• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Many unidentifiable artifacts found in Virginia

Sure. These are the first pieces I found the first day. The claw necklace is in a safe.
 
I am having trouble with the images not posting. All that I have is the cell phone. Some go through some do not. I will keep trying. Thanks for your patience.
 
Images you requested. Found on the first day.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
 
This has characteristics of an alligator. But not.
image.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    154.9 KB · Views: 17
To the layman such as I, these just look like a bunch of randomly-shaped rocks like you could find in many places across the planet. I'm not too sure what makes them so special, could you be more specific? I appreciate that may be difficult to convey in a photo.
 
Hello Totuskey. I think that the specimens that you have found are not fossils - I cannot fathom a guess as to what they are.

Looking at the majority of your specimens, of which the composition of the material is granular, this would preclude them from being fossils.

A fossil is formed by a process called secondary intrusion, whereby the original material is buried, then dissolves or rots away, and is then replaced by a vitreous siliceous material, usually from super saturated mineralised water. This material has a fracture that is concoidal (shell like) in nature - and from what I can see none of your specimens have this signature.

To really get to the bottom of what you've found, I think that you need to take these specimens to a reputable geologist, or a museum.
 
MungomanII said:
Hello Totuskey. I think that the specimens that you have found are not fossils - I cannot fathom a guess as to what they are.

Looking at the majority of your specimens, of which the composition of the material is granular, this would preclude them from being fossils.

A fossil is formed by a process called secondary intrusion, whereby the original material is buried, then dissolves or rots away, and is then replaced by a vitreous siliceous material, usually from super saturated mineralised water. This material has a fracture that is concoidal (shell like) in nature - and from what I can see none of your specimens have this signature.

To really get to the bottom of what you've found, I think that you need to take these specimens to a reputable geologist, or a museum.
Click to expand...


Yeah because if they are quite mundane then you'll kick yourself with putting so much time into them. Wouldn't it be better to know?
 
Naughty_Felid said:
Yeah because if they are quite mundane then you'll kick yourself with putting so much time into them. Wouldn't it be better to know?
Click to expand...
I am taking your advice and sending a few pieces for an analyst to examine. I really have enjoyed this forum and will continue to be a member. With the forum's permission. Your experience,patience,humor and most of all ,your help. Fortean Times. Thank you.
 
Totuskey71 said:
I am taking your advice and sending a few pieces for an analyst to examine. I really have enjoyed this forum and will continue to be a member. With the forum's permission. Your experience,patience,humor and most of all ,your help. Fortean Times. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Good stuff, at least it will put your mind at rest, unless of course it's part of some alien government conspiracy!
 
Totuskey, you won't be thrown off this board unless you become abusive to other members or use your postings to advertise a business in some way.
 
Mythopoeika said:
The first picture here looks like flint that has been hand-worked. Perhaps it is a palaeolithic axe head that was thrown away when it became blunt?
The second picture - I don't know.
The third picture actually looks like a fossilised leg bone.
Click to expand...


I don't recognise it as flint Mytho - its fracture is all wrong (non-concoidal). I agree with you that it might be Palaeolithic though, but not as an axe, rather a burin (and in very good condition).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
I see that I'm late to the game on this one but I see why Totusky is captivated by these pieces. What we're looking at is extremely obscure ancient art. I've been studying similar finds like these for years here in north central Arkansas. I totally get where he's coming from regarding "stigma" because not many people are going to see what's there and call them "geofacts" or say "you're simply experiencing parodalia." It takes much time with these pieces to know otherwise.
 
Aboom said:
It takes much time with these pieces to know otherwise.
Click to expand...
So what's your conclusion as to what they are? And do you have experience of finding similar examples? Is this from a location with a different, or a similar, geology? This to me would be a usefully-informative context...one way or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
MungomanII said:
I don't recognise it as flint Mytho - its fracture is all wrong (non-concoidal). I agree with you that it might be Palaeolithic though, but not as an axe, rather a burin (and in very good condition).
Click to expand...
If you mean image 12 of 24, I would agree with the non-flint burin theory. I've seen plenty of flint burins, and the design, if not the material, matches. Also, 14 of 24 resembles a non-flint hide-scraper.
 
Ermintrude said:
So what's your conclusion as to what they are? And do you have experience of finding similar examples? Is this from a location with a different, or a similar, geology? This to me would be a usefully-informative context...one way or another.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, they are ancient art. Art depicting what? Humanoids or God's, whichever or whatever one prefers to call them. And what I see is mostly their facial profiles in the pics provided. There's more to them but it's difficult for me to grasp given their complexity and foreign nature from just one angle. "In hand," I could provide more details. Very surreal stuff. We would never suspect something as such on a rock but it's true. The big questions for me are the "how?" and "why?" which the latter I find more intriguing. I've downloaded the pics and will attempt to point out what I mentioned so far and likely more. To answer your other questions...my finds are from the southern Ozarks and are similar.
 
Aboom said:
As I mentioned, they are ancient art. Art depicting what? Humanoids or God's, whichever or whatever one prefers to call them. And what I see is mostly their facial profiles in the pics provided. There's more to them but it's difficult for me to grasp given their complexity and foreign nature from just one angle. "In hand," I could provide more details. Very surreal stuff. We would never suspect something as such on a rock but it's true. The big questions for me are the "how?" and "why?" which the latter I find more intriguing. I've downloaded the pics and will attempt to point out what I mentioned so far and likely more. To answer your other questions...my finds are from the southern Ozarks and are similar.
Click to expand...


Have you had the looked at by anyone with professional knowledge of such things?
 
There are no established professional organizations in this area of study.
 
Through online research I discovered that, sadly, this is an area of study that is not acknowledged by any existing professional organizations as a whole. I do believe there are those amongst the naysayers that know as I do.
 
Aboom said:
Through online research I discovered that, sadly, this is an area of study that is not acknowledged by any existing professional organizations as a whole.
Click to expand...
Do you think there may be any reason for this?
Aboom said:
I do believe there are those amongst the naysayers that know as I do.
Click to expand...
I think we may have heard this rather a lot lately.. but, everyone has a fair go, so, why do you come to this conclusion?
 
Aboom said:
As I mentioned, they are ancient art. Art depicting what? Humanoids or God's, whichever or whatever one prefers to call them. And what I see is mostly their facial profiles in the pics provided. There's more to them but it's difficult for me to grasp given their complexity and foreign nature from just one angle. "In hand," I could provide more details. Very surreal stuff. We would never suspect something as such on a rock but it's true. The big questions for me are the "how?" and "why?" which the latter I find more intriguing. I've downloaded the pics and will attempt to point out what I mentioned so far and likely more. To answer your other questions...my finds are from the southern Ozarks and are similar.
Click to expand...


I've followed this thread with interest, Aboom, since its inception, and so far, there hasn't been a realistic answer as to what they resemble. There have been suggestions and hypothesies as to what they could be, but those ideas and suggestions lack definition.


There have been two items that could be recognisable - one was a grained object that resemble horn or bone, and the other was a lithic instrument shaped akin to a palaeolithic burin. The only problem with the burin was it's fabric, which resembled quartzite, rather than chert or flint. Quartzite would have fragmented very easily on application and would also have been difficult to retouch predicatively, thereby cancelling out that stone for this specific tool.


The majority of the other rocks look as if they have been modelled out of some concretionary material, to resemble anything the craftsman desired - I say this because there is no evidence of abrasion on those specific 'rocks', which there would have been if it had been the product of traditional methods of lithic manipulation.


The other aspect of veneration is that all obvious carvings resemble a living being, be that a boar, deer, lion, bear, or that most identifiable of objects, The Venus.


I look forward to your interpretation of these pictures from Totuskey71.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone.

Since my last post,I did as the forum requested. I searched for more scientific information. I have two samples of volcanic ash sent to Japan for dating,element percentage and it's origin. Also there are antient text within all of the artifacts. These artifacts are incapacitated in the ash for preservation. Being formed from the fine ash can answer when where and how old these objects are. I understand that it is easy to say that I fabricated these objects. That's easy. The truth is much harder. Aboom completely understands this subject more than anyone to this point. It takes countless hours and passion,obsession to see the artistic brilliance these artifacts posses. I have many more images to post. Hopefully Aboom can help identify this. Remember all items are made from fine volcanic ash and incapsuled. From Virginia. Where in theory, does not exist. Thanks to Aboom. I appreciate your knowledge and interest. If you are an archeologist,this should intrigue you enough to help with this.
 
This particular item has symbols on both sides. They appear to be Falcons or Eagles. There is an eye in the center and very detailed. Please let me know if they resemble anything else out there that you may have seen. Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1,014 KB · Views: 33
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top