[meteorite-list] "artifact" Definition
From: John.L.Cabassi <John_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:14:28 -0700 Message-ID: <000601cb1015$eedc3e40$a166fea9_at_anitak9bz49jy2> 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 Received on Sat 19 Jun 2010 09:14:28 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|