Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rock Slinger

Prehistoric Granite Hand Tools Plymouth, MA

32 posts in this topic

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

Edited by Praise Rockman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Of course they would have used granite rocks as tools. Why wouldn't they? He does want to do an archeological dig on my property though because of the location. Not sure if I want that yet or not.

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Praise Rockman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe that is why my local areologist friend has to come to the conclusion that it can't be done. But yet here they are.

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?

They come out like crap and look much closer to "just rocks" in pictures

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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...

Edited by Praise Rockman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1- do you feel qualified to argue with archeologists who study this for their life's work? .

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.

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

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

Edited by Praise Rockman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect academia, just have to be outside the box on this one. Thus, " Unexplained Mysteries - Prehistoric Granite Hand Tools.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Edited by Praise Rockman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rock Slinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/wrhagen.html

Although Phoenician ruins and artifacts can be found in many places along the coastline of both North and South America, it is the Chesapeake that is of interest because of its close proximity. Once in the Chesapeake Bay the Phoenicians could access the rivers that flow into it. One of the rivers was the Susquehanna.

They moved up the Susquehanna to present day Harrisburg, where they encountered a great waterfall. They disembarked and went inland. More than a thousand stones with what appears to be Phoenician letters have been found in York and Cumberland counties. Several of these stone are on display at the State Museum in Harrisburg.

Boland speculates that these people were refugees fleeing from a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Greek general, Agathocles in 310 BCE. He further hypothesizes that these refugees were trying to get to the Phoenician colony located in North Salem, New Hampshire and were blown off course. (Boland, 35)

The Phoenician colonists and their descendants were most likely absorbed into the local population of Indians. In Mankind So Far, Dr. William Howells notes that "the Indians of New England are the least Mongoloid and the most European-looking of any natives in appearance. (Boland, 45)

The search for religious freedom may have spurred the next discoverers. In 1889, the graves of nine men were found in Bat Creek, Tennessee with stones that were engraved with what was thought to be Cherokee writing. On further examination by Professor Cyrus Gordon in 1970, it was determined that these stone written in Hebrew and the translation was "for the Judeans". Carbon dating suggests that these people were buried anywhere from 32 to 769 CE. Gordon theorizes that these people were Jews fleeing Roman persecution. They could have sailed to the Caribbean and up the Mississippi to Bat Creek. (Jackson, 76)

The next wave of European exploration occurred roughly at the same time as Heoi-Shin was visiting Central America, by another monk but from a different faith. The tale of St. Brendan is a curious one. All totaled St. Brendan apparently made three voyages; although it is the second of his voyages that is the one, which brought him to the New World and earned him the name St. Brendan the Navigator.

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

http://www.buy.com/prod/the-mound-builders...6/36255631.html

Dismissing popularly held theories of mysterious giants who built these structures, he explained that their purposes were defensive and ceremonial, that they had been used for habitation, burial, and worship. Their builders were antecedents of the native peoples of present-day America and had been skilled artisans and engineers with successful agricultural practices and structured leadership. Twenty chapters discuss aspects of mound-builder cultures: quarrying of flint and obsidian for knapping into points; mining of copper and iron and its fashioning into tools and ceremonial objects; spinning and weaving materials and methods; smoking customs; carving of calumets and their use in ceremony; freshwater pearls and other items for body ornamentation; and the use of stone burial vaults, cremation basins, and concepts of an afterlife. Data is presented from excavations ranging broadly from Massachusetts to Florida and from Texas to North Dakota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;)

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

http://hallofthegods.org/articles/evidence...technology.html

. A silver vessel was extracted from solid rock in Massachusetts (in 1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in a piece of stone (in 1852).

In June 1851 Scientific American reprinted a report from the Boston Transcript about a metallic vase, found in two parts, that was dynamited out of solid rock, about 15 feet below the surface in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The bell-shaped vase, made from a zinc and silver alloy, was 6 inches high. On the sides were figures of flowers in bouquet arrangements, inlaid with pure silver. The estimated age of the rock out of which it came was 100,000 years.

http://samplepages2.tripod.com/id8.html

Ancient Miners on Shores of Lake Superior

By Albert D. Hagar

First published in 1865.

This was the first instance where "ancient diggings" -- as they are familiarly called in the Lake Superior region -- were ever recognized as such; and this artificial cavern presents the most conclusive proofs that a people in the remote past worked those mines. Upon the discovery of this mine, attention was at once directed to numerous other cavities and depressions in the surface of the earth at this and other points, and the result was that nearly a hundred ancient pits were found, and in all of them mining-tools of various kinds. These ancient mines or pits are not restricted to one locality, but extend over the entire length of the copper region, from the eastern extremity of Keweenaw Point to the Porcupine Mountains, a distance of nearly one hundred miles.

In some of the ancient diggings, the stone hammers have the marks of hard usage, fractured or battered faces, and a large proportion of them are broken and unfit for use; but in other pits the hammers are all sound, and many of them have the appearance of never having been used.

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient....e.superior.html

We incline, rather, to the opinion that the miners were the mound-builders, who resided south of the mines, and ultimately found a home in Mexico. The condition in which the mines were left favors this theory; for in many instances unfinished jobs are found, -- as in the case of the mass of copper upon skids at the Minnesota Mine, and the half-severed veins in other mines. May we not reasonably suppose that the miners came from the South, and worked during the summer months, returning to their homes in winter? The circumstance that no traces of their habitations or burial-places have ever been discovered in the immediate vicinity of the mines leads to the inference that they came from a distance; and the fact that copper rings, chisels, and knives, and occasionally stone hammers, are found in the ancient mounds that extend in an unbroken line from Ohio to Mexico, induces the belief that the ancient miners and the ancient mound-builders were the same people.

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

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

B)

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

linked-image

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

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

E#xcerpt: Moderator?

The Forsaken Artifacts: Crude Stone Tools 
© 2006 Kenneth B. Johnston All Rights Reserved

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, I began surface collecting for artifacts in fields and at construction sites near my home on Buckeye Lake, in southern Licking County, Ohio.  Soon after I started scouring the ground in search of points, the only artifacts I knew of at the time, I noticed a pattern of an over-abundance of hard stone rocks about the size to fit a hand and sometimes presenting somewhat common shapes and features.  They were concentrated in certain areas, such as on a rise in a plowed field, near artifacts, or amidst flint debitage.  I began to more closely examine all the stone material I found.  I took stones home and removed soil by rinsing in water.  

What emerged, to my thinking, were artifacts- the rocks appeared to have been modified by humans.

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.

Edited by Rock Slinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Rock Slinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, I found something written about obscure stone tools and have included a link below.

E#xcerpt: Moderator?

The Forsaken Artifacts: Crude Stone Tools 
© 2006 Kenneth B. Johnston All Rights Reserved

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, I began surface collecting for artifacts in fields and at construction sites near my home on Buckeye Lake, in southern Licking County, Ohio.  Soon after I started scouring the ground in search of points, the only artifacts I knew of at the time, I noticed a pattern of an over-abundance of hard stone rocks [b]about the size to fit a hand and sometimes presenting somewhat common shapes and features[/b].  They were concentrated in certain areas, such as on a rise in a plowed field, near artifacts, [b]or amidst flint debitage[/b].  I began to more closely examine all the stone material I found.  I took stones home and removed soil by rinsing in water.  

What emerged, to my thinking, were artifacts- the rocks appeared to have been modified by humans.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Rock Slinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.