231: The more you see...

35 minutes ago

2 min read

"THE MORE YOU SEE, THE MORE YOU SEE."

If you see every rock (as some do), as being a tool or a flake from a tool, then every rock becomes that until you are surrounded by important artifacts that are in fact - rocks. On the reverse side, where most see nothing, when you find something genuine, the more you see, the more you see... and a whole site opens up in a way a casual observer misses. However - wanting something to be something, does not make it something. It's a real conundrum for some.

These rocks pictured below are regarded by some as ancient adzes. I'm here to say that is total bollocks. Whilst a few may be undoubtedly be offended at this, they are just rocks, not even blanks from which a real adze might possibly be formed from (they are of the wrong type of rock) - but they are not ancient stone-age 'adzes'. Take no offense, just look at the thousands of artifacts around the world. Could those rocks below have been smashed rocks being taken somewhere for finishing. Possibly, but the website this photo was on, suggested they were already a form of ancient adze...and they are worn and pitted, not worked and shaped. It's just hopeful thinking becuase they see what isn't there and there is no context.

Below is another ecofact in a museum, labelled as a badly unfinished artifact

Here is a genuine unfinished and very old artifact.

Why we can prove it is an artifact is because was it was found as part of a burial in Northland. This was in a grave with a human tooth necklace (only one other has ever been found) and identified by the local Maori as 'not one of us...' !! This adze had a sharp blade and is wider at the blade than the butt end. It's cracked and chipped.

The distinction is fairly obvious unless you want to go back to the time of the caveman and suggest he'd use a rock as a weapon. In fact 'cavemen' (in the distinction we all think of), had better tools that the rocks in the first picture above.

The good thing is, I don't have to go into endless examples of what is and what isn't genuine. This is because most of us who have been subjected to some old websites, can spot the difference without the emotion of wanting something to be something.

We can only state this without question because we have been careful to question everything. To be fair, there are many things that look like nothing, which are in fact old archaic artifacts, but they all have definitive shape and form, along with holding points and worn areas where impact use existed. What we are interested in are the obvious things that aren't Polynesian, like these which are more Melanesian (with the exception of the Tribrach).