The debates continue

[Kantuckkeean]

Evidence that Native Americans may have been here longer than previously believed:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article214831930.html

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kantuckkeean]

Mods should delete post's that don't pertain to this thread.

I hope that the mods don’t. Perhaps then, members can continue to engage in respectful, friendly dialogue and increase their identification skills of artifacts and knowledge of their uses and technologies. That’s why I’m here... a simple aspirant to knowledge. And no worries Whiplash. I find it humorous how these threads drift about at times.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mine Shaft]

Ok whiplash continue with your distorted belief that you have discovered a ancient culture that dose not hold water in the "real" world. You have got to break yourself away before its to late. From what i see of your stones they were not altered by humans they are fractured stones that's all.

 

[Fred250]

Grim made a comment about a forum for those who wish the ooh and ahh over rocks. Why can’t that be here because no other place exists. I think there should be a sub-forum and don’t think it is without reason as obviously there is interest. Then we can stay out of your hair. Win-Win-Win, the best of all conflict resolutions.

 

[Charl]

Grim made a comment about a forum for those who wish the ooh and ahh over rocks. Why can’t that be here because no other place exists. I think there should be a sub-forum and don’t think it is without reason as obviously there is interest. Then we can stay out of your hair. Win-Win-Win, the best of all conflict resolutions.

There are sub-forums:

Geological Forums

Rocks mistaken for artifacts often find themselves moved to the geofact forum. One of the problems, which crops up on all the various Native American artifact forums, is the arrival of folks who insist their rocks are artifacts, and get way too bent out of shape when nobody agrees with them. That is often problematic. Experienced folks understandably get tired of folks who are mistaken and continue to show rocks, and oftimes new people with rocks, who don't realize they are mistaken, don't understand why people get sarcastic, etc. I don't think there is a fail safe solution to that quandary. But, without a doubt, we all see our fair share of people who simply will not take "those are natural rocks" for an answer.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Grim made a comment about a forum for those who wish the ooh and ahh over rocks. Why can’t that be here because no other place exists. I think there should be a sub-forum and don’t think it is without reason as obviously there is interest. Then we can stay out of your hair. Win-Win-Win, the best of all conflict resolutions.

We have a geofact forum for that already, it is under geological forums.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

There are sub-forums:

Geological Forums

Rocks mistaken for artifacts often find themselves moved to the geofact forum. One of the problems, which crops up on all the various Native American artifact forums, is the arrival of folks who insist their rocks are artifacts, and get way too bent out of shape when nobody agrees with them. That is often problematic. Experienced folks understandably get tired of folks who are mistaken and continue to show rocks, and oftimes new people with rocks, who don't realize they are mistaken, don't understand why people get sarcastic, etc. I don't think there is a fail safe solution to that quandary. But, without a doubt, we all see our fair share of people who simply will not take "those are natural rocks" for an answer.

I agree with everything that you've posted, but I feel that some of the condescension and outright hostility that I've seen here is unwarranted. I can understand why the experts here may get tired of repeatedly explaining to folks why their rocks are simply rocks, but a little more understanding on their part would go a long way. I came to this forum to share my knowledge and to learn from those who have more knowledge on a particular subject than me. Many of the newcomers are, like me, curious aspirants to knowledge and excited about their potential finds and are quite disappointed to hear that their "artifact" is quite probably just a rock. A little patience goes a long way and I wish it was practiced by both the newcomers and the experts. And we must remember, experts can be wrong and newcomers can be right. For instance, if I posted these as my first finds, many experts here would say that they're just naturally formed rocks and not artifacts, and they'd be wrong, and not because they're not experts, but because a 2-dimensional photo doesn't tell the whole story.
View attachment 1613236Sometimes, it's just that the photo doesn't do the object justice. Or it could be similar to what FreemindedClark did a while back. Turns out, he's got some nice artifacts and was looking for expert opinions on some questionable pieces. The pieces that I just posted have tiny, man-made parallel scratches and one has a nice, flat surface that was used (I'm sure), as an abrasive stone since sandstone isn't particularly common around me. Here they are with a few rotated to different angles and you can see that one is highly polished in just one area... I'm not sure what that's about... knapping stone?
View attachment 1613238
Here's a couple more of some sort of grinding stone?? that my son found. Looks like a common, naturally formed, creek-rounded rock, until you examine it a little closer and note that one side is smoother than the other and one of the sides is discolored. There's a distinct line around it that is more dramatic when wet. Oh and yes, as usual, it does fit perfectly in one's hand.
View attachment 1613239View attachment 1613240

I'm hoping that the experts, the newcomers, and everyone in between will chill out a bit.

And since we're debating stuff, Treasure_Hunter: What happened to the axe and handle post? One of those was, in my opinion a legitimate artifact, with some others that were possibilities as well. I was really interested to learn more about the coconuts in Ohio.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

They were moved to geofact forum


The problem isn't the posting of rocks, the problem is when members start arguing the rock is an artifact and members who have collected for decades just aren't looking at the rock correctly.

This is indian artifact forum, geofacts are moved to geofact forum.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

They were moved to geofact forum


The problem isn't the posting of rocks, the problem is when members start arguing the rock is an artifact and members who have collected for decades just aren't looking at the rock correctly.

This is indian artifact forum, geofacts are moved to geofact forum.

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on it. I'm seriously intrigued by the coconuts.

 

[Doubter in MD]

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on it. I'm seriously intrigued by the coconuts.

So was I.

 

[Charl]

I agree with everything that you've posted, but I feel that some of the condescension and outright hostility that I've seen here is unwarranted. I can understand why the experts here may get tired of repeatedly explaining to folks why their rocks are simply rocks, but a little more understanding on their part would go a long way. I came to this forum to share my knowledge and to learn from those who have more knowledge on a particular subject than me. Many of the newcomers are, like me, curious aspirants to knowledge and excited about their potential finds and are quite disappointed to hear that their "artifact" is quite probably just a rock. A little patience goes a long way and I wish it was practiced by both the newcomers and the experts. And we must remember, experts can be wrong and newcomers can be right. For instance, if I posted these as my first finds, many experts here would say that they're just naturally formed rocks and not artifacts, and they'd be wrong, and not because they're not experts, but because a 2-dimensional photo doesn't tell the whole story.
View attachment 1613236Sometimes, it's just that the photo doesn't do the object justice. Or it could be similar to what FreemindedClark did a while back. Turns out, he's got some nice artifacts and was looking for expert opinions on some questionable pieces. The pieces that I just posted have tiny, man-made parallel scratches and one has a nice, flat surface that was used (I'm sure), as an abrasive stone since sandstone isn't particularly common around me. Here they are with a few rotated to different angles and you can see that one is highly polished in just one area... I'm not sure what that's about... knapping stone?
View attachment 1613238
Here's a couple more of some sort of grinding stone?? that my son found. Looks like a common, naturally formed, creek-rounded rock, until you examine it a little closer and note that one side is smoother than the other and one of the sides is discolored. There's a distinct line around it that is more dramatic when wet. Oh and yes, as usual, it does fit perfectly in one's hand.
View attachment 1613239View attachment 1613240

I'm hoping that the experts, the newcomers, and everyone in between will chill out a bit.

And since we're debating stuff, Treasure_Hunter: What happened to the axe and handle post? One of those was, in my opinion a legitimate artifact, with some others that were possibilities as well. I was really interested to learn more about the coconuts in Ohio.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Sorry to be late replying to you. I don't disagree with you, either. I've mentioned this before, but I also don't think it's my place to lecture the forum. But, I'll say it again, that the misunderstandings can be a two way street. If long standing members tire of having to say some version of "it's just a rock", it's also true that newcomers will be completely baffled by sarcasm or jokes, if that's the form initial replies to their non-artifacts take. It boils down to the limitations built into a venue where we are not all in the same room with each other, reacting live, passing the objects around for examination, etc. But, suffice to say the misunderstandings occur on both sides of the transaction. It's just not a perfect venue.

Sorry your photos don't seem to have come through, I was hoping to see your examples...

 

[georgia flatlander]

One of the biggest issues is, and I'll say it for the 1000th time, is CONTEXT. A rock is not an artifact, no matter how many ways you turn it or photograph it in different light. On the other hand, that particular rock may have been special to someone, or was collected thousands of years ago because it was unique. Even if that is the case, it isn't technically an artifact. An artifact, by definition, is an item made by a human being, typically with cultural or historical implications. I have been on digs where archaeologists have uncovered burials where the decedent had "pretty" rocks included with his or her other possessions. While they may have been possessions, they are not technically "artifacts".
Again, context is everything. Finding a polished rock in a creek bed full of jagged rocks is an anomaly, but doesn't make it an artifact. Finding one in an area devoid of rocks but saturated with artifacts may have another implication. While still not technically an artifact, it can be inferred that it has some sort of meaning to the owner. It is very difficult for members here to know the context of one's find unless there is some sort of description given, and even then some may be dubious. The bottom line is knowing when to declare and when to ask.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Hi Charl,

Yeah, I don't know why the photos didn't post. The links seemed to work, so I left it the way it was. Here they are again in two posts...


I consider these to be artifacts, as they were obviously used as tools...

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Here are the other two photos of something that my son found. Not sure what to call it. I assume that it was used for grinding something, possibly sunflower seeds??



My point in posting these was that the first photo in each post here might lead some folks to say, "Sorry, just rocks." But as georgia flatlander said, context is everything. These were found in the same small area where I think that there was a camp because there are so many flakes of chert and 8 nice points and some other tools have been found.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Charl]

Here are the other two photos of something that my son found. Not sure what to call it. I assume that it was used for grinding something, possibly sunflower seeds??

View attachment 1618295View attachment 1618296

My point in posting these was that the first photo in each post here might lead some folks to say, "Sorry, just rocks." But as georgia flatlander said, context is everything. These were found in the same small area where I think that there was a camp because there are so many flakes of chert and 8 nice points and some other tools have been found.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Yeah, perhaps that's a Mano. Bear in mind a couple of things. Nobody knows a surface collected site better then a collector who has hunted it for years. Sometimes objects are found that stand out as odd to such a collector. And sometimes such objects are likely manuports, objects that often show no utilization per se, although things like chunks of graphite and hematite, raw material that was utilized and might show that utilization, are manuports as well. But something like a nice quartz crystal found on the surface of a site will also stand out, and might have been part of a shaman's kit. Yet, as you say, context is key. It's usually impossible to say for certain that such finds are true manuports transported to the site by an ancient inhabitant. True context is when such objects are found in direct association with known artifacts within a carefully controlled excavation. That is context. Surface finds don't provide that true context. But, surface collectors who know their sites like the back of their hand understandably collect such finds on a hunch. Nothing wrong with that, but proven to be true manuports is more elusive absent finding them in a controlled excavation in direct association with artifacts.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

Thank you for the feedback Charl. I’m certain that the one is a mano, as is everyone else who has held it.

You added a word to my vocabulary. I wasn’t familiar with the term “manuport” so I looked it up and the definition that I found pertains to objects that are moved from one location to another by humans, but otherwise remain unchanged, which would make true context essential. I wouldn’t consider any of the items pictured to be manuports because the items pictures in posts #32 and #33 don’t quite meet that definition as they have all been changed through use. In post #32, second photo, you can see that the bottom middle artifact is highly polished in one area from some use. The others all have small, parallel scratches that were not naturally created or happened from contact with a farm implement. The one with the flat side shows signs of being used for possibly sanding, as it’s texture is similar to sandstone.

I agree with everything you said. While surface finds don’t provide the same context as a controlled excavation (especially where the surface and subsurface have been disturbed through tillage, as is the case with the small area in the field where these were found), the occurrence of the artifacts pictured on the same site where we’ve found a LeCroy, a Hardin?, a Palmer, a Palmer blunt, a Kirk?, a piece of a bannerstone?, several other unknown points, and many chert flakes makes the possibility of them being there through coincidence highly unlikely.

The point of posting the items in two photos and providing characteristics of the items was only to demonstrate how photos don’t tell the whole story and how if I’d just posted the first of the two photos in posts #32 and #33 and asked for opinions, I most likely would have received responses to the effect of, “Sorry, just rocks, keep looking.” I deliberately used those examples because without the background and better photos, there would be no reason for the experts here to believe them to be anything other than rocks. More to the point, if I had found them anywhere else, I wouldn’t have given them a second glance, even though I’m absolutely certain that they were used by native Americans as tools for something, although I’m also certain that I do not know what that use was.

Since this post drifted away from the original topic, I was simply trying to illustrate that experts can sometimes be wrong through no fault of their own and I was trying to get everyone to chill out a bit. I agree with everyone who has suggested that those seeking information from the experts should remain respectful and not get so bent out of shape if they don’t get the answer that they’d hoped to hear. Some of the discourse has been less than civil in some of the “rock or artifact” debates in my opinion. I just wish that everyone would recognize that the experts are providing their opinions based on the information provided, and that letting folks know that “it’s just a rock” is ethical and much better than deceiving the information seekers and “ oohing and aahing” over rocks.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[southfork]

I find small round manuports on one of the camps I hunt . If they don't show obvious wear I leave them because only myself knows what and where they come from . They just become rocks .

 

[Charl]

Thank you for the feedback Charl. I’m certain that the one is a mano, as is everyone else who has held it.

You added a word to my vocabulary. I wasn’t familiar with the term “manuport” so I looked it up and the definition that I found pertains to objects that are moved from one location to another by humans, but otherwise remain unchanged, which would make true context essential. I wouldn’t consider any of the items pictured to be manuports because the items pictures in posts #32 and #33 don’t quite meet that definition as they have all been changed through use. In post #32, second photo, you can see that the bottom middle artifact is highly polished in one area from some use. The others all have small, parallel scratches that were not naturally created or happened from contact with a farm implement. The one with the flat side shows signs of being used for possibly sanding, as it’s texture is similar to sandstone.

I agree with everything you said. While surface finds don’t provide the same context as a controlled excavation (especially where the surface and subsurface have been disturbed through tillage, as is the case with the small area in the field where these were found), the occurrence of the artifacts pictured on the same site where we’ve found a LeCroy, a Hardin?, a Palmer, a Palmer blunt, a Kirk?, a piece of a bannerstone?, several other unknown points, and many chert flakes makes the possibility of them being there through coincidence highly unlikely.

The point of posting the items in two photos and providing characteristics of the items was only to demonstrate how photos don’t tell the whole story and how if I’d just posted the first of the two photos in posts #32 and #33 and asked for opinions, I most likely would have received responses to the effect of, “Sorry, just rocks, keep looking.” I deliberately used those examples because without the background and better photos, there would be no reason for the experts here to believe them to be anything other than rocks. More to the point, if I had found them anywhere else, I wouldn’t have given them a second glance, even though I’m absolutely certain that they were used by native Americans as tools for something, although I’m also certain that I do not know what that use was.

Since this post drifted away from the original topic, I was simply trying to illustrate that experts can sometimes be wrong through no fault of their own and I was trying to get everyone to chill out a bit. I agree with everyone who has suggested that those seeking information from the experts should remain respectful and not get so bent out of shape if they don’t get the answer that they’d hoped to hear. Some of the discourse has been less than civil in some of the “rock or artifact” debates in my opinion. I just wish that everyone would recognize that the experts are providing their opinions based on the information provided, and that letting folks know that “it’s just a rock” is ethical and much better than deceiving the information seekers and “ oohing and aahing” over rocks.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Where manuports are concerned, I was speaking in generalities, and not specific to anything you had posted. As far as what goes on in fields you hunt, you know best.