Also has a small inline indentation on the backside that is nowhere near as prominent as the one on the face, but it is noticeable.
Amazon Forum Fav đź‘Ť
Upvote
0
Walking a creek today in Maine. My dad and I think this is an abrader maybe?
- Thread starter Valloy123
- Start date
Also has a small inline indentation on the backside that is nowhere near as prominent as the one on the face, but it is noticeable.
quito
Silver Member
It sure resembles one.
But just looking at this on my phone.
But just looking at this on my phone.
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
It could be, but it could be from natural erosion just as easily.
- Thread starter
- #4
We were thinking natural erosion at first, but the nearly perfectly circular divot makes it sure seem man made. (It’s hard to get a picture showing how circular it is) I’ll try to get some better pictures. Thanks for the response!
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
I zoomed in on that last picture and that looks like an eroded fossil in the groove so it's most likely natural.
quito
Silver Member
I agree, the groove isn't near smooth enough to indicate any type of use wear.
Greg Lafla
Full Member
- May 30, 2018
- 148
- 26
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I wouldn't take their word for it if you think it's an artifact, and you obviously do, it probably is. You won't ever really see the tool marks in pics,your eyes are gonna be the best judge.
quito
Silver Member
Last edited:
Yes, let your imagination be the judge and discount the opinions of people that have collected Native American artifacts all their lives from areas rich in Native American culture. Gary
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
Classic!
Greg Lafla
Full Member
- May 30, 2018
- 148
- 26
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Did he claim to be holding a Clovis artifact. No he thinks it's man made and until you hold it in your hand and observe with your eyes it's form and function I think he's a better judge. Just because it isn't pictured in Clark's fith revision of squibnocket triangles of the northeast doesn't prove to me it's not an artifact. I bet it was fits in your hand like a glove and shows obvious function when held.
The Grim Reaper
Gold Member
You didn't just say "it fits your hand"?? lol
Anyone who has collected for almost their entire lives can see that is not an artifact. Look at the close up picture. You can see the rough ridges of something eroding in there. Not the grind marks and polishing you would see in an Abrader. If you wish to deride us at least use something other than the "it fits the hand" hypothesis.
Anyone who has collected for almost their entire lives can see that is not an artifact. Look at the close up picture. You can see the rough ridges of something eroding in there. Not the grind marks and polishing you would see in an Abrader. If you wish to deride us at least use something other than the "it fits the hand" hypothesis.
Greg Lafla
Full Member
- May 30, 2018
- 148
- 26
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Too bad I imagine you've walked right past so many cool things in those long years. Why is the study of history so close minded none of us were here we don't know what really went on no matter what some book tries to tell you just theories given the best evidence to date.
quito
Silver Member
LOL, I'd bet you a bundle he hasn't. You don't know any of us well enough to have a clue what we may know let alone what someone may have walked or crawled passed.
Them hands we've been blessed with are pretty amazing, one way or another, they can grip all kinds of shapes and forms comfortably. Fitting the hand is not a factor in determining an artifact, especially something as natural as the piece in question is.
So what says I am an artifact to you about that piece besides it probably fits the hand?
quito
Silver Member
Here are some actual abrading stones and portions of.
Greg Lafla
Full Member
- May 30, 2018
- 148
- 26
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Too bad I imagine you've walked right past so many cool things in those long years. Why is the study of history so close minded none of us were here we don't know what really went on no matter what some book tries to tell you just theories given the best evidence to date. Clovis first is like flat earth theory, people will laugh about it someday.
Greg Lafla
Full Member
- May 30, 2018
- 148
- 26
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Honestly nothing I can't tell for sure from a pic it could be natural, besides the point really. I don't know ant of you so hence the reluctance to believe your opinion on one pic as the final verdict. If I'm not banned for life from the forums later I'll post some more pics of non-artifacts for you all to laugh at. I hope you realize I don't mean to deride or personally attack just to argue my side.
Charl
Silver Member
FWIW, not much in my opinion, Flat Earth theory is enjoying its greatest resurgence, no doubt due in part to the overall decline in trust in authority in many realms. They had their first American conference last year, and the second one later this year. First Flat Earth conference in Great Britain recently.
As for Clovis first, only a few holdouts now. Rather then laugh, likely to be judged as mistaken. Science, after all, if it is science, is self correcting. That's the way good science works, no matter how arrogant the supporters of theories destined to be supplanted, can be at times. Only a couple hundred years ago, scientists did laugh at folks saying they had seen stones fall from the sky. But, eventually meteorites were recognized as stones that fell from the sky. Good science is self correcting.
quito
Silver Member
Ummm, there were more than one pic.
Now why would you want to post non-artifacts here? We get enough good laughs already.
Please, just post artifacts and or things you suspect ARE artifacts, and you won’t have to worry about a forced vacation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Member Reactions
-
3480 -
1986 -
1912 -
1160 -
1090 -
1010 -
889 -
864 -
860 -
795 -
759 -
676 -
659 -
567 -
508 -
453 -
447 -
410 -
401 -
E
398
