bob_G

Collecting native artifacts and arrowhead question

Rate this topic

127 posts in this topic

26 mins ago, mikez2 said:

Edit: Just realized new Braintree is not coastal. I'm an idiot. Nevermind. 

It wasn't a history or geography test. You're good. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, zak-striper said:

It wasn't a history or geography test. You're good. :)

For some reason I thought it was a coastal town but of course I hit send first, than looked it up.:dismay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bob_G said:

Yea, I hear ya Alan.  No doubt I've walked over a bunch of stuff, esp turkey hunting and trout fishing.

Each time I walk over a freshly harrowed field each spring, Im casually looking, but more intend on calling birds.    But after seeing some of your posts, and viewing my old friend's "museum quality" collection, I shake my head and think how in hell am I missing this stuff?

 

While in high school I found something I was convinced was a serious artifact in the Ware River. So much so, I dove in to retrieve it. It sure looks good, but everyone tells me it's just a rock. So, the search goes on.

 

FB_IMG_1635868504801.jpg

Look...it's a pre-historic game controller!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, mikez2 said:

For some reason I thought it was a coastal town but of course I hit send first, than looked it up.:dismay:

I grew up 34 miles away from New Braintree. I never heard of it. I had to look it up as well. My lady lived in Quincy for a few years (right next to Braintree), so that name made me go "huh? new what?". :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikez2 said:

I don't think battle sites are very productive for Indian artifacts. Possibly metal detection would be the way to go there. 

 

Town and village locations are the most productive. Those were usually found close to source of freshwater, and more less level ground, above the typical flood and often in sheltered, south facing exposure. 

 

Of course that also describes the first places the colonists settled and cities and towns subsequently grew.

Countless archeological sites lie under developed areas.

 

Around here, you have to take what you can get for sites to hunt. That's one of the challenges. 

Of course the biggest challenge is the stuff is buried underground. Digging isn't much of an option, except maybe on private property. 

That's why we hunt agricultural fields. The plow turns the stuff up. Unfortunately, competition is fierce. Nowadays, for me anyway, the most common thing I find are the footprints of the guy who got there before me.

Probably right that the places where the Indians had temporary encampments or settled are better bets. Especially if they coincide with plowed fields where the soil is already churning stuff up. Another good place is near gravel or sand bars in rivers or brooks, particularly after rain or high water events wash away a lot of the silt and make the artifacts more visible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 mins ago, bdowning said:

Probably right that the places where the Indians had temporary encampments or settled are better bets. Especially if they coincide with plowed fields where the soil is already churning stuff up. Another good place is near gravel or sand bars in rivers or brooks, particularly after rain or high water events wash away a lot of the silt and make the artifacts more visible. 

Man it drives me crazy to see the stuff some people find stream walking. I spend a lot of time stream walking and searching carefully. I find ton of old bottles and all kinds of small stuff like marbles and buttons and even coins, but no Indian stuff.

In my defense, I focus more on the places where I find bottles which are not necessarily the places to find Indian stuff. Still, you'd think I'd stumble on a point once and awhile. 

It's happened other places but not streams.

 

I haven't found any on beaches either, despite plenty of time there as well. Admittedly  when I'm on the beach, I don't tend to be looking down as much.

Obviously I need to up my game. My corn fields are getting pretty picked over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zak-striper said:

 

Indian tribes lived there for approx. 9,000 years. That's amazing. There must be a lot of evidence of their time there.

 

in.jpg.3aad8a2925eaedf784d963d864b15d0d.jpg

 

You can push the N/A occupation in New Braintree back to around 12,000 years before present.  There's a site there that has given up many Paleo Fluted Clovis points.  That field hasn't been plowed in over 30 years now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 mins ago, clambellies said:

 

You can push the N/A occupation in New Braintree back to around 12,000 years before present.  There's a site there that has given up many Paleo Fluted Clovis points.  That field hasn't been plowed in over 30 years now.  

Alan,

 

I think I told you about my friend out that way.  He found an intact mortor and pestle in a field near there.  

Story goes.

He found the mortor on spring day after a heavy rain, in a field the dairy farmer just plowed.  He looked all over the area for the pestle, figuring it had to nearby, but to no avail.

The next spring he went back after the farmer harrowed the field. Playing a hunch, he went right back to the same location, and there it was. A small scrape from the farmer's harrow, but otherwise intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 mins ago, clambellies said:

 

You can push the N/A occupation in New Braintree back to around 12,000 years before present.  There's a site there that has given up many Paleo Fluted Clovis points.  That field hasn't been plowed in over 30 years now.  

Just to clarify for those that don't necessarily know what a clovis point is, that's pretty much as old as it gets. At least for this area. Anything older than that would have been under the glaciers. Humans probably didn't live here then.

 

Now, outside New England clovis is no longer considered the oldest technology. There are some who are pushing back human occupation of the New World to 20 K or even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bob_G said:

Alan,

 

I think I told you about my friend out that way.  He found an intact mortor and pestle in a field near there.  

Story goes.

He found the mortor on spring day after a heavy rain, in a field the dairy farmer just plowed.  He looked all over the area for the pestle, figuring it had to nearby, but to no avail.

The next spring he went back after the farmer harrowed the field. Playing a hunch, he went right back to the same location, and there it was. A small scrape from the farmer's harrow, but otherwise intact.

That's great.  Congrats to him.  A rare find, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a pretty extensive  (20-30) arrow head and spear collection    Most came from the Maine potato fields in nov during deer season  when they plowed the fields and after a rain   They come to the surface  

 

5389464726465033777.jpg

Edited by bob_G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I don't understand. 

My sister has a stream on her property.  It is an area that the  Nipmuncs were supposedly around.  With an intact sweat loge.. spelling? 

Anyway over a course of 35 years my BIL has collected small pieces of a turquoise stones from the stream. All bright in color,He has a shot glass filled to the top . 

He would spot them when the stream dried up in summertime. 

What I am confused about is that turquoise is not native to our area?

I think he said he took his stones somewhere and they have no value..

I wonder what else lurks in those stones...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 mins ago, R.R. Bridge Fisher said:

What I am confused about is that turquoise is not native to our area?

Chrysocolla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my other ersatz "artifact".   I found it in 1974 on Sandy Neck after a major noreaster remodeled the sand dunes.

Some people say it's likely something, others say it's a rock.

 

FB_IMG_1635778387948.jpg

FB_IMG_1635778379894.jpg

FB_IMG_1635778365756.jpg

FB_IMG_1635778357606.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.