I agree , the linear shaped piece is the best of this grouping. Lots of usage marks on it. It was someone’s favorite then as well. Thanks for sharing it.
Thanks, I view many artifact channels and am always appreciative. I may have some different ideas of what I see, but always appreciative. I have a friend who knows more about artifacts than most. He always says, "If anyone thinks their an expert at all this, then they are just fooling themselves."
You put together really good videos. Very informative and I’ve learned a lot. You utilize a good pace with just the right amount of talking. Have you ever done a video on fish weights, particularly the various net weight vs. line weights? I sometimes find little flat stones the size of a quarter with a single hole and wonder whether they might be line weights. I find lots of net weights.
Can't say I find many net weights. The stream I hunt is relatively small. They would do rock build outs to channel the stream into a narrow flow. They would place cone shaped stick baskets in the channel and go upstream and push the fish down. Thanks for the comment.
I read comments on here from time to time about "if these are artifacts or not". I have done a good bit of reading of archaeology journals recently and have a couple of observations. 1) if you go back far enough into, say the Pleistocene there were not a lot of pretty flaked chert arrowheads and tools. 2) Also, some areas of the US do not have a lot of cherts as a raw material--in the east especially. 3) there is a bias in academic archaeology toward flaked tools because there is not a lot of academic study yet about primitive non-flaked stone tools rom pre-13,000 BCE. Also not sure these tools shown are woodland period. They may be much , much older. I would recommend a good book on this topic-- --PaleoAmerican Archaeology in Virginia, By Wm Jack Hranicky because he talks about this subject and points out that some of the early tools he has found have never been written about or photographed for archaeology journals. One thing he says" when investigating the Pleistocene for archaeological evidence, implements and artifact assemblages are entirely different than those found in the Holocene, namely no projectile points. Many tools of that period may be small, flaked tools, but many of the implements are macro tools for megafauna. These tools have an infinite variety of shape and form." "Tool structure implies function, thus work. The form of a tool is not equal to this equation." New tools are constantly being discovered by archaeologists. And the older the culture the cruder the tool may seem. Also, there is not too much study on stone tools used in pottery and basket making. Hranicky also points out that very old tools are subject to a lot of weathering and erosion from the elements or streams and do not look the same as newer artifacts.
Thanks for the comment! Most of what I find are from the Archaic and Woodland period. Native populations were expanding at a relatively high rate during this time with game and other food sources declining. The agrarian way of life became prevalent during this time, particularly in the eastern half of the country. This ushered in a proliferation of new types of tools to support this culture. For whatever reason, there seems to be little interest with archeologists researching this time period? I have plenty of points, blades, etc. But I became obsessed with stone tools some years ago and, for the most part, hunt them exclusively. When it comes to tools, the use can often be left to interpretation. My experience working with archeologists has been that they have a preference for sertainty. Speculation creates too much controversy, which many avoid, like the plague!
No, the reality is there are way more tools out there than anything else. Literally, no one hunts for them. It is almost always the case when someone finds a hard stone artifact it is by chance. I actually have been hunting them for years. Some tools I find are unique to the cultures that were here, some are not. I have worked with archeologists, anthropologists, and others with what I find. Like much in this realm, some is up to interpretation. The consensus is much of what I find is early to mid Woodland period, with Mississippian influence. The culture was almost entirely agrarian, supplemented with small game, birds, reptiles and fish.
I agree , the linear shaped piece is the best of this grouping. Lots of usage marks on it. It was someone’s favorite then as well. Thanks for sharing it.
Are you new at this . Sometimes our minds play tricks on us.
If people can't leave a nice comment they shouldn't leave them at all...
Thanks, I view many artifact channels and am always appreciative. I may have some different ideas of what I see, but always appreciative. I have a friend who knows more about artifacts than most. He always says, "If anyone thinks their an expert at all this, then they are just fooling themselves."
You put together really good videos. Very informative and I’ve learned a lot. You utilize a good pace with just the right amount of talking. Have you ever done a video on fish weights, particularly the various net weight vs. line weights? I sometimes find little flat stones the size of a quarter with a single hole and wonder whether they might be line weights. I find lots of net weights.
Can't say I find many net weights. The stream I hunt is relatively small. They would do rock build outs to channel the stream into a narrow flow. They would place cone shaped stick baskets in the channel and go upstream and push the fish down. Thanks for the comment.
Those black stone pieces are especially nice!
I read comments on here from time to time about "if these are artifacts or not". I have done a good bit of reading of archaeology journals recently and have a couple of observations. 1) if you go back far enough into, say the Pleistocene there were not a lot of pretty flaked chert arrowheads and tools. 2) Also, some areas of the US do not have a lot of cherts as a raw material--in the east especially. 3) there is a bias in academic archaeology toward flaked tools because there is not a lot of academic study yet about primitive non-flaked stone tools rom pre-13,000 BCE. Also not sure these tools shown are woodland period. They may be much , much older. I would recommend a good book on this topic-- --PaleoAmerican Archaeology in Virginia, By Wm Jack Hranicky because he talks about this subject and points out that some of the early tools he has found have never been written about or photographed for archaeology journals. One thing he says" when investigating the Pleistocene for archaeological evidence, implements and artifact assemblages are entirely different than those found in the Holocene, namely no projectile points. Many tools of that period may be small, flaked tools, but many of the implements are macro tools for megafauna. These tools have an infinite variety of shape and form." "Tool structure implies function, thus work. The form of a tool is not equal to this equation." New tools are constantly being discovered by archaeologists. And the older the culture the cruder the tool may seem. Also, there is not too much study on stone tools used in pottery and basket making. Hranicky also points out that very old tools are subject to a lot of weathering and erosion from the elements or streams and do not look the same as newer artifacts.
I have no idea why UA-cam puts lines through my post LOL
Thanks for the comment! Most of what I find are from the Archaic and Woodland period. Native populations were expanding at a relatively high rate during this time with game and other food sources declining. The agrarian way of life became prevalent during this time, particularly in the eastern half of the country. This ushered in a proliferation of new types of tools to support this culture. For whatever reason, there seems to be little interest with archeologists researching this time period? I have plenty of points, blades, etc. But I became obsessed with stone tools some years ago and, for the most part, hunt them exclusively. When it comes to tools, the use can often be left to interpretation. My experience working with archeologists has been that they have a preference for sertainty. Speculation creates too much controversy, which many avoid, like the plague!
Those rocks are from the Plano tribe, those are Plano rocks. 😂🤣
🤣
These stones are water worn stone. They are not artifacts
I have a good understanding of the effects of hydrology on stones and minerals. I took courses in college.
Glen, Dude, keep your jealousy at home!
How are you identifying these stones. Are you just using your imagination..IMcurious to know.Peace
No, the reality is there are way more tools out there than anything else. Literally, no one hunts for them. It is almost always the case when someone finds a hard stone artifact it is by chance. I actually have been hunting them for years. Some tools I find are unique to the cultures that were here, some are not. I have worked with archeologists, anthropologists, and others with what I find. Like much in this realm, some is up to interpretation. The consensus is much of what I find is early to mid Woodland period, with Mississippian influence. The culture was almost entirely agrarian, supplemented with small game, birds, reptiles and fish.
How sad...I think the green-eyed monster has made an entrance😲