I know what I think, but....

[Shank]

I'm not or hardly ever right but I'm usually close so heres a few pics maybe you can shed some light on for me

[2ndoldman]

I know that I am the first but. I'm not seeing it.

[Guest]

Probably a fossil cast of a rodent burrow

[rmartin]

Probably a fossil cast of a rodent burrow

Sounds good

[BabaORiley]

I have several finds of that nature that are in our rock garden. They were too hard to leave behind but I just couldn't find anything conclusive about them.

[painshill]

Shank, this discourse probably isn't going to end well. What you have there is a nodular piece of rock which looks to be in the territory of limestone. Nodules like that are extremely common and - as David SS says - frequently form as concretionary masses in cavities left behind by burrowing animals (or decayed organic material which has become buried in sediment). Most usually they come from marine formations where they have formed in cavities left behind by things such as sponges.

I see no evidence that it has been shaped by the hand of man, or that it is an effigy/fetish of any kind.

I was also a little alarmed by this picture in your "Artifact Poor" thread, which was captioned "Grooved Hammers, Tomahawks, Grinding(Banner) Stones":



These are also not artefacts... and there is no such thing as a banner stone used for grinding!

nice driveway rocks

[Kyflintguy]

you'll find it just keep looking.try lookin at Native American stone or clay carvings and figurines you may see something on some of that or ZUNI FETISHES.Well I guess you have the most awesome and expensive rock garden ever...dont get caught up in main stream ARCH., they just can't admit thier wrong, a few have and proved this stuff is for real.. THANKS.

What are you thinking these items youve posted are? What exactly are you seeing that makes you think these are Native American artifacts?
If i remember correctly you said you were from TN right? What exactly were you reffering to when you said main stream archaeologist cant admit when they're wrong? Just curious. Thanks

[G10+]

you'll find it just keep looking.try lookin at Native American stone or clay carvings and figurines you may see something on some of that or ZUNI FETISHES.Well I guess you have the most awesome and expensive rock garden ever...dont get caught up in main stream ARCH., they just can't admit thier wrong, a few have and proved this stuff is for real.. THANKS.

what r they shank??

[Guest]

Here is an illustration with caption naming the class of fossil; I've encountered mole- or vole-like creatures runnels during excavations for pools, etc. Locally, these fill with very low-grade bog-iron ore over time, leaving usually a hollow in the middle. The ground locally is rich in this very low-grade ore (bog iron was the first source of iron the colonists used here)

[Havenhunter]

Moon stone?? Strange rocks, some pretty rocks, but I'm just not seeing it. There are several highly experienced folks on this site who are trying their best to share their years of knowledge but as your posting title states, it appears you've already made up your mind.

[Guest]

When I see recognizable manufacturing marks and use wear upon these, I'll believe..... I see nothing of the kind anywhere--and the bottom line fact is that a rock CANNOT BE A TOOL if it bears no physical evidence of manufacture or use.

Pre-supposing what one see's is 'evidence', is in truth of such nature that no one with an appropriate level of expertise and experience will agree with you.

I suggest you study up on what a rock looks like after its been battered as a hammerstone, used to smooth or grind a axe-bit sharp, etc--ALL leave significant visually identifiable evidence as to what took place, and there are no mysteries here, no vanished evidence......and no tools at all in the pic above

Below are pitcured a group of hammerstones with clearly visible physical evidence of their use as hammersones, also

[Guest]

TWO clear forms of alteration of a rock into an artifact

A close up of the pecking marks left from shaping an axe, and a whole axe view; last is a bit of an axe that shows clear evidence of having been ground to shape, along with some use wear at tyhe bit as well

[CMD]

Shank commented
Yesterday, 03:37 PM
I would like to see a stone rodent burrow, have you if so share a pic please.


Here are some:

http://ina.tmsoc.org/galleries/ina11_lincoln/source/p9282332.htm

[Guest]

Here are more examples of clearly evident use wear--axe bit use wear, evident in the minute fissures at the first axes' bit, which had been regularly resharpened by being ground smooth to enhance efficiency; the next axe, shown in two pics: use wear produced the fissures and cracks seen in an unrejuvinated bit

Understanding how tools were made and used is essential to determining if one has a mere rock or an artifact

To show how meger the use of a rock needs to be to 'qualify as a tool' read the following:

I was asleep at my desk in the fourth row when the professor walked in to start his class. Grasping a styrofoam movie-prop 'rock', he hurled at my head, awakening me with a start--accompanied by my classmate's laughter and cat-calls... He then proceeded to describe what the difference between a tool and an artifact was. The 'rock' had become a tool because it was used to modify an object, and the object 'modified'--my head!--thus became an artifact.....

Bottom line is the rocks you show off as artifacts bear not one single attribute of being an artifact or tool of any kind

[Claycald]

Rocks