Plymouth, MA and Cape Cod is an area of intense Indian history and prehistory going back many thousands of years. Recently, a builder started digging a foundation for a new home in my neighborhood. Out of curiosity I went over and looked around the site. Immediately I noticed some interesting looking rocks. Most of them are granite and have cut faces forming them into what I believe to be nice ergonomic hand tools, most of which show obvious signs of use and wear etc... I have since scoured my own rock piles and have found a series of rocks of similiar form.

According to a local archeologist there is no record of the Wampanoags or other Indians cutting or chipping granite to be used as tools. "..look like rocks... they did not use granite tools" I find this an unacceptable answer only b/c it does not make any sense to me that they 'never used granite' and also on the assumption that just because it is not of record doesn't mean it aint so.. I would argue that they would have used granite rocks as tools simply b/c they were available and work well for certain things because they are so hard. I guess the chipping and fragmenting is not easy to explain. The guy does want to do an archeological dig on my property though because of the location. Not sure if I want that yet or not, eventually I will.

Anyway, it will take me some time to take good pictures of some of my collection but I will post them as soon as I can. It is difficult to get the details to show up with photos sometimes. For now does anyone have any experience with prehistoric granite hand tools? I recall a thread somewhere where they had a series of granite head carvings that were never explained.. How hard is it to accurately cut and shape granite without modern tools?

Here is the link to my first attempt at video. It shows only three of the 45 items that I have collected and is not of great quality but it is a start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040WlwS9r9I

1- do you feel qualified to argue with archeologists who study this for their life's work?

2- Maybe the lost Jews that Mormons believe lived here made the granite tools.

That's great that you are collecting these things. That's how new information about ancient cultures is acquired. It's acquired by people saying "this doesn't look like a random rock".

Try sending photos to some universities in your area. Either to an anthropology department or to an archaeology department.

Arguing as a devil's advocate: Maybe they used found granite rocks as tools, but isn't the interesting thing when they modify things they have found to create custom made tools? How would they have carved granite? They didn't have iron so they would have had to find something that is harder than granite to carve with. Is there anything harder than granite in your area?

How would they have carved the granite? Well, I have also found large quartz peices that have been banged up. But to cut these? I don't think so but maybe someone else could propose what it would take to cut granite. Maybe that is why my local archeologist friend has to come to the conclusion that it wasn't done by anyone we have record of and therefore is of natural origins. But yet here are these uncanny rocks that look like they were modified and adjusted and made to be tools. If not the Wampanoags then who and when? Or maybe they are juct uncanny natural phenominon, but it will take a much better explanation than the under a cliff theory. Maybe things like this are not that uncommon and are yet nearly impossible to explain so written off as, "just rocks".

Picture taking is going to be a problem. That's why arrowheads and other points are so ubiqitous. They are easy to identify, take pictures of and draw. My finds are simple yet complex and as you say BlueZone, 'modified' so that they don't fit into recorded history. Why do you think I am posting this here.

Think about how many points have been discovered already. I assume that only a very small percentage have been found so far and yet they are so common they go for cheap money on Ebay. Then figure hunting with points had to be only some percentage of what early people were doing with rocks. But yet where are these rocks? Not in museams I would guess. Too obscure.

Hey does anyone have advice on taking good pictures of rocks. They come out like crap and look much closer to "just rocks" in pictures. In this case my pictures are worth there weight in paper. Maybe I'll try a short video. I should not rush this.... Because I don't want to post bad pictures. Patience please, they're only rocks.

Please post the photos as soon as you can. Is it possible you are over analyzing and seeing things that might not be there? Are you sure that the rocks are carved tools? Maybe your local archeologist friend, in his/her experience, thinks they are just natural formations?



Is that possibly because when you see them with your eye, your brain is interperting what you want to see, while a camera merely records an image and does not interpret?

I will try to clarify, yes the Archeologist definately thinks they are natural formations and reccomends that I go to a geologist to get a better explanation than he could give me. He also offered, after my urging, that over thousands of years, many many things can happen to shape rocks. Actually he gave me an example that if one of the rocks was under a cliff or a waterfall or something and got chipped away at by the falling debris. it might cause an effect something like that...and this is were the geologist comes in to help explain away these rocks. He also agreed that if I put it out there with enough Archeologists it is likely that I'd find one or more who would agree that I am actually on to something. To paraphrase he said there are different oppinions on such things and I heartily agree with him on that. He's an awesome guy and all but he doesn't have enough of an answer to satify me. It doesn't mean I am dissing him at all. I respect him and academia for eal. You just have to think outside the box on this one to get anywhere with it. Thus, " Unexplained Mysteries - Prehistoric Granite Hand Tools.


And as far as taking pictures.. Just the opposite. The camera can and will take good photos if I set it up right and take good photos. most of the photos I have taken so far have kind of sucked but I will get something tonight if not before...

Yes and no. I am qualified to argue but would not want to waste his time or mine. I'd rather dig something else up that fit's into history a little better and make him happy too. I will not argue- when a satisfying explanation comes along I'll agree with it. It would be nice if the explanation includes: Definately took a lot of effort and skill to make this obvious tool this way. Rocks of this shape were obviously important enough to justify the effort it would have taken with any technology to make. These rocks were so important to survival that they needed them to function perfectly for things like killing dinner and the like... I will however keep an open mind that it could be "just rocks". I am qualified to believe that there are things that are outside the box and yet exist anyway... and hopefully I can present a case that can work. Doesn't mean it will satisfy you or anyone else.

They roll down stairs
alone and in pairs

And over your neighbors dog
They fit on your back
They're great as a snack

They're Rock, rock, rock!!!

They're rock, they're rock. They're round they're heavy, they're stone..
They're rock, they're rock.. There good for bashing bone.

Everyone loves a rock
Go out and buy a rock.




Druids perhaps or Aliens? Not likely, but who then?.

I think you fail to realize that science must remain inside the box and must have evidence to support a hypothesis. It seems like you are starting with an idea and not giving up until you force yourself to find someone who agrees with you and disregarding those who have more experience and don't agree with you. This is horrible pseudo science.

Good luck.

It's not that I don't realize that there is a box and that these don't fit into it. I am not forcing myself to find someone who agrees with me from Academia, that would likely be fruitless. I already said that I believe my Archeologist friend is well educated and his oppinion probably jives with Academia. Though I have certainly not exhausted that avenue yet either. I just don't agree with him and he is one person so far. And you may make two perhaps. Are you concerned I may be on to something or that I might not follow protocol. I do realize I have presented this with a bit of expectation that I will be proven right, but then I think I am right. Of course you can say that I am not an expert in such things but who is since there is no records of modified granite hand tools as far as I know. I understand your criticism though and will try to keep a more scientific approach. I haven't disregarded anyone yet and I have not concluded anything yet. I will even say there is at least a 5% chance I am wrong. Ha ha ha... I did edit some of my posts to make them more concise without changing the jist of what I am saying. I will slow down and pre-edit from now on...

Anyway, it is all about the pics or video now isn't it?

I will not be able to post any pictures until tommorrow afternoon at earliest. I edited my posts to make them a bit more concise. Rock pics and video will be available tommorrow hopefully.

Dislexics of America Untie!

Well, what do you know! It appears we are neighbors, fellow New Englanders.

I have an idea of what these rocks may be. In New England there's a long standing tradition of building dry (no mortar used) rock walls. When one is building such rock walls it's often hard to find a good 'fit', that's when you grab a suitable rock (one that fits in your hand well) and begin to bang/chip away at another rock in order to create a better fitting stone. As an avid gardener, I've done this myself. The old granite stones you found may very well be the remains of an old Colonial rock wall. Just another idea, does seem to fit into what I've observed though.

If I'm not mistaken, when granite was used to make a tool it would have been used in pounding or grinding.

Anything that required a sharp edge was usually made out of harder rock such as chert or flint.

So if your piece of granite has edges, it may indeed have been used for something else.

Thanks for the idea Lilly but I don't think that is what I have here. But I will look at them again anyway with that idea in mind and see if it makes any sense that that is what it could be. Other ideas were that maybe when they cut the Cape Cod Canal they had to cut through granite and may have broken off peices that looked like this. Another good idea, and maybe worth a second look but again, I really don't think so.

These are somewhat rounded and typical looking on one face and completely 'worked' on the other face. The 'cuts' are oriented on each of a few 'subfaces' as part of the cut face. In other word, it would take an effort to get these rocks just the way they are, definately not random breaks. I think another problem is that while some of them had obvious usefulness to their shapes others are a bit of a mystery to me. I have found very large versions that weigh as much as 40 LBS and look as though they were meant to stay on the ground and be used in place as an anvil etc.

As an experiment I have split granite of the same type and it splits completely differently than this. Also the 'cuts' go accross the different aggregates of the granite. Instead of the less dense particles breaking away from the harder, the 'cuts' go accross the spectrum and even through some quartz pockets without changing the depth or texture of the cut.

Lilly when you say they chip away, would it look like they were chipped in lines accross a given face? Thanks

Most of the granite rocks don't have sharp edges. Although Most of the rocks do have at least one ridge. These ridges appear to be created and left intentionally on the cut face to stand proud of the different angles of the cut face. I believe that these were there for the very important reason as to give someone the ability to hold it well. Much like the cross-stitching on an American football. Ever try to throw a football without having your fingers on the finger lace? I have played with many of these rocks and they are perfect for pounding, grinding and as needed -throwing.

I mentioned that they make good hand warmers b/c I kept some of them on top of my back room boiler and when I pick them up they fit the hand so well that it is easy to imagine on a cold day this would be the way to start the day. As opposed to picking up a cold rock that would freeze your hand like the ones I pick-up that are stored in an outside shed. Hopefully I can make a good one-handed, one person video with my digital camera to show enough to see what I am talking about.

A first video is hopefully downloading to Youtube right now. This video shows the first 3 out of about 45 interesting rock items that I have collected from my own yard. Hopefully this and the rest of the series I hope to make will inspire some educated and insightful speculation as to how these would have been formed and/or modified. Whether it be a natural or a man-made phenominon I will keep an open mind. But, I will say that after studying all 45 of these items closely I hypothesize that they are authentic artifacts of unknown origin. I hope this forum will provide some information to help support or disprove my hypothesis. I expect the true skeptics already know what they are going to say before they even see these things.

Regardless of your oppinion of whether they are actual artifacts or not, I have a few questions:

1.) Could these have been cut or modified with a Quartz tipped tool? What else do we know of that prehistoric people might have cut these with?

2.) Will a University put a date on these regardless of how they think they were formed?

3.) How many modified rocks would it take to grind corn, smash a nut and ward off a bear attack?

4.) Hypothetical and Rhetorical: Say you are a prehistoric man and you could chose between a nice naturally shaped rock and the same nice naturally shaped rock modified to improve your grip, which would you chose?

One more thing: Before you critisize me and my hypothesis, walk a mile in my shoes. That way, you will be at least a mile away and you'll have my shoes.

Here it is. Wish I had an actual video camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040WlwS9r9I

By the way, I will be contacting my local archeologist again because he hasn't seen anything yet! Actually neither have you if all you have seen is my first and second lacking videos.

I have come across some interesting info on Massachusetts history before...

So maybe it is worth your while to look further...




http://www.eriemoundbuilders.com/time_dimension_dynamic/


Phoenician letters in Massachusetts,
Solving the Mystery of Carthaginian Coins Found in America. South Hadley, Massachusetts:
http://phoenicia.org/carthanewworld.html


then you can look up various sites on the Mound builders...

Or you can look even further back.,...





http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316...TOR-enlargePage

Crystal, thank you for the links. Incredible interesting stuff. Among the things I hope to find through some research are pictures of other verified granite stone tools so I can start making comparisons. Hopefully they exist.

Among the many interesting things my archeologist friend has pointed out is that there has never been a documented archeological dig in Plymouth, MA. So 'a dig in my yard could easily become significant,' he said. It is astonishing to think that the largest geographical town in MA; a land of 365 lakes and clear kettle ponds; a land that includes a major herring run (Great Herring Pond), a major eel run (Eel River); and is close to many fish runs (Stripers etc) as it borders the abundant Atlantic and yet no one has ever documented dig. Wow.

My finds could be the tip of the iceburg of what is underground. I am looking forward to Spring! Thank you again for the info.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Eh1WHqo0J...DY4LlJIV5HoTF0A


You could also see if there is anything further to Hatcher's claims...




At Goshen, Massachusetts, just north of Northampton, is a strange tunnel ... that these structures are very similar to the beehive caves and domes built by ...

http://mysterious-hills.blogspot.com/2006/...nel-enigma.html

http://www.iussa.org/project.php?cat=proje...age=esrs_9181_2



A Record of Excursions & Adventures in Massachusetts
Stone Circles, Dolmen, Chambers, Caves, and other oddities


http://www.boudillion.com/journal/journal.html


http://newenglandtowns.org/new-england-caves

Here is a link to both (or all) of my stone 'tool' videos. They are the same as in the poll thread.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user...an62566&p=r

Finally, I found something written about obscure stone tools and have included a link below.

E#xcerpt: Moderator?


This is a significantly related paper concerned with the grossly underexplored phenominon of crude stone tools. His experiences and location near lakes and legends of mounds is incredibly similiar to mine in many ways. From his pictures it is difficult to say if they are very similiar to mine. My first impression is that mine seem a bit more sofisticated, but mine are not much further up the artifact pyramid if they are at all. I have invited him by email to visit my threads and maybe he can comment on my first few stone videos. To read his paper in it's entirety please click below->

http://forsakenartifacts.com/

Future archeological digs should document the more obscure items that can be proven to be 'worked' and especially anything that looks 'shaped'. These future actions should someday successfully place them into our knowledge base, hopefully into a context that will satisfy academia.

Turns out there is a story of an 'Indian' mound within a number of miles from me that I need to find out more about. Today, I briefly went to the area where the mound is supposed to be or have been, and sure enough I found 2-3, what I would consider stones of interest because of the size and figuring like I see over and over. The stones were found within 3-4 feet from the only artifact like object I could find: What I would estimate to be a partially or mostly buried stone, with an estimated 150 LBS of exposed rock protruding straight upward in the shape of a three sided pyramid. It is not perfectly simetrical to all three sides but looks to be close in two of the three planes. Without exploring further there is no way to know how big this thing is or what it's story is. Because of it's location I would say it is likely to have been placed there as a sort of monolith marking the site, even by modern developers. There is no sign of a mound but early developement of the area could explain that possbily. I will do some needed research on this location and story and then I will post.

Here's something to ponder on the crude stone tool subject: How many discard piles from archeological digs are still holding potential artifacts that have been overlooked as 'just rocks'? Seems like anything found outside the predicted stratus or context, that is otherwise unexplainable, would need to be ignored in order to not challenge orthodox science.

Sounds like some of his stones might have been for flint knapping? When I viewed your video the first time I thought maybe your stones might have been used for the same purpose, but they seemed a bit too big and crude looking.

I won't agree with 'too big', again because I believe the tools size is only indicative to what it would be effective for. Just as today you can still buy a 1 LB or a 5 LB 'hammer' for example.

I don't agree with 'too crude' because that is what I propose I have here are crude stone tools. If they are too crude looking it may even be by design.

One hypothesis I just came up with goes like this: It is known that early people often would leave their many and heavy stone implements where they would be used again on return at a later date. The crudeness and natural appearance of one face would make them much much easier to disguise and look like 'just rocks' to others that happen accross the site. This way a 'station' could be left somewhat organized and ready for use again on return visits without being recognized and pillaged by others in their absence. I can imagine that as they prepared to move elsewhere seasonally etc they might have partially or completely buried the stones with the natural looking face, face up to help obscure what they were. I know I am reaching here a bit but it is another way to help explain the very different looking sides to some of these items. Obscure and crude could in fact be looked at as a benefit for that reason. All the tools had to be is effective. If I am right they intentionally did not pretty them up because then they'd only be more likely to get recognized and taken from the next opportunistic visitor. They may have done such a good job in that regard that these sorts of obscure tools may have been overlooked time and time again by trained professionals at earlier archeological digs perhaps.

Otherwise I propose that these crude tools would likely already be a matter of record and we would know the 'who' and the 'when' part of their story. The 'how' is yet another part of the mystery as the dense granite would not easily have been shaped. I will be looking at the Mound Builders artifacts to see if there are any similiarities.

Check this out. This article points out the reality of authenticating apparent early stone 'tools' with high authority within the orthodox science community when the stones features and location doesn' t fit the expectations of modern science. Looks like they'll need bones!

I don't! But now I better see why my local archeologist does.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0801news.asp

Hi there, I've just got a few little points/observations.

I think to start off with, the objects you have could possibly be interesting, but you might have lost a lot of the information you'd need to be able to put them into any kind of context.

If you're photographing them, you should try using the camera directly above them and moving them to different positions. Don't use a flash, and place the rocks onto a surface which creates some degree of contrast to the colour of the rock. Use 2 lights/lamps, one on either side, pointing down at maybe 30-45 degrees. This means you'll get less glare from the rock (you can also reduce this by diffusing the light...place some thin paper in front of the bulb, something like tracing paper would have the right kind of effect, and this will stop the light being so harsh). You can try turning one lamp off at a time and taking some shots; this will create shadows from one side or the other and probably give a better impression of the surface markings. You should also place something in the shot to give an idea of the size...this could be a ruler, or something like a coin. Oh, and if you have a macro setting (it should have a little flower icon, probably...) then set it to that. If the lens is quite wide angled when it's zoomed right out, then zoom in it closer and move the camera further back, this will give better perspective on the image.

I suppose because granite is a relatively course rock, it doesn't make for a good cutting edge in the way that something like flint, slate, quartz or obsidian would, but it is pretty decent for grinding. If the site had been carefully excavated there might have been evidence of something having been ground, like plant seeds or that kind of thing.

One of the unfortunate things is that your way of dating something like a rock is, the vast majority of the time, going to come from analysing the context from which it was found. As soon as the artefact's been ripped out of the ground it becomes really difficult to associate it to any potential layers of stratigraphy (the further you get below the ground, generally the further back in time, but this can be affected by loads and loads of different factors) which might include clues towards working out what period they're from. Just because these things were below ground doesn't mean they're not from 20 years ago or something, and the marks could be from something modern. Then again, they could be something significant, but by destroying the context the ability to detect any useful information dies too. (could the foundation still be excavated properly, or has the bit of land these came from been entirely dug up?).

In this day and age it's really not enough just to have an interesting object, the context is all important, especially when it's made of stone. Even if these actually were some form of hand tool, you'll probably never be able to start to interpret them as such without a whole range of evidence. Good luck though!

I suppose you could maybe get some kind of petrological analysis (where the constituents of the rock can be examined to compare to known samples from different areas) to see if they're originating from that area, but you'd need to pay for it!

I hope you post the photos once they've been taken.



Examining artefacts alone without the bigger picture is never going to satisfy academia. I wonder about the landscape though. Do you have a map reference for precisely where these were found? What had the are been used for recently, and as far back as records go?

Anyway, food for thought.

Most of these are surface collected after a good size dig with a big excavator, all torn up. No doubt that much of their context has ben obliterated. Others were already in rock piles from the previous homeowners. But a couple of them were found in the greatly eroded and undermined embankment at waters edge. For these some stratigraphy is still possible. When I have an archeological dig done here we can revisit those spots and hopefully get some context from that at least.



Thanks for the photography ideas. I will definately look into that. No apparent macro setting, but it does have a custom setting so maybe that can be set up for macro. I'll dig out the manual.

I suppose because granite is a relatively course rock, it doesn't make for a good cutting edge in the way that something like flint, slate, quartz or obsidian would, but it is pretty decent for grinding. If the site had been carefully excavated there might have been evidence of something having been ground, like plant seeds or that kind of thing.



The spot where a majority of the stones came from is probably pretty mixed up and the context destroyed. But there is plenty of untouched land on my lot that I suspect will provide more artefacts from within their context. Only a dig will tell.


We will likely find more and be able to extrapolate info from the other items hopefully



I will. I do think video is much much more revealing though and I may continue in that format also.





I have found more modern things like a steel sickle and a grinding wheel but have no idea what their story is either. The grinding wheel is 'modern' looking with a metal drive wheel attached. Its a very rural area with rolling foothills and kettle ponds scattered all around. Land would have been prime 'Indian' land, of that I have no doubt. Not sure if I want to map it to protect our privacy.

I found this site while browsing today, they might be a good source of information if you haven't contacted them already:

The Massachusetts Archaeological Society (MAS) http://www.massarchaeology.org/index.htm

Yes, the local archeologist I contacted is heavily involved with MAS, and I have brought my son to his intro to archeology class at he awesome Robbins Museum. They are an excellent source and I plan to use them extensively. I bring my son to their childrens programs etc and we are both thrilled with their offerings and both look forward to learning a lot more.

I did find pictures of some Wmapanoag stone tools that look very similar to manyh of mine. They appear to be of the same type of granite in the pictures although they are not described as such. Here is a link to the picture ---> http://books.google.com/books?id=2smvZ6XIA...W9J1M&hl=en

Wampanoags are the most likely explanation to these things, but only a dig will tell.

There seems to be a good deal of information on them, including their history with stone tools.

Have you been to Pimoth Plantation? http://www.plimoth.org/features/homesite.php

I have been there many times throughout my life and look forward to my next visit especially. Now that I am on a mission I have a whole new level of interest, and will keep an eye out for any similarities in their museum collections and even in their outdoor rock piles and stone walls. They open March 22nd for the season and I will be their soon afterwards no doubt. They have done test pits and some digging and have found items dating back around 6000 years on the premises. Plimouth Plantation is very close to me and I believe it is even free admission for residences of the town, so it should be a convenient and invaluable resource for me. I will offer my collection for display if they can be authenticated and there is any interest.