[meteorite-list] "artifact" Definition

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:18:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4C1D8889.6030800_at_meteoritesusa.com>

Correction John,

They're actually called "Hammer Heads"...... ;)

Just thought I'd clear that up.... ;)

Regards,
Eric



On 6/19/2010 6:14 PM, John.L.Cabassi wrote:
> G'Day Michael, List and Hammer-maniacs =)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No&feature=related
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPz6HJ7734Q
>
> If I had a hammer
> I'd hammer in the morning
> I'd hammer in the evening
> All over this land
> I'd hammer out danger
> I'd hammer out a warning
> I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
> All over this land
>
> If I had a bell
> I'd ring it in the morning
> I'd ring it in the evening
> All over this land
> I'd ring out danger
> I'd ring out a warning
> I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
> All over this land
>
> If I had a song
> I'd sing it in the morning
> I'd sing it in the evening
> All over this land
> I'd sing out danger
> I'd sing out a warning
> I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
> All over this land
>
> Well I've got a hammer
> And I've got a bell
> And I've got a song to sing
> All over this land
> It's the hammer of justice
> It's the bell of freedom
> It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
> All over this land
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> Have a great evening and happy Father's Day to all that are fathers.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Blood
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:09 PM
> To: Bob Loeffler; Meteorite List
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] "artifact" Definition
>
>
> RE Definition of the term, "artifact" as given on my Hammers Web Pages -
> since I teach Anthropology, (which includes all
> disciplines: Cultural, Linguistic, Archaeological and Pysical) I Used
> the term "artifact" in the context used by archaeologists:
>
> Artifact (archaeology): any thing made or used by mankind.
> ----------
> Dictionary DEFINITION of "artifact:"
> #1 Object made by a human
>
> SYNONYMS given:
> #1 relic
> #2 work of art
> #3 Manufactured article
> #4 object
>
> While this is definitive, I have fully acknowledged that people
> Will invariably value different sorts of artifact striking hammers As
> differently from others. I have also stated that I, personally, Place
> little if any more value on a meteorite that struck a road Than I would
> one that fell in the woods. Others, however, do value Such specimens
> more than specimens that landed in a field.
> Obviously, Sylacauga, which was exceptionally well documented,
> And the mailbox crusher - Claxton are exceptionally highly valued,
> (Though the scarcity of available Sylacauga makes it far more Difficult
> to acquire). Other factors can figure in, such as Wethersfield 1971 and
> Wethersfield 1982. Both are EXCEPTIONALLY difficult to Obtain, even as
> the tiniest fragment imaginable - and they are truly Remarkable hammers:
> They each hit a house in a very small town, But were NOT the same fall.
> Going on and on and on about whether a plowed field is
> an Artifact - or a hybridized fruit tree, etc, are "artifacts" - it
> really Doesn't matter - does it tickle you? (they don't "count" to me -
> but that Is just me - I was thinking of an artifact as an OBJECT made by
> humans.
> - however, it they "count" to you, that's all that matters).
> If so, it is more valuable if it matters not - then it is not
> more valued by you. No Problem.
> I really don't see the "point" of endless debate as to whether
> Or not this or that "qualifies" for hammer status - if it does for YOU,
> Great - of not, that's fine too.
> I would exchange an internal organ to acquire a piece of the
> Nogata meteorite which fell in Japan on May 19, 861 AD. A single stone
> crashed through the roof of a Shinto Monastery. I saw a TV show once
> That showed the head of the monastery allow the narrator of the show To
> LOOK at it. I have even considered becoming a Shinto monk and Living
> there for 6 months in the hopes of being allowed to take a tiny Bessey
> speck of which there MUST be several in that old wooden box In which the
> stone is kept. Even Shinto Monks realize a meteorite Crashing through
> the roof of their small monastery is a major deal. Sort of "the finger
> of God" or a super duper karmic cosmic visitor. They know a cool hammer
> when they see one! Alas, I doubt I will ever Have even a Bessey speck of
> that super duper specimen. Of course, there Are DOZENS I would love to
> have and may never see, though through The years I, personally, have
> been ecstatic as this and then that show Up and it tickles me no end.
> If it doesn't do it for you - that is cool. You may be into some
> other facets) of collecting - and they may change over the years. It
> would Seem there are many, many focuses one can have collecting - and I
> am Pretty darn confident I will never have all the hammers I am aware of
> - Even if I didn't count Nogata - so many others are just not in the
> collecting realm.
> Anyway, whatever your focus - may you be blessed with many of
> your Favorite desires!
> Warmly, Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/19/10 12:40 PM, "Bob Loeffler"<bobl at peaktopeak.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I like the idea of categorizing these meteorites as "hammers", but I
>> don't like the definition because "artifact" is way too general. In
>> my opinion, there are many artifacts of human activity that don't
>> deserve the "hammer" classification. Examples: a mound of dirt, or a
>> landscaped yard, or a dirt road, or a "rock garden". But, if there is
>>
>
>> a garden gnome in your yard that scares away young children and a
>> meteorite hits it, then the met would be a hammer stone because it is
>> an object that was created by humans.
>>
>> Maybe Michael meant "a man-made OBJECT" when he decided to use the
>> word "artifact", but there are other types/definitions of artifacts
>> and therefore the confusion. The word artifact can also be used for
>> the inaccurate result of human activity or technology (e.g. a blip in
>> an x-ray image). So some people might stretch the case of the
>> meteorite landing into a cowpie as being an artifact because the cow
>> was not indigenous to the US and people brought them here from Europe,
>>
>
>> so when it pooped, that poop is an artifact of human activity. Yes,
>> definitely a stretch, but that's because "artifact" is too general.
>>
>> In any case, Michael coined the term, so it's his decision to modify
>> the definition or not.
>>
>> I like the term "hammer" (or "hammer stone") only if it's used with a
>> description of why it's a hammer. For example, if an ebay ad says
>> "Claxton meteorite - Hammer stone - 10g", that gets my attention.
>> Then when I look at the description of it, it better say WHY it's a
>> hammer stone. If it doesn't, that dealer goes on my blacklist... or
>> I'm just weary about that dealer until they have proven that they are
>> legitimate and not just using the term to increase the marketability
>> of the specimen.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of
>> Shawn Alan
>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:49 PM
>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>>
> (hopefully)
>
>> Hi Jason and Listers :)
>>
>> Jason, I did get your point and I think your confusing your points
>> because what you keep saying has no purpose from a collecting stand
>> point. Ill explain.... you said from your last post.....
>>
>> "All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> it hit a car, it's a hammer."
>>
>> To generalize is unnecessary? I am confused. So for me to put
>> something into a category is unnecessary? Well I guess it would be
>> safe to say lets dismiss historic falls as a generalized term, or how
>> about a whole stone or a slice. The fact of the matter is from a
>> collectors stand point these categories, or in your case Jason,
>> generalization, are there for a collectability purposes.
>>
>> You keep confusions these collectible terms as unnecessary from a
>> scientific stand point. That is true, science doesn't care if its a
>> historic fall, or if its a hammer, or if its a hammer stone, or in
>> your case, if its a whole stone. What science cares about is the
>> classification, where the meteorite came from, or the chemical makeup.
>>
>> However, from a historical stand point and collectors stand point,
>> science and history plays a very big role in ones collection and how
>> they see fit to collect meteorites. If I only collect hammer falls and
>>
>
>> hammer stone then, I want to know if the stone hit an animal, or
>> human, or artifact, or a man made object and will determine if its
>> worth being in my collection. Or in your case you collect whole
>> stones. Or someone else only may collect historic falls.
>>
>> Collecting is subjective from the individuals taste and wants. There
>> is no science behind it, only a rich history , the stories that
>> meteorites tell people from where they have been. Or the previous
>> owner, or if the meteorite had hit something or not. To have a
>> category for meteorites that have hit an artifact, human, animal, man
>> made object is important in the collectability stand point of
>> meteorite collecting.
>>
>> Many people on the list and around the world use the term hammer
>> stone/ hammer fall to decipher a meteorite from a collective stand
>> point. If we didn't have these two terms, which by you its seems
>> generic and lessons the value of meteorites, it would be hard to put
>> this type of fall into a sub category from a collectability stand
>> point.
>>
>> Shawn Alan
>> IMCA 1633
>> eBaystore
>>
>>
>>
> http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trks
> id=
>
>> p4340
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully) Jason
>> Utas meteoritekid at gmail.com Thu Jun 17 17:15:18 EDT 2010
>>
>> Previous message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> (hopefully)
>> Next message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> (hopefully)
>> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>> ----
>> Michael, All,
>> You're just getting hung up in the terminology. A collector who
>> collects meteorites that have hit man-made objects is fine by me. But
>> when people start going around using the word "hammer" to describe
>> such stones - and people are taking the liberty of using terms like
>> "hammer-fall stones" to sell stones that haven't hit anything other
>> than the ground...you're just asking for trouble.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> it hit a car, it's a hammer.
>>
>> It's not like we're streamlining things by applying this one term -
>> we're just losing information, and while you say the term "hammer" is
>> well-defined, I would like to point out the debate on-list about the
>> 'hammer status' of a meteorite that hits a dirt road or a
>> plowed/cleared field. After all, a dirt road is about as much of a
>> man-made structure as a leveled and cleared field. Same goes for a
>> dirt dam. So a "hammer" is a meteorite that has fallen on anything
>> that isn't virgin land? I mean...things seems to be a little vague
>> right now.
>>
>> Your definition:
>>
>> "Hammer:" any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which one
>> or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human.
>>
>> Define a "human artifact." Would a road or plowed field be included in
>>
>
>> your definition? Or does it have to be a smaller sort of tangible
>> object that's been altered by humanity in some way? What if a
>> meteorite hits something like a rose bush in my yard, here in LA. That
>>
>
>> rose bush wouldn't be here if it weren't for people, and if its
>> remains were excavated from the archaeologic remains of my house in
>> several thousand years, it would be treated as an artifact,
>> because...it is one. That rose is the product of hundreds of years of
>> selective breeding, and wouldn't exist in this climate if it weren't
>> for my grandmother, who planted it, and us, who water it.
>>
>> Or how about the meteorite that hits a plowed field? Again, you're
>> looking at a piece of land that has been substantially altered by the
>> hand of man - it has been leveled, cleared, and fertilized for decades
>>
>
>> in all likelihood. That piece of land has undergone more alteration
>> than the dirt berm upon which an Ash Creek stone was found - that was
>> just a bunch of dirt piled into a hill.
>>
>> Or how about a dirt road - that's just a strip of land that's been
>> scraped over by a bulldozer. Much less altered than a plowed field.
>>
>> Again, when you start using generic terms to describe things, you lose
>>
>
>> specificity. When I say that people shouldn't collect "hammers," I'm
>> not critiquing your collection of meteorites that have hit man-made
>> things. I'm criticizing your use of a term that takes the *individual*
>>
>
>> history of each stone and makes it "a hammer."
>>
>> Chiang Kahn no longer hit a boat - it's a "hammer."
>> Sylacouga no longer clipped Mrs. Hodges - it's a "hammer." And
>> Peekskill didn't hit a car - it's a "hammer."
>>
>> Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no reason to start calling
>> things "hammer" and try to define a new term that is subjective, no
>> matter how much you say it's not.
>>
>> Such practices can be useful - when I see a meteorite, it wouldn't
>> help me for someone to say that, for example, NWA 004 is a meteorite
>> with Fayalite (mol%): 22.2 and Ferrosilite
>> (mol%): 18.6 (12.6-20.5).
>> I can read that, but what means more to me is that because of that
>> information, it is classified as an L4. L4 is what means something to
>> me - not the Fa/Fs numbers. Maybe they will in a few years, but not
>> right now.
>>
>> So when I see you making up a new term to describe something that is
>> already very easily described and doesn't need clarification...I guess
>>
>
>> you're free to do it, but...I don't understand why you're not just
>> saying "this is a stone that hit a building."
>>
>> Because that seems clear enough.
>>
>> Just say "it hit a boat." Or say "this one was found on the ground,
>> but another stone from this fall hit a building."
>>
>> We'll know what that means.
>>
>> And yes, Michael, there are dealers going around selling things like
>> Park Forest who are saying that their pieces are from a "hammer-fall"
>> and that the pieces that they're selling could have hit a man-made
>> object. Without any sort of verification, I would say that making such
>>
>
>> claims is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy. If you don't know where
>> the stone that you're selling fell, don't say that it might have hit
>> something man-made when most stones hit nothing but dirt.
>>
>> Or are you going to sell every Junacheng you get as "maybe the stone
>> that fell in the woman's cooking-pot?"
>>
>> Because, if so...it's just a marketing ploy.
>>
>> And Shawn, you missed my point entirely. I hope this message clarifies
>>
>
>> things.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date:
>> 06/17/10 00:35:00
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Sat 19 Jun 2010 11:18:33 PM PDT