indian artifacts

[hmmm]

I posted the man on the moon glass artifact,
i went back and talked to the elder who lives on the site . she said it is indian, we then found a odd lead tool and a very odd thing, any idea what it is.

 

[Rmeav8r]

Lead looks like it might have been plummers lead from around some copper tubing or small water lines/pipes. Just a guess.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Did the Indians learn their glass making techniques from the Romans or the Egyptians?

They must'a knowed somehow. Lonesome Polecat and Hairless Joe sold Kickapoo Joy Juice in glass bottles!

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Thats it! The Egyptians must have discovered America way before the Vikings!

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Here are some better pics of the moon/sun face. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,222026.msg1608906.html#msg1608906

 

[hmmm]

i would say with out a doubt its glass, but the question is who made it.

 

[hmmm]

i cant figure out what the fire starter is made of. i have taken close ups , have a look.

 

[hmmm]

thanks 07 , ill have a look, i read up on Carnelian , it could be Carnelian melted into a mold with the copper .

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

...the other thing looks like a fire starter to me.Something to spin a stick on..

I dont think its a fire starter. The stick would go thru the hole and hurt your hand.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I think we can safely rule out Incas, Relicdude, because he is in the Pacific Northwest. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,107185.0.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76227452@N00/2723731725/

 

[hmmm]

The fire maker does look like pyrite , when i think about it, you could put your dry stuff in the hole. twerle something in the divit , heating it, then spin it around the hole to make a flint.
if it helps,mxt says +70 on metal mode and +32 on the prospecting mode.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I dont know if it came from Nieman Marcus. I just found the closest matching pic and posted it. The only thing I know almost for sure is that its NOT Incan, Roman or Ancient Egyption. It only takes a little common sense, considering the location of the find.

Heres a larger pic with a zoom. Its very similar but not exactly the same. https://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/...0000cat2830732cat14460734cat000160cat19270733

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Can you date the other things found around the area with common sense?

I cannot ID these items at this time or I would have posted. Why do you think there is an Incan or Egyptian connection? Chevron beads?

 

[hmmm]

Its solved to me You guys go on and on trying to tell people what its not rather than to listen to finders of the relics and the lady that owns the land (she said indians).... Im done.......

THE OLD LADY SAID IT WAS POSSIBLY INDIAN, she also said "it could be from spanish" the spanish had inca treasure, the lead makes me think the later. i found this copper braclet a few years ago about 700 yards away.

 

[Montana Jim]

1920s costume jewelry... classic moon face...

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Its solved to me You guys go on and on trying to tell people what its not rather than to listen to finders of the relics and the lady that owns the land (she said indians).... Im done.......

THE OLD LADY SAID IT WAS POSSIBLY INDIAN, she also said "it could be from spanish" the spanish had inca treasure, the lead makes me think the later. i found this copper braclet a few years ago about 700 yards away.

Ah OK I thought she meant native Indians. I guess its remotely possible. But if it was Incan, wouldnt it most likely be gold? ... and you said "without a doubt its glass".
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5449

Saltwater environment is severely corrosive and will make something look older than it is. I think they are interesting finds but I just dont think its Carnelian from Egypt or an Incan ear spool. Is there a local museum that you can take it to?

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I posted the man on the moon glass artifact,
i went back and talked to the elder who lives on the site . she said it is indian, we then found a odd lead tool and a very odd thing, any idea what it is.

Can we see a picture of the back of the brass man on the moon rim? Is it hollowed out?

Where is the lead tool? Is the unkown piece with the hole lead or is it not pictured?

 

[hmmm]

The back of the copper is hollow , it looks like the glass is pored into it. the lead tool is at the top of the page, "lead.jpg"
the old lady said they found stuff like what i found when they cleared in 1915, she said there was a cool knife the museum was realy interisted in , there was a settler living in a old house in 1860, but he died .
i have no idea what the peice with the hole is, its not lead, looks more like a mix of copper and pyrite, its heavy.
today i was asked what the hairs on it where. i said "lint" till i looked at it. have a look, the magnification is very strong .

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Those hairs are interesting. Maybe it was used to scrape or prepare hides somehow. Is it sharp?

 

[BuckleBoy]

I will not offer my ideas about what this find is or is not...


But what I will say is that we are not dealing with layers of stratigraphy here.  Every find from a CW site will not be Civil War.  Likewise, not every rock from the field where native american artifacts were found is an artifact itself.  A rusted iron tool found at a colonial site is not automatically colonial.

And even moreso when we're dealing with a copper bracelet (which does indeed look like a fantatastic find by the way) that was found over Seven Hundred Yards away. 

What we find as detectorists and THers, it's up to us to be open minded enough to sort out.  The fact that two items are found in close proximity does not mean that they're related to one another.  One thing that continually amazes me in my 17+ years in this hobby is that just about anything can be found just about anywhere.

Part of the benefit of the "what is it" forum is that it takes the finds out of the finder's mind, puts them on the table objectively, and lets us all look at them independently of the specific circumstances under which each find was made. 

In some cases, as with the scythe handle ferrule which was ID'ed in a thread of mine a while back, many folks had found the exact same relic.  So I asked them to tell me what other finds were made at the sites where the items were found.  I wanted to see if there were any similarities in the age of the other relics from the sites, or if there were some other find present which formed a common thread.  But this is a rare case.  Almost all of the tough whatzits posted here are single examples which are not well-represented in the posts of dug finds on this, or any forum.  And yet thankfully in our internet age, and with a plethora of relic guides at our disposal in print, the objects usually speak for themselves.

So if part of the real value and strength of posting an object here for an ID is our ability to look at it for what it is--and is not--objectively, then I feel there is a two-fold, un-written agreement when the finder of the item posts it here.   The first is that it is our duty as identifiers of these finds to look at each object objectively and do our best to figure out what it is.  The second part of the agreement is that the original poster of the find should likewise be as objective as possible and let us try to help.

There is nothing worse than when a poster of a find wants to Push our thoughts in a certain direction because they just know it has to be this or that due to where a single isolated example was found, or "what was found with it."

In fact, when I post a Whatzit, I usually try to give as little information about where it was found as I can.  I post good photos, dimensions of the item, and a description of anything that might not show up well in the photos.  If I already have a hunch about what it is, I often keep it to myself to see if someone else thinks the same thing, or if I might actually be nuts for thinking it is X, Y, or Z. 

I've noticed that when there are ill-feelings on threads in the "What is it?" threads, it is almost always due to one party or the other's decision to make the discussion subjective.