ONE MORE THREAD, MY REAL Q

rivernomad44

Full Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
145
Reaction score
45
Golden Thread
0
Primary Interest:
Relic Hunting

Attachments

  • 128.webp
    128.webp
    75.6 KB · Views: 105
  • 131.webp
    131.webp
    129 KB · Views: 97
  • 132.webp
    132.webp
    140 KB · Views: 89
  • 127.webp
    127.webp
    79.9 KB · Views: 88
  • 130.webp
    130.webp
    103.3 KB · Views: 101
  • 122.webp
    122.webp
    160.5 KB · Views: 97
  • 123.webp
    123.webp
    145 KB · Views: 104
  • 124.webp
    124.webp
    155.6 KB · Views: 104
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I don't know what they are, but I do know what they aren't and they're not artifacts.

Sorry, they just look like natural rocks to me.
 

the area i hunt produces archaic pieces, which are very bland and un artistic as later periods the pics just dont do justice to how unnatural and similar they are its very hard to believe these werent made
 

I'm not so sure steve if you look at the photos on rivers other post and as river mentions above they are finding some "unartistic pcs" I've also hunted areas like that where there was some pretty crude stuff lying around. I'm sure that the indians resorted (at times) to lesser quality stone. I'm surprised you didn't notice the possible chopper/axe use to the pc in photo 4 or the possible scraper use in the cresent views in the last picture. Looks like miniture drawknives. Also there is a patina (unless river didn't clean them and thats mud) but almost looks like calcium deposits as you know commonly appear on artifacts and stone where there is bone in the ground. But I am reaching on the calcium deposits.Too, some stuff is hard to evaluate from photos.
 

Looks like it could be fire cracked rock which is a good sign that you are looking in the right place.
 

IMO it's reaching to think any of those rocks are artifacts.

look at the right edge on pic 4 though. That area looks used. I'll dig out some pcs and post that look similar, but i know have use on them.
 

ill agree to disagree, i wish u could hold them, please check out my other post yesterday and help me id that scraper/knife? and other thank yall so much for your insight i love this place
 

glad you are having an interest in artifacts
but please give a little more credit to the great people that made the real artifacts posted on tnet
no disrespect but you cannot romance those two rocks into becoming artifacts

larson1951
 

Last edited:
I mean no disrespect either larson, but cmon there are possibilities with some of his pcs. the possible and note the word possible end use on the pc in pic 4, and i don't understand your comment about giving credit..? to whom "great people"? why would he be discrediting indians from the past by posting rocks that he thought were actual artifacts and some quite possibly could be. Have you seen his other post? He's clearly been on site. The point of this thread is that someone posted some rocks, now 2 people say they are not artifacts and those 2 people haven't seen anything but a picture. Yeah I've seen the posts where someone thinks they found something and clearly its just a rock. Like when kids start hunting and pick up everything at first and question it. You would think that someone with as much experience as say THE GRIM REAPER (why so negative steve?) would see possibilities in a few of these pcs. Why so quik to count something out. Sometimes I wonder how knowledgeable some of you really are to artifacts. I do know a lot of you "find" them in the mailbox. Maybe you just haven't been on enough sites and handled enough lithics to make correct assumptions, I mean the word possible should have came into play with your posts. I have to go somewhere but when i come back ill post some photos of some similar pcs and we'll see what you have to say about someof my more "unartistic lithics"
 

glad you are having an interest in artifacts
but please give a little more credit to the great people that made the real artifacts posted on tnet
no disrespect but you cannot romance those two rocks into becoming artifacts

larson1951
I know some of you out there don't savor my opinion, but there is no evidence of your object "rivernomad" being made into some type of artifact. Out here in the west we call it a "leave-er-right" there rock. Sorry, but we are trying to give you our honest opinions. Also; "SOHIO" we don't get our artifacts in the mail box.
 

ok you speak for everyone here then eh? Better get your facts straight then because "we" not me of course but the "we" you speak of often do get points in the mail. I have seen many posts that are titled mailbox finds. I didn't single you out in any way and say that you yourself got them in the mail. I don't really see how its your business to have commented on this post. PLUS! what im driving at is what river posted was "POSSIBLY" used. I'll agree though that some of this post and rivers other post has pcs in it that probably aren't pcs at all but I just thought SVR was jumping the gun a bit to show off his ummmm intellect? about relics, besides I like to razz ole SVR sometimes. Is that so wrong :) lol Anyway I really don't know why I waste my time here.
 

Sorry; I certainly don't speak for everyone here! I am quite positive that Steve does not get any artifacts in the mail and I absolutely do not purchase any artifacts . I am a member of TNET. I just don't understand why difference of opinions and somebody trying to help a someone identify an object leads to such bickering? So I'm sorry if I was wrong in agreeing with someone else's remarks. :notworthy:
 

Last edited:
people like to misunderstand me, I joke around too much and people take me serious. Like my southern ohio counterpart SVReaper. And uh yeah SVR buys for his collection or at least someone is sending him some through the mail he has a lot of "mailbox finds" posts. Nothing wrong with that though I just kid about it. I personally wouldn't want anything I didn't find in my collection. Different strokes for different folks. Anyway back to the topic at hand here....These "rocks" in the following posts were all found in the same spot. The first picture is of rocks that are definately not flint but they have "minimal" use if any on some but they were coming out with the flint and relics. If you notice one blade is made of same crude material. One rock has dimples on all sides? just a rock? I don't think so. You have to think we know little about the daily habits of these people. Some were poor and didn't always have access to good flint they used what they could and what they had on hand, and at times that means they probably(actually I know they did)the evidence is there ) resorted to using lesser quality stuff and where it was probably so plentiful they might not have used a certain pc for a long period of time maybe for only one time and discarded. So to sum up this crazy post Some shouldn't be so quik to jump the gun on some pcs that obviously could be hypothesized over and question possiblities. I also just didn't like how someone responded to the post question with such an arrogant reply.View attachment 625805
 

................. theres a broken tip in these photos and its not flint. one pc looks like a pestle but it also looks like a rock it has thick patina though and came out with these artifacts in these pictures. These came from a site I dug a couple a years ago and didn't return got sidetracked into a different spot and well im still hunting that spot but I'll get back to this one it has a lot of potential to be a big spot, but I have only began there it could end quik for all i know.
 

more thing the rocks in the first picture up there grouped together....those were not natural at this site and was definately chipped like flint. why there is not much use on them i don't know but some pcs are definately scrapers. anyone have any points or definitive tools that were made with a material that wasn't usually made with?
 

These are Archaic artifacts and are from the Early Archaic time period. I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence of what you have ever being used as a Tool or even being altered by man.


Steve Valentine Collection 157 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 103 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 159 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 161 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 164 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 169 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 172 (Large).webpSteve Valentine Collection 174 (Large).webp
 

By the way, if you are talking about me I do get pieces in the mail. I have done a lot of trading over the past couple of years to put together my States Collection where I obtained artifacts from all 49 continental states. I have no problem buying or trading for artifacts. I have however never sold the first piece. I have given away and traded away a bunch, but never sold anything.
 

if you were talking about my pictures then you must look again because there is a pc of hematite there, a complete knife made from sandstone? there is a broken sandstone? tip, pc of pottery ... there is a picture of a couple drills and an adena point etc. is it that you are getting old?
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom