Questions about some possible Indian items

[bonedoctor]

Hello! I’ve posted here before about some things I’ve been finding on my property. These include trade points, and trade hatchet, and some different Indian jewelry. I’ve recently find some unusual items and I have questions about them.

First, I have read that Indians scored metal and then bent/broke it off as a form of shaping things. I found this scrap of bass / bronze recently. You can see it has been scored at least a couple times, and partially broken off.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[bonedoctor]

Here appears to be a bracket or trim piece that was decorated by hammering. I believe it was improperly cut / broken off, as you can see in the pattern.

 

[bonedoctor]

I need your opinions on this. I found it today sticking out of the mud in the creek bed. This creek was diverted in 1940, so it was most likely placed in the water then. There were Indian remains in the area. Keep in mind, there are NO rocks in this area. I’ve lived in the creek for 40 years and never see rock at all. So, this is very unusual, especially this shape and size. Any opinions as to what this may be?

 

[bonedoctor]

Some fun stuff from same area

 

[Tdog]

Some fun stuff from same areaView attachment 1782740

Trade point at 12:00.

 

[Older The Better]

The first one could be kettle scrap and used like you say, I’ve found similar but smaller scraps at my trade site

 

[newnan man]

It always helps to tell us where you are in the country.

 

[arrow86]

The rock looks natural to me

 

[bonedoctor]

The first one could be kettle scrap and used like you say, I’ve found similar but smaller scraps at my trade site

Close to Wichita KS. There are NO native rocks to my area. This is def odd. There was an Indian trading post here, and a branch of the Chisholm trail. Indian skeletal remains were also found within 100’ of this, plus some other Indian items.

 

[A2coins]

Cool gold coin and seated

 

[Older The Better]

I live a couple hours east of there, looks like the same stuff, except I haven’t found any coins. I’m guessing it came from saint Louis from the choteau trading operation

 

[uniface]

What people who want everything to be simple overlook by trying to force everything into that perspective is that any time you find something (like a "just a rock with no evidence of purposeful modification") where it doesn't naturally occur, you're looking at something that was carried in from somewhere else. And since people don't carry rocks around and leave them in other places for no reason, such items are significant, whether their intended purpose is known or not.

The twenty-five cent term for such an item is "manuport" (something carried in someone's hand).

I wish to heck people would get this this simple idea instead into their heads of repeating no-apparent-evidence-of-intentional-modification any time another one comes along as if that were the last word on it.

(I also wish I had a million dollars . . .)

Still not clear ? Using a rock to pound in a tent stake makes it a tool, no matter how you cut it. Maybe not one you'd bring home, but a tool nonetheless. Leaving it out of the inventory of artifacts from a site makes the record incomplete.

 

[bonedoctor]

I live a couple hours east of there, looks like the same stuff, except I haven’t found any coins. I’m guessing it came from saint Louis from the choteau trading operation

Our post was from a man named Greiffenstien. He was the father of Wichita.

 

[bonedoctor]

For an update- I have found many more items on the same area as the mallet. This includes silver scraps from jewelry making (99.6%), another nice trade point of iron, and a couple Nicole’s from 1866 and 1868. The most unusual thing is several pounds of slag that most people would assume was aluminum. It didn’t look or feel right. I had it tested and it is 15% silver, 5% gold, 27% cadmium, 30% iron, and 17% copper. Any speculation what was going on here? There is evidence of a fire 1’ deep.

 

[Buckleberry]

What people who want everything to be simple overlook by trying to force everything into that perspective is that any time you find something (like a "just a rock with no evidence of purposeful modification") where it doesn't naturally occur, you're looking at something that was carried in from somewhere else. And since people don't carry rocks around and leave them in other places for no reason, such items are significant, whether their intended purpose is known or not.

The twenty-five cent term for such an item is "manuport" (something carried in someone's hand).


I wish to heck people would get this this simple idea instead into their heads of repeating no-apparent-evidence-of-intentional-modification any time another one comes along as if that were the last word on it.

(I also wish I had a million dollars . . .)

Still not clear ? Using a rock to pound in a tent stake makes it a tool, no matter how you cut it. Maybe not one you'd bring home, but a tool nonetheless. Leaving it out of the inventory of artifacts from a site makes the record incomplete.

Meh, go back and read the order of information in which it was given in the thread, arrow86 stating that it looks natural is completely valid, he neither stated it was or was not "significant" and it certainly does look natural, a perfectly acceptable response to a thread asking for opinions.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

What people who want everything to be simple overlook by trying to force everything into that perspective is that any time you find something (like a "just a rock with no evidence of purposeful modification") where it doesn't naturally occur, you're looking at something that was carried in from somewhere else. And since people don't carry rocks around and leave them in other places for no reason, such items are significant, whether their intended purpose is known or not.

The twenty-five cent term for such an item is "manuport" (something carried in someone's hand).

I wish to heck people would get this this simple idea instead into their heads of repeating no-apparent-evidence-of-intentional-modification any time another one comes along as if that were the last word on it.

(I also wish I had a million dollars . . .)

Still not clear ? Using a rock to pound in a tent stake makes it a tool, no matter how you cut it. Maybe not one you'd bring home, but a tool nonetheless. Leaving it out of the inventory of artifacts from a site makes the record incomplete.

With out physical proof of some kind of use by man it is just a rock as far as our artifact forum is concerned. If they picked up a rock and killed a rabbit with it it was a tool, but no proof it was ever touched is just that, no proof it was used or is artifact ..

 

[uniface]

IMHO, you are much better at being a moderator than at being a lithic analyst

Your point is that tools are not necessarily artifacts.

That's fine. But if people only had artifacts as survival resources -- no tools for everything from preparing sinew, hammering antler drift punches in knapping, driving stakes and the rest of it -- they couldn't have lived at all.

That's why you find them in regions where there are no naturally occurring stones, and far from their sources.

They were (are) important.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Uniface with out proof on item that it was used by man there is no proof it is an artifact and as such it does not fit here.

Tools repeatedly used have signs of useage, one time use usually has no signs and without signs there is no proof it was used.

 

[MAMucker]

Hey Bonedoctor,
Your site is producing some unique pieces for sure. Is there any historical documentation on the years it was occupied pre and post contact?
I’ve seen only photos of trade points like yours. There have been a few conical copper points found on the east coast.

That decorative copper strip is quite interesting. I noticed the dotted-line punch interval and punch length varies.

Assuming it’s NA, how do you think the maker kept the dotted line so straight on such a tiny piece. Then again maybe it was stripped off a kettle?

 

[uniface]

T-H :

You have the tail wagging the dog.

You're setting up a procrustian bed, and rejecting everything that doesn't fit it.

Example : you define a horse as an animal with two eyes and four legs. That's fine as far as it goes, but then a horse with three legs comes along, or one with only one eye. You insist these are not horses, since they don't fit your definition.

That's where logic and reality diverge.

You could use a little hammer stone to break dried sinew down into bow-backing material for decades, or to drive an antler drift punch, without leaving any trace of apparent use wear. Or use a smooth, rounded pebble to burnish pottery. Again, no visible use wear, so "just a stone."

Assuming you're out to understand the things you find, you miss too much by setting an idea up to judge reality, instead of the other way around.

Then again, if all you care about is artifacts, you're fine.