In your opinion?

[Freemindedclark]

I found this in a creek that I have found a couple of points and a few scrapers. The notched out end fits over my thigh perfectly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[joshuaream]

My opinion, since you asked, is that your thigh fits very neatly into a natural rock.

 

[Freemindedclark]

My opinion, since you asked, is that your thigh fits very neatly into a natural rock.

Well I was carved by the gods.

 

[newnan man]

Thigh stones are very rare. Most are ceremonial effigys that fit in your hand. ✋ Commonly found with chipped Thunderbirds and moccasin lasts.

 

[mn9000]

The inside of that bowl would likely be worn smooth if it were used by Native Americans. Looks pretty rough from the photo. Cool rock though, I definitely would have stopped & checked it out if I saw it.

 

[Greg Lafla]

Clark don't hold back tell them everything you noticed

 

[Freemindedclark]

Clark don't hold back tell them everything you noticed

Seems like every time I express my thoughts or observations people have nothing but negative feedback. Basically telling me I'm an idiot. So I will just ask for opinions rather than ridicule.

 

[sandchip]

No one is ridiculing you, calling you an idiot or giving negative feedback. It would be a far greater wrong to tell you that it's an artifact when it's not. It was naturally formed by the swirling currents of the stream, like the ones in this picture. There were better examples of this phenomenon in that spot, much like yours, but I was obviously more concerned about the point at the time.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Seems like every time I express my thoughts or observations people have nothing but negative feedback. Basically telling me I'm an idiot. So I will just ask for opinions rather than ridicule.

FMC, it isn't ridicule, they are trying to help you learn, it does no one any good to encourage new hunters to look for rocks when your trying to learn how to find artifacts.

There are 100s of years of experience here, I have only been collecting for 35 years, there are many members here with far more experience than I have. Many of us have studied collecting for decades. I have at least 20+ books on artifact collecting myself and I'm sure many members have more than me.

 

[Freemindedclark]

FMC, it isn't ridicule, they are trying to help you learn, it does no one any good to encourage new hunters to look for rocks when your trying to learn how to find artifacts.

There are 100s of years of experience here, I have only been collecting for 35 years, there are many members here with far more experience than I have. Many of us have studied collecting for decades. I have at least 20+ books on artifact collecting myself and I'm sure many members have more than me.

Please tell me if this statement could be considered accurate. Not all artifacts we're elaborate or worked in ways that makes it obvious. Some were naturally a shape that very little alterations were needed. Also some were made to be disposable or left behind because it would be unpractical to carry it around.
Another question I have is what is the criteria for something to be considered an artifact? Does something simply being used by man in the past make it an artifact? And if so to what capacity? Is a rock that a native American used to hold down the edge of his teepee an artifact? Or how about the rocks they used for their fire ring? I don't understand how someone can find a rock and call it an artifact due to the fact that it was found in close proximity to a campsite. Yet if I find a rock that is almost identical out on one of my creek walks it is nothing more than a rock. Maybe I am just an uneducated rock Hunter. But I do believe in thinking outside the box. Almost every day some belief or thought is challenged or proven differently by people who aren't afraid to challenge and question what we think we know.

 

[Greg Lafla]

You guys have to understand that as an outsider it's easy to spot your bias That no one else could be as intelligent or observant as you are

 

[sandchip]

Please tell me if this statement could be considered accurate. Not all artifacts we're elaborate or worked in ways that makes it obvious. Some were naturally a shape that very little alterations were needed. Also some were made to be disposable or left behind because it would be unpractical to carry it around.
Another question I have is what is the criteria for something to be considered an artifact? Does something simply being used by man in the past make it an artifact? And if so to what capacity? Is a rock that a native American used to hold down the edge of his teepee an artifact? Or how about the rocks they used for their fire ring? I don't understand how someone can find a rock and call it an artifact due to the fact that it was found in close proximity to a campsite. Yet if I find a rock that is almost identical out on one of my creek walks it is nothing more than a rock. Maybe I am just an uneducated rock Hunter. But I do believe in thinking outside the box. Almost every day some belief or thought is challenged or proven differently by people who aren't afraid to challenge and question what we think we know.

I see what you're saying, but speaking only for myself here, I don't have the room to store/display every rock that may have been used expediently for some purpose and then discarded, nor do I have any desire to gather such items, but once again, that's just my personal preference on how the assemblage of my collection is directed. In short, sure your find may have, over the course of the last 12,000 years, been used for something, but if evidence of that past use is not obvious, or if it shows no alteration by man, then why keep it unless, of course, you just like the look of it?

 

[Freemindedclark]

You might say I have a problem.

 

[RPG]

Whether artifact or geofact, that is one awesome rock garden.

 

[Charl]

You guys have to understand that as an outsider it's easy to spot your bias That no one else could be as intelligent or observant as you are

But you're not spotting bias. It's decades of experience distinguishing rock from artifact. And that experience, that knowledge, that recognition becomes second nature after years and decades. And in an online, virtual venue, it can be extremely difficult to delineate why something is a rock, and not an artifact. It becomes somewhat easier in person, when the teacher can handle the rock the student is puzzling over. You are not spotting bias at all. At times you may see jokes because it's only natural that some highly experienced folks will tire of seeing rock after rock after rock after rock. And this can be worsened when the student claims we are biased, or we are close minded, etc., etc. We have folks show up here who think they know more then they actually know, or think we are somehow full of it and just don't realize it. In a virtual venue like this, it is hard to solve such a disconnect. When newcomers with little to no experience show up here, either they recognize people here can help them, or not.

 

[Charl]

You guys have to understand that as an outsider it's easy to spot your bias That no one else could be as intelligent or observant as you are

Put more simply, when the novice or beginner or student shows up and simply assumes they must know more then the teachers because the teachers do not accept the rock the beginner presents as being an artifact, a fundamental disconnect is established which is 100% the fault of the beginner. It is the beginner who displays a bias, not the experienced collectors. One either is willing to trust that the experienced collectors are not going to bs you, or not. If the latter, if one assumes one must instinctively distrust the teachers, then learning becomes virtually impossible.

 

[Charl]

You guys have to understand that as an outsider it's easy to spot your bias That no one else could be as intelligent or observant as you are

Another thing that must be pointed out is that nobody here believes they are more intelligent or more observant then anyone else. To state that is to insult people. Would you claim that a 5 year old understands physics better then a nuclear physicist? If someone posts rock after rock, and continues to be told that rock is not an artifact, why would you assume we are arrogantly declaring we are more intelligent then yourself? Why not instead assume you have a long way to go in learning how to distinguish rock from artifact? By instead assuming you are correct in what you claim in this short statement, you are displaying your own arrogance. You think, as a beginner, that surely you are the one who is more intelligent. You have decided that this must be why your rocks are being rejected, instead of realizing you have a lot to learn. That is your bias. That is your arrogance, not ours. Get it?

 

[jamus peek]

I took the hazing personal don't go that route it's not personal. Personally i don't like to be negative to new posters regardless of what they show but I have been a little to open minded and may have steered some posters in the wrong direction with open minded opinions. This is not the place for that. The best thing for me was to be told it was a rock because i am a competitor I used that to learn and look harder and i am so happy to be able to go out and find artifacts now and the same guys that i felt gave me the hardest time i learned the most from. Just how it is. Simply go find some killer artifacts and show them that's what we are here for. I hope to do the same.

 

[RGINN]

The most obvious question to me is, after you placed it over your thigh, what would you use it for? Any ideas?

 

[georgia flatlander]

Clark, it's very easy to confuse natural erosion with a formed or manipulated stone. While some Indians who lived in areas where rocks are not native would sometimes trade for unique stones, streams and natural water flow over thousands of years make some interesting shapes on different types of rocks. "Fit's the hand" or "fits the thigh" are not good criteria for something being classified as an artifact. In fact, as recent as 500 years ago the North Florida and South Georgia Indians encountered by the Spanish were very small-most just a shade over 5' tall. Fitting a modern hand would seem to take this comparison completely out of the realm of possibility for gauging the usability of an artifact.
Keep looking, and keep posting!