tryin, but i dont get it.

[missmoose]

tryin', but i don't get it.

trying to follow the directions so other people can see the artifacts. hoe blade and etc. Just not technically handy. sorry.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[GaRebel1861]

It looks like a natural rock to me. Might want to add some more photographs showing it from different angles. Good luck.

 

[rock]

Looks natural to me also. It helps if you know rocks as well as artifacts. Most and not all but most will have the outter skin (cortex) altered in order for it to be more than just a rock. Yours doesnt show it being altered in other words the cortex is still intact.

 

[larson1951]

hey hey welcome to the tnet
you can learn a lot here
i think the image you posted is a natural rock with a unique shape to it
if you need help with posting an image here are many members here including myself that will help

 

[missmoose]

supercilious people

gee, you guys are pretty hardcore. you presume quite a bit also. i have a very good knowledge of rocks. what i don't know, i pick up from my brother who went to college for the natural sciences. anyway, this item comes from a known indian settlement. there are quite a few others almost identical. if it's a bad photo, i can try again, but there are definite wear patterns from when it was used for digging. one corner has been ground down from digging. there are also signs that it was shaped (beveling). in the same location, i've picked up dozens of pestles (shiny on the working end and at the hand grip, but nowhere else)......lots of potato mashers, stone club heads, hammerstones, i'm not gonna list them all. your position isn't logical. if i can go there right now and pick up more blades, just like this, and it is a known (large) indian settlement, and the site is loaded with undoubted indian artifacts, then i would conclude that i'm right. i get the feeling that people here don't want to be too open minded, and that they want to dismiss anyone that isn't THEM. i am as intelligent as the next guy -- most people believe much more so. i know the difference between a "rock" and a tool. i politely say that your treatment is extremely narrow minded and wrong. i have a multi- point checklist that i go through before i'll collect anything. i'm not lugging home a pack full of rocks. i'm not that stupid. i have a beautiful collection, but i won't even bother to put the photos up. i have a friend who is a curator. i know what i've got. also, i've done comparison studies online -- found items almost identical. what do people get out of trying to take away from others?

 

[missmoose]

still learning about posting photos

if you'd seen the other side, you would have seen the hammering marks....... it WAS altered.

 

[larson1951]

if you'd seen the other side, you would have seen the hammering marks....... it WAS altered.

i would like to see a few more pictures if you will post them
i meant no disrespect and i apologize if you think i did
once again welcome to the tnet

 

[NCPeaches]

Welcome to the site missmoose! I would love to know more about your site and see more of your artifacts! Please post more when you get a chance and get more familiar with the forum tools.

 

[missmoose]

sorry, but i will fight like a bulldog when i know i'm right. built into the DNA...... just scrappy that way. try to overlook.

 

[Charl]

sorry, but i will fight like a bulldog when i know i'm right. built into the DNA...... just scrappy that way. try to overlook.

Nothing wrong with being a fighter when you are right. Understand, however, if you show that rock to every artifact forum, you will get the same answer: it's a natural rock that only has the shape of a tool. And folks are being very logical in explaining to you why it is not an artifact. People have developed a nickname for such rocks: geofacts. I earned a degree in geology ages ago, and have collected rocks, minerals, fossils, artifacts, and meteorites for decades now. I respect your firmly held opinion, but, as I say, there are people with 50-60 years experience collecting Native American artifacts on the Internet forums, and they will all tell you that rock is natural, regardless of how hard you fight. Really - Which doesn't mean it couldn't have been used as an expedient digging tool; it just was not worked into the shape you see, the shape itself is natural, and some stem hoes in New England can be very similar if there is a natural "crook" in the "handle" end.

"get the feeling that people here don't want to be too open minded, and that they want to dismiss anyone that isn't THEM."

Really, that isn't true and from the point of view of experienced collectors, it would appear more likely that you are being close minded if you really don't want to learn from other people. When folks offer an opinion that differs from your own, does that really make them close minded? Of course it doesn't. The opinions are genuine and offered in good faith!

And welcome to TNet!

 

[missmoose]

yeah. no budging me. i'm there on the site, arrowheads all over. we all know they lived there for many centuries. i'm the one handling the thing in person, studying it with a magnifying glass and etc.
maybe it can be conceded that there are things not shown in photos. just exactly what reasons will be given for the 100 other things i've gotten (at the same place), that are not debatable at all ?

 

[missmoose]

it is completely pointless to debate this further. you don't even listen to what i'm saying. i said it FEELS like people are not listening (some of them anyway) or are having a closed mind. in the end, this seems like a site about opinions, and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. i don't reach a conclusion without thinking about it extensively, pro AND con, gathering facts & supporting data, etc. i am not prone to deluding myself. people who know me know that i consider all angles and am very open minded. i don't say things lightly. i believe this because i've researched, compared, asked people with more knowledge and considered ALL the facts. having done that, i have above-average faith in my convictions, and don't choose to dismiss them because some complete stranger says i should. after all, it is one (not very good) photo. i'm thinking that it could be premature to make such definite pronouncements based on such little information. when you handle it in person and see more sides to it, it really DOES become evident that it was made and used. i can't and won't defend my posiition further. what some are missing here is the very real fact that i'm happy to say when i've found a plain rock. i do it all the time, no shame in it.

 

[Road Dog]

I can see why folks would say geofact based on one distant pic. To head this off I would have posted some closeups of the areas of this piece that exibit being worked and worn. This was suggested in the second response. I know it's hard to see alot of without having it in hand. Get on that Macro setting.

 

[old digger]

Welcome to TNET, missmoose!

May we please see more pictures of your item in question. Thank You!

 

[tomclark]

With an attitude and rants like that, forum history proves you may not last long here anyway, IMHOP. Just say, "Thanks for nothing, you're all idiots" and move along, go collecting. We've been through this so many times on ALL the boards, it rarely turns out good.
-Supercilious Tom in FL

 

[Doubter in MD]

Why didn't you post a picture of that side?

 

[quito]

it is completely pointless to debate this further. you don't even listen to what i'm saying. i said it FEELS like people are not listening (some of them anyway) or are having a closed mind. in the end, this seems like a site about opinions, and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. i don't reach a conclusion without thinking about it extensively, pro AND con, gathering facts & supporting data, etc. i am not prone to deluding myself. people who know me know that i consider all angles and am very open minded. i don't say things lightly. i believe this because i've researched, compared, asked people with more knowledge and considered ALL the facts. having done that, i have above-average faith in my convictions, and don't choose to dismiss them because some complete stranger says i should. after all, it is one (not very good) photo. i'm thinking that it could be premature to make such definite pronouncements based on such little information. when you handle it in person and see more sides to it, it really DOES become evident that it was made and used. i can't and won't defend my posiition further. what some are missing here is the very real fact that i'm happy to say when i've found a plain rock. i do it all the time, no shame in it.

Ease up miss. You even admit it is a less than good picture. Everyone here would rather help you than insult you.

Something tells me that was the best photo you have, or a fighter like you would be delivering us the knock-out photo. Something else tells me that if it is that painstaking of a process to determine if something is an artifact, it was probably a real stretch and not a preponderance of the evidence that made the final call. It also SEEMS, you have based you opinion more on location of the find, rather than any real and obvious evidence.

 

[Charl]

it is completely pointless to debate this further. you don't even listen to what i'm saying. i said it FEELS like people are not listening (some of them anyway) or are having a closed mind. in the end, this seems like a site about opinions, and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. i don't reach a conclusion without thinking about it extensively, pro AND con, gathering facts & supporting data, etc. i am not prone to deluding myself. people who know me know that i consider all angles and am very open minded. i don't say things lightly. i believe this because i've researched, compared, asked people with more knowledge and considered ALL the facts. having done that, i have above-average faith in my convictions, and don't choose to dismiss them because some complete stranger says i should. after all, it is one (not very good) photo. i'm thinking that it could be premature to make such definite pronouncements based on such little information. when you handle it in person and see more sides to it, it really DOES become evident that it was made and used. i can't and won't defend my posiition further. what some are missing here is the very real fact that i'm happy to say when i've found a plain rock. i do it all the time, no shame in it.

My goodness...

 

[Charl]

OK, miss, since you ID the rock as a hoe blade, and since I am right next door in New England, I'll run a stem hoe by you from the Northeast:

A crude tool compared to the notched flint hoes from our southern states. To say the least. This example is made of a finer grain sandstone and was probably partly worked into this shape. Here is the description of this artifact class from the Massachusetts Archaeology Society's "A Handbook of Indian Artifacts from Southern New England"(revised edition 1991)by Curtiss Hoffman. Here, Dr. Hoffman quotes the original text by William Fowler, p. 69:


Stem Hoe: Middle-Late Woodland. "While limited in number, enough specimens of this tool have been found to warrant placing it in a separate category by itself. It's chief characteristic is a crook in the stone at the stem end, which was attached to the handle. The bit at the opposite end is thinned by chipping, and may be out-flaring or shaped more like a spoon, when made from a pebble spall....Scarcity of the Stem Hoe is due, no doubt, to the infrequent appearance of stone blanks with the required crook at one end."

Hard to visualize how they "worked" it since it is sandstone and while sandstone is good for bowls, pipes, and a lot of other things, they are artifacts that are ground, not flaked. Here's a close up of the bit on both sides. You also get a sense in hand that the right flank of the artifact was altered a bit, crimped or even flaked, but it's not the obvious nature of flaked artifacts of flint, etc. Horticulturall tools here include stem hoes, triangular hoes(even more difficult to recognize) and pestles. Metamorphic rocks were often selected, as well as sandstone. With the exception of pestles, almost all of these tools were very casual in nature, very easy to overlook because of the material and minimal alteration of the stone at times.

The fact is I bet many collectors walk by this tool. The native picked a natural rock with enough of a natural crook to use it as described above, once they trimmed the business end. And, in the case of your rock, perhaps that was the intention. However, your rock, unlike the one seen here, is not partly worked into shape, and your photo is plenty good enough to demonstrate that to eyes apparently far more experienced then yours. I don't doubt you have found actual Native American artifacts where you found that rock, and maybe it was a pick up and use kinda thing. But it shows no alteration by the hands of man, and it is not my fault or anyone else's fault on TNet that that is the case. You are just being unreasonable and behaving as if you are the foremost expert in artifacts who has ever lived and breathed. But, obviously you are not. Just relax and try to learn something. Since when did you decide you have nothing else to learn and that nobody knows better then you do? C'mon now, act like an adult for heaven's sake.

 

[ncnurseryman]

I think there is a troll in the mist here.