Please view these videos, vote in the pole, and then post an explanation of your answer if you'd like to elaborate. There are now two videos.


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

This poll is about getting random peoples oppinions. Although if you are a geologist or an archeologist I definately want to hear as much detail about your answer as possible. Before posting the second video the vote was 2/4/2/2

After making the second video, I have noticed many more details as to how the two stones from the first video fit the hand. The smaller one has grooves and ridges to accomodate every joint and muscle in the hand! The big hammerstone is actually made for a lefty!! That way you can hold it like a football with four fingers on the ridge! If you haven't voted yet watch them in order and then vote. Please keep in mind that all of these were all found within my yard, mostly from one excavation I had done a couple years ago. This was a lot of digging and I rented a big excavator for it. At the time I was throwing rocks off to the side to get them out of the way and to use them in a rock garden. This is a lakefront location with common Indian artifacts like arrowheads being found nearby.

there is no way of really telling from the video what the rock actually is. But Granite was a common stone used in the various stone ages, the only drawback with it being that granite will not flake, and will not hold a sharp edge. It was mostly used as "hammer-stone", mill-stone. and rollers.

The stone age we often consider to be very ancient history but today stone - using cultures still exist modified with metal tools to help shape the harder stones. Just my 2c's worth

The larger and last stone in the video, confirmed to be granite, clearly has a worked (or damaged) edge at the base of the teardrop shape. This jives with being the most comfortable way to hold and use it as a hammer-stone. I should have pointed that out. It weighs just shy of 5 LBS and is designed for a lefty.

Not sure if I should let this poll die. I show three very different rocks and threaten to post more. People could easily have different oppinions on each rock; I am just looking for a first impression from what you think of the striations, figuring, chipping, indications of being worked by the hand of a human. Let's judge them for what they look like if found on the surface near a proven ancient site where arrowheads and other typical artifacts from a spectrum of time periods might be found. This is a bit of an assumption because my yard has not been dug yet but it is likely to be proven, just based on proximity.

My first thoughts were that they seemed to large to be used effectively as hand tools, and they are not particularly well defined.

I think I'd be using a stone that fit the shape of my hand better and was rounded more on the ends if I was grinding or hammering, but then again I have no need of stone tools so what do I know.

They look natural to me. What do archeologists and geologists say? They sure don't look like tools to me. I don't know about the striations, but I would wager a geologist will tell you that they were formed by natural processes, perhaps glaciation.

I think you are reaching here.

Don't let the size throw you, different sizes for different jobs and/or different sized owners.

Not particularly well defined, but defined enough to be well suited for what I propose they would have been used for. I believe they fit the hand and work remarkebly well. I will try to show that in the next video.

All natural product, no additives or preservatives.



Thanks for asking, I do need to get a few more professional oppinions in play here for sure and when I do I will post what I find, one way or the other.



Nothing you'd see in a modern tool box that's for sure. But can't a modified rock be a tool if it is used as a tool?

Compare my video to the glossy picture story on a National Geographic article here->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...tone-tools.html.

Should I assume that was National G.'s best quick pic? A still shot from my video may have looked as nice in that article. Not to compare sites and context of course.

That article makes me wonder since there seem to be no consensus yet a year later: How often will land useage, profit, or scientific orthodoxy prevail over profound discovery? And where are the follow up articles and internet sites with pictures of these and related finds?



Could be glaciation, but I doubt it. Let the analysis begin! (edit: removed professional witness analogy- b/c not needed here)



Until I convince you they are real artifacts, that would be your rightful oppinion. I will continue to build my case but this will likely take some time. So I am reaching. I 'm OK with that for now.

I just posted a second video. Both videos are available for viewing from the same link:


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


The second video is not much better but is more about how they fit the hand. After I uploaded it I realized that the details of how they fit the hand are even more exacting than I ever imagined, accomodating every joint and muscle on some of these things! The large hammerstone with football grip is actually for a lefty, I can see that now. So the second video needs to be redone already. At least this exercise is making me learn more and more as I go along. Thank you for your patience, I am doing these videos late night when I am exhausted and can barely speak never mind extemporaneously explain what they are.

The second video to me is much more convincing, the smaller stones do look like they could be used fairly easily. I'm not so sure about the "axe" though, is it made from the same type of rock?

I went back to the first video again, I still think the two larger stones would be hard to use unless you were a body builder, certainly too large for a smaller person to use for any length of time?

The axe thing is a different but still very dense material. Not confirmed what it is exactly but will find out. IO agree completely that it is certainly not the most convincing. If it was found next to a Wooley Mammoth carcuss and a fire pit, I think it would get respect. No, fire pit and carcuss - "Just a rock"




I propose that largest stone you speak of Shaftsbury, would have been the ideal size for a short set of intense blows like it would take to brake another sizeable rock or to pulverize a large carcass. For efficiently breaking bones and pulverizing things, this would have been well suited for that use, in my albeit limited oppinion.

Now the second stone of the first video was included at the time as a complete obscurity. I included it only because it had strong unusual 'figuring'. After further examination I now believe this stone was held in the right hand while something else was pushed into it with the other hand. It also could have been used been used as a palm sander/grinder, facing whatever material was being worked. The fit is excellent and comfortable, again accomodating many apects of the human grip. I no doubt will be redoing the videos of these first stones to better explain each before I move on to other items.