of importance or inherent value. I'd rather surround myself with 1-percenter artifacts just as I'd rather surround myself with 1-percenter intellects, but if you are satisfied by the company of glue-eaters and their artifact equivalents then by all means continue gorging yourself on that "special" low-hanging fruit. The more people investing time in the mediocre the less competition there is for the good stuff, so if you're hell-bent on filling your property with plain rocks then knock yourself out if it truly makes you happy.

By the way, your indefatigably unperceptive insistence that natural rocks are artifacts in spite of the freely offered advice distilled from hundreds of years of collective experience says a lot about the type of person you are. Intuition and imagination are extremely important, but it is dangerous to build your perception of reality upon such a foundation as it will inevitably lead you astray. We all want you to enjoy true success and to feel the ancient energy of a genuine long-lost artifact imbued with the blood, sweat and tears of ancient man instead of erroneously imagining that normal rocks possess such qualities, but just as one can lead a horse to clean water, ya can't stop him from taking a steaming dump in it.

You have obviously browsed some of my threads, I would assume from some of your statements. While yes, I have posted a few "rocks" on this website. I have also posted many more undeniable artifacts. Sure I have an affinity for rocks. So as you can imagine I have seen and handled countless rocks. By doing so one starts to understand what mother nature is or isn't capable of doing.

I by no means consider myself a 1%. I'm just an ordinary, high school educated, glue eater.

I thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion and insight.

 

[Mine Shaft]

From what i see it has not been worked by man in any fashion. I don't mean to walk on your thread but lets see what ppl think about this stone that my sons friend found in Arizona. From what i see it looks like some kind of mortar or something. I just want to show you my reaction to someones opinion. Its about 4" long and 2 1/2" wide.

 

[OZARKS]

Natural rock imuo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Top photos looks like Metates, can you post more views from sides?

2nd from bottom looks like a mano. Can you post more views?

 

[Mine Shaft]

Does this help ? I can take better closeups if need be.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Can you post one that is profile so we can see the curve.