BEWARE of the INSTITUTE OF FIELD RESEARCH (IFR)

Manufacture of stone tools, knives and arrowheads by lithic reduction

BEWARE of the INSTITUTE OF FIELD RESEARCH (IFR)

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

16 Dec 2017, 05:40 #1

IFR/Institute For Research Please Refund Deposit
Please return my $500 deposit. Your field schools are very expensive, you don't need to keep my $500. And only $300 out of the $4620 you charged for the field school actually went towards college credit at UCLA extension. I need that $500 for grad school this summer. I thought, you helped students!

I could not afford to go to Jordan to attend their field school. Instead, I went to Nevada to do some hiking. I found this beautiful arrowhead while trekking up a hill.
IMG_20170827_114012.jpg
IMG_20170827_114012.jpg
Last edited by Nomadheart on 16 Dec 2017, 05:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

16 Dec 2017, 05:42 #2

Correction: A spearhead.
Last edited by Nomadheart on 27 Dec 2017, 05:15, edited 2 times in total.
Reply
Like

blancoh0
Registered User
blancoh0
Registered User
Joined: 11 Sep 2011, 19:10

17 Dec 2017, 01:20 #3

looks like a spearhead to me
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

17 Dec 2017, 09:25 #4

blancoh0 wrote: looks like a spearhead to me
How old do you reckon it is?
Reply
Like

blancoh0
Registered User
blancoh0
Registered User
Joined: 11 Sep 2011, 19:10

17 Dec 2017, 19:22 #5

2 days
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

18 Dec 2017, 10:02 #6

blancoh0 wrote:2 days
Ridiculous
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

28 Dec 2017, 07:57 #7

Nomadheart wrote:
blancoh0 wrote:2 days
Ridiculous
FROM PROJECTILE POINTS:
This is an interesting artifact.  The one edge, notch, and base are unfinished.  The other blade and notch appear to have been worked.  This was not used as a projectile or spear point.  The blade and notch could have been used to work and strip arrow shafts.  I do not have a clue to the age, but it is interesting.
Reply
Like

CurtisSmith
Registered User
CurtisSmith
Registered User
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 18:31

28 Dec 2017, 21:37 #8

Looks like a natural rock with a neat shape to me.  Doesn't look like an artifact to me.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 04:26 #9

CurtisSmith wrote: Looks like a natural rock with a neat shape to me.  Doesn't look like an artifact to me.
I disagree. It appears to be an unfinished spearhead.
Reply
Like

NewbowPA
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

29 Dec 2017, 05:45 #10

Geofact.  It doesn't appear to be a flakable material.  The stone has a fortuitous shape, but there is no indication or either flaking or grinding. 
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 06:52 #11

NewbowPA wrote: Geofact.  It doesn't appear to be a flakable material.  The stone has a fortuitous shape, but there is no indication or either flaking or grinding. 
I stand on my convictions, I have no doubt it is an unfinished spearhead.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 06:58 #12

Another view....
Spearhead 2.jpg
Another view
Reply
Like

NewbowPA
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

29 Dec 2017, 08:13 #13

You found it and may call it what you will, but I remain unconvinced.  I still see nothing that speaks to intentional shaping and the material is not suitable tool stone but, as they say, nothing is impossible.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 08:36 #14

NewbowPA wrote: You found it and may call it what you will, but I remain unconvinced.  I still see nothing that speaks to intentional shaping and the material is not suitable tool stone but, as they say, nothing is impossible.
Perhaps, if you put your glasses on? 🤓
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 10:45 #15

Nomadheart wrote:
NewbowPA wrote: You found it and may call it what you will, but I remain unconvinced.  I still see nothing that speaks to intentional shaping and the material is not suitable tool stone but, as they say, nothing is impossible.
Perhaps, if you put your glasses on? 🤓
I found this one on 'Treasure Net" >"Found this quartz arrowhead while digging a target"
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/today ... arget.html

As you can see, it looks almost identical to mine. Despite, mine looks like sandstone.
Arrowhead Unfinished.JPG
Looks like mine- only different rock
Looks like mine- only different rock
Reply
Like

NewbowPA
Registered User
NewbowPA
Registered User
Joined: 08 Oct 2009, 05:44

29 Dec 2017, 17:35 #16

I see now why you are so sure it is an artifact.  That doesn't change my opinion of your "sandstone" point.  I believe that very few, if any, knappers would agree with you based on the pictures you've presented.  The material itself says 'geofact' because it simply isn't a useful toolstone.  You are going to run into this skepticism any time you show that "arrowhead" to someone who knows anything at all.  I accept that you believe.  For your own satisfaction and to prevent people like me from naysaying you, take the piece to a university or museum and have an expert look it over and authenticate it. If that works out as you believe, please post here again with the information.  Seriously, if that piece is authentic, I want to know a lot more about it.  Good luck to you.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

29 Dec 2017, 18:24 #17

NewbowPA wrote: I see now why you are so sure it is an artifact.  That doesn't change my opinion of your "sandstone" point.  I believe that very few, if any, knappers would agree with you based on the pictures you've presented.  The material itself says 'geofact' because it simply isn't a useful toolstone.  You are going to run into this skepticism any time you show that "arrowhead" to someone who knows anything at all.  I accept that you believe.  For your own satisfaction and to prevent people like me from naysaying you, take the piece to a university or museum and have an expert look it over and authenticate it. If that works out as you believe, please post here again with the information.  Seriously, if that piece is authentic, I want to know a lot more about it.  Good luck to you.
Many thanks. I will do as you say.
Reply
Like

Forager
Registered User
Forager
Registered User
Joined: 22 Oct 2010, 23:42

30 Dec 2017, 01:21 #18

NewbowPA has spoken well.  Well-practiced flintknappers who've worked a great variety of stones, including the marginal and even 'unworkable' stones recognise on sight the properties and superficial signatures of deliberate fracture toward the intent of creating a tool.  It is unlikely but not impossible that some expedient forms have certainly been made from unsuitable stone in regions which offer stone of higher quality, but if the tool belongs to prehistory and presents a recognizable form, it is most likely that it would be aligned with the typology of the region where it was found.

Another feature is the weathering or patina of the fracture-scarred surfaces in contrast to the remaining unbroken surface of the original stone.  If the stone's more deeply aged contours closely match those of the flake scars this might suggest some antiquity.  If the flake removals  fail to contrast with the original stone's surface it might suggest a very recent and naive attempt at flintknapping on the part of a contemporary hobbyist.  An expert in this study would best discriminate the variables pertaining to this inquiry.

When you offer the specimen for examination, the location of the find will help to enable the interpreter to correctly identify it, one way or another.  Your zeal and respect for your finds resonate with many of us but authenticity is always critical in matters of prehistory.  We are discussing the cultural expressions of our past and as such details assigned to them need to be accurate if not precise.

And to echo NewbowPA, "Seriously, if that piece is authentic, I want to know a lot more about it".  Most contemporary knappers only work pretty and easily fractured stone and that is fine.  Depending on the region, prehistory is filled with a surplus of artifacts of unlikely material, I've seen plenty of it myself which I'd never attempt working (and I prefer the nastiest materials).  However, far more is possible in the realm of real-world subsistence than is currently recognised within our commonly idealized hobbyist grasp.  Good luck in the more formal and academic pursuit concerning your find.
Reply
Like

Nomadheart
Registered User
Nomadheart
Registered User
Joined: 26 Apr 2017, 17:06

30 Dec 2017, 05:56 #19

Forager wrote: NewbowPA has spoken well.  Well-practiced flintknappers who've worked a great variety of stones, including the marginal and even 'unworkable' stones recognise on sight the properties and superficial signatures of deliberate fracture toward the intent of creating a tool.  It is unlikely but not impossible that some expedient forms have certainly been made from unsuitable stone in regions which offer stone of higher quality, but if the tool belongs to prehistory and presents a recognizable form, it is most likely that it would be aligned with the typology of the region where it was found.

Another feature is the weathering or patina of the fracture-scarred surfaces in contrast to the remaining unbroken surface of the original stone.  If the stone's more deeply aged contours closely match those of the flake scars this might suggest some antiquity.  If the flake removals  fail to contrast with the original stone's surface it might suggest a very recent and naive attempt at flintknapping on the part of a contemporary hobbyist.  An expert in this study would best discriminate the variables pertaining to this inquiry.

When you offer the specimen for examination, the location of the find will help to enable the interpreter to correctly identify it, one way or another.  Your zeal and respect for your finds resonate with many of us but authenticity is always critical in matters of prehistory.  We are discussing the cultural expressions of our past and as such details assigned to them need to be accurate if not precise.

And to echo NewbowPA, "Seriously, if that piece is authentic, I want to know a lot more about it".  Most contemporary knappers only work pretty and easily fractured stone and that is fine.  Depending on the region, prehistory is filled with a surplus of artifacts of unlikely material, I've seen plenty of it myself which I'd never attempt working (and I prefer the nastiest materials).  However, far more is possible in the realm of real-world subsistence than is currently recognised within our commonly idealized hobbyist grasp.  Good luck in the more formal and academic pursuit concerning your find.
Very well spoken; however, it is my position that you and Newbow are squinting at the obvious, yet, overlooking fine details. Firstly, the stone contradicts the preferred choice of our ancestors. True, but being the piece is unfinished, we can only suspect its intentional use. 
After researching and looking at the evidence, it has a percussion point and grooves, not to mention the notch. Further, I highly doubt your assertion of the lack of patina on my rock. To my understanding, it has always been a contentious and controversial topic. 
Lastly, your insinuation that it could have been recently manufactured....Accusations presented, because some may lack the intuitive methods needed to support their beliefs, is utterly absurd.
Reply
Like

blancoh0
Registered User
blancoh0
Registered User
Joined: 11 Sep 2011, 19:10

30 Dec 2017, 18:00 #20

There are no marks of any kind, knapping or tooling would show somewhere . Obviously just a luck of nature shaped by nature. I have found things like that that suggest weapons or tools. But have never been touched by a human hand. Sorry but , truth be told, you have found one of those. 
Reply
Like