Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finds from the OBC gap.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Now, I have what I think is a very big find... So, I went out artifact hunting two days ago(23rd),50yds from my house ,along a strip of land between the base of a ridge with a field at the bottom of it. This field, and all the land north and south of it along the ridge, was a very long and very wide sandbar. I've played, hunted, and known this patch of land and the family who owns it, for years. Even though I knew the land well I had never put much thought, with the past in mind, into the topography and makeup of the land. I just knew it was a tall hill, it has rock outcroppings with piles of broken and chipped rock at the bases, near the base of the hill the land is terraced, at the base of the hill there is a field and my house is next door...
    It had rained the night before, it was very muddy and the temp was about 35° so I did not get in-situs for this first haul.
    I WILL get in-situs of my future finds and the area, to give you a sense of the area and bc this is wild.
    This is what I found in an area maybe 50 yds in circumference.

    Comment


    • Hoss
      Hoss commented
      Editing a comment
      Those are flakes and spalls

    • AndyinMO
      AndyinMO commented
      Editing a comment
      Ok. Thanks for looking.

  • #32
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm pretty sure I found a cache right at the base of the quarry. I knew there was tale of a quarry nearby, I knew I was close, I think I found part of it.

    Comment


    • #33
      This is what I found in an area maybe 50 yds in circumference.[/QUOTE]

      *diameter, not circumference.

      Comment


      • #34
        A lot of similarities between this persons cache find and mine.

        Comment


        • #35
          Originally posted by AndyinMO View Post
          A lot of similarities between this persons cache find and mine.

          http://csasi.org/1999_july_journal/p...ilyn_cache.htm
          Did you note any differences between the cache in the link and your finds? Because there are some glaring differences. I don't expect your going to agree and probably just tell me I'm wrong but if you'll notice that the actual cache is comprised entirely of bifaces. This means every piece is worked across both faces. Also note how the actual cache is the same material. Yours is a mixed up lot of mostly debitage (lithic debris), natural chunks of chert, a few plain old ordinary rocks, and a few pieces that appear to be actual crude fragments of knives or pre forms. Its not a cache. A few pieces looked worked bifacially and in combination with the debitage may point to a habitation site at some point but that's about it. Jmo!
          Last edited by Kyflintguy; 12-30-2017, 10:41 AM.
          Josh (Ky/Tn collector)

          Comment


          • AndyinMO
            AndyinMO commented
            Editing a comment
            Like I said, I should have curated and properly presented the pieces to convey the proximity, nature, and relationship of the related pieces. Funny thing, my pics only showed one face. So your opinion, regarding the whole of any of the pieces, is bunk. And there is really no doubt that this specific spot and the whole surrounding area was inhabited, not just at some point, but for a very long time by a great many peoples. But you don't really have the insight to speak on that subject either.

          • Kyflintguy
            Kyflintguy commented
            Editing a comment
            Whatever Andy! Lol

          • Kyflintguy
            Kyflintguy commented
            Editing a comment
            You can curate them and present any wich way you want. Still don't change the FACT that your showing a bunch of ordinary rocks, debitage and a few (possibly?) crudely made bifaces calling them a "cache?!" You can call them a gold cache for all I care though. I just don't want someone in the future to think your picture is what a cache looks like, cuz it ain't!

        • #36
          I did note the differences. I should have gave pics of the pieces that were worked on both faces, bc there were several, and actually seperated the pieces into the smaller areas that they were recovered from. But you are right about the debitage and roughed out stuff. I just felt like it was significant bc of the variety of material and different stages of work that the total displays. I see what you're saying though, and I respect your opinion. Thanks for replying.

          Comment


          • #37
            Pulled these from the field behind my house this morning.

            Comment


            • #38
              Makes me wanna put an old corn husk pipe in my mouth. One of those “monopoly guy” one eyed glasses on a string. Use my best Old English accent and say snooty things. lol

              i wish you all the best on every reaching the top of ether side of this mountain.

              I’m glad I don’t know that much about the molecular breakdown of any areas of this hobby. Perhaps that’s why I love it so much. The man that helped me get into told me that “the most important part of this hobby is to stay open minded and listen to others if you want to know more.”

              good luck to you all!!!!!!

              Comment


              • #39
                A couple biface cores showing some remaining cortex. I pulled these out of the field behind my house.

                Comment


                • #40
                  Got out for an hour just now and scored a nice little stemmed point, and a few interesting flake tools

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X