Porphyritic granite Biscuit discoidal

[oryancochran]

https://www.amazon.com/Ground-Stone...l-Approach/dp/1607812738?tag=treasurenet01-20

This book changed the way I look at stone. I suggest it To anyone interested in expanding their knowledge of stone tool identification.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

No.. there just rocks. I never said that I had 50 tons of tools.

Then why are you posting pictures of the "just rocks" here, this is our indian artifact forum, we have a separate rock and gem forum for rocks?

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[oryancochran]

Then why are you posting pictures of the "just rocks" here, this is our indian artifact forum, we have a separate rock and gem forum for rocks?

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

Umm obviously you didn't or haven't read this whole thread, grim was asking for pictures of tools and made comments about the 50 ton of rock I picked up this spring. and I was showing references of what I brought home and cleaned and sorted this year and the tools id found... Your definitely missing the point for which they were posted in context with the original stone that started this thread.... But it's cool.

 

[oryancochran]

Jenny L Adams | Desert Archaeology, Inc. - Academia.edu

 

[Mrdigz]

The links you've posted are interesting. I've hunted Long Island my entire life which is composed of mainly the Harbor Hill and Ronkonkoma end Moraines. I have hunted the entire island so I've seen my fair share of naturally ground stones. I don't think anybody is saying that glacial till exposures weren't utilized by NA but rather some of your examples look like basic glacial wear and not intentionally worked for a specific purpose.
That's why questions are being asked. Have you found any other pieces or an actual site that might show more " textbook" style wear?
I know tools were made on the fly and disposed of but if they're found amongst glacial Till it's extremely hard to identify that's all I'm saying.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Umm obviously you didn't or haven't read this whole thread, grim was asking for pictures of tools and made comments about the 50 ton of rock I picked up this spring. and I was showing references of what I brought home and cleaned and sorted this year and the tools id found... Your definitely missing the point for which they were posted in context with the original stone that started this thread.... But it's cool.

No where in thread has Grim or anyone asked for pictures of all the glacial rocks you found, all the pictures do is clutter the thread with non NA artifacts. You didn't even label them as glacial rocks, you just posted at least 18 pictures of plain rocks in one post alone.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[mn9000]

Oryan of all the rocks you've brought home for closer examination, what percentage end up being NA vs naturally scarred?

 

[oryancochran]

Oryan of all the rocks you've brought home for closer examination, what percentage end up being NA vs naturally scarred?

Less than 1% considering amount I've brought home. Sometimes I've hauled, touched and cleaned 15 buckets to find one worked stone.

 

[oryancochran]

No where in thread has Grim or anyone asked for pictures of all the glacial rocks you found, all the pictures do is clutter the thread with non NA artifacts. You didn't even label them as glacial rocks, you just posted at least 18 pictures of plain rocks in one post alone.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

Once again they were posted cause grim was amazed I picked up this amount of Stone. He asked to see my Stone tools, and the 50 tons of Stone shows the amount of work, time, dedication it took to find the worked stones i found. And were posted in context after I posted 50+ pictures before identifying those artifacts and worked stone surfaces. The 18 pictures were obvisibly just plain rocks, since there in huge piles, outside, unsorted in any fashion. It says in first sentence these were this year's stones that were brought home, cleaned, sorted and inspected looking for use wear or alteration. I still don't understand how you don't get the reason that I posted these in context with the other tools Before hand. To break it down it basically shows I looked at 100,000 rocks to find 100 stones but maybe have some sort of alteration or use wear on the surfaces. It's something that even words can explain and pictures show the amount of work in time that I have put into this. I personally have been collecting 25 years so it's not like I started yesterday.

 

[mn9000]

Less than 1% considering amount I've brought home. Sometimes I've hauled, touched and cleaned 15 buckets to find one worked stone.

Oh wow ok. I think the sheer volume of your collection & the amount of work you've put into it has taken some of us here by surprise. Kudos to you on that level of dedication.

 

[oryancochran]

The links you've posted are interesting. I've hunted Long Island my entire life which is composed of mainly the Harbor Hill and Ronkonkoma end Moraines. I have hunted the entire island so I've seen my fair share of naturally ground stones. I don't think anybody is saying that glacial till exposures weren't utilized by NA but rather some of your examples look like basic glacial wear and not intentionally worked for a specific purpose.
That's why questions are being asked. Have you found any other pieces or an actual site that might show more " textbook" style wear?
I know tools were made on the fly and disposed of but if they're found amongst glacial Till it's extremely hard to identify that's all I'm saying.

Yes and I now realize. That the context of the pictures I posted did not really show the whole artifact that any alteration or use wear was on. The thought is that a disposed tool among glacial till would be hard to identify, but fact is they may look similar but each have there own tell tale diagnostic differences. I agree it is hard, and 95% percent say glacial or natural because there knowledge is either limited, biased, or not comparable to artifacts or stones found in that person same region. I found people come to acknowledge it in steps, at first it's denile, then semi acceptance but in same sentence worthless monetarily, or the old yeah we see them but just throw them to field egde. The importance is great historically, the tools that made tools don't fit your textbook typologies people get hung up on it needing to being a named tool or a specific shape. There only considered worthless to these people because if they admit it it'd show a incompetence on their part in identification and Admitted acceptance that they were Walking over hundreds or thousands of ground stone artifacts all these years. It's sad really, I've dedicated 5 years to the specific study and comparison of this type hard stone tools and artifacts. Also consider this has been a site specific study.

 

[oryancochran]

Oh wow ok. I think the sheer volume of your collection & the amount of work you've put into it has taken some of us here by surprise. Kudos to you on that

I welcome anyone to come see it them selves. Thanks mn9000 I appreciate the acknowledgement. I mean I didn't start on this site with all this, I posted a dozen threads showing the hundreds of Flint pieces I've found just this year, the kame culture slate preforms etc. Started out sticking with the text book examples to post first, to show I'm no idiot, not new to this, and this singular site produces the "norms" everyone will notice And agree on. I'm working on organization of artifacts, and talking to the right people on getting some of these little know tools published and acknowledged by OUR peers, no name dropping needed, I've came to see and accept that most will not see it until this happens. Re writing people's wrongfully ingrained views is very hard.

 

[georgia flatlander]

We have very few rocks where I hunt, so rare that when we find one, we sit up and take notice. I've found some that have obvious peck and impact marks, and others that have been polished smooth with no obvious purpose other than as decorative or as a keepsake.

 

[RockinIdaho]

Wow!

 

[Tnmountains]

I am moving this thread into rock and gems for the geologist to confirm glacial wear. So far it is 4 pages of rocks.

 

[oryancochran]

I am moving this thread into rock and gems for the geologist to confirm glacial wear. So far it is 4 pages of rocks.

Stupid, moving a post because you don't understand. I don't need a geologist to confirm glacial wear. I posted a dozen separate examples of glacial worn stones. Really disappointed in this forum now. If you feel the need you have to move this post then just erase it completely and I never post again simple really. Being closed minded or not wanting to learn or e outside what you "know" pushes this hobby backwords.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Oryan, do not attack the work mods perform, you have posted dozens of pictures of rocks, you even admit they are just rocks.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[justinberry]

discoidal

Can you show more pictures please?

These are all Discs I have personally found in my area.

Mine looks similar to your second to last. So mine is a discoidal game stone? Found in Northeast Arkansas. Thanks

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Oryan, if you have issue with mods actions handle it via pm per our rules.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[mn9000]

I am moving this thread into rock and gems for the geologist to confirm glacial wear. So far it is 4 pages of rocks.

I don't see the point in confirming glacial wear on a separate thread since every stone collected from a glacial kame is guaranteed to exhibit some level of existing glacial wear. Glacial wear on each stone he's posted has already been confirmed.

Oryan is looking beyond the glacial wear of each stone with a high level of detail, unfortunately the detailed minutia of his findings don't translate well to photographs-- especially if you view this thread on a cell phone like I do.

If he is examining & discarding 100-150 stones for every single one stone he keeps, then I for one want to hear more of what he has to say. While it may be on a level a bit too advanced for me, I still enjoy the heck out of reading & learning more about hardstones & utilatarian tools and I really enjoy the Q & A and the respectful back & forth by the senior members knowledgeable enough to challenge some of his positions. Please keep it up Oryan and senior members please keep pressing these advanced questions, when enough back & forth takes place with intelligent points made by each party, the end result can sometimes turn into something really cool: KNOWLEDGE.