Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of the Treasure Beaches Report.
 |
| Ornate 1715 Fleet Key Found by Dan B. |
A few days ago I posted a mystery object that one reader asked if it could be a gold nugget. Here is the object again.
 |
| Mystery Object Found by Nick. |
I remarked that that the mystery object looked something like a key to me. Of course, if it is a key, it would be a very mangled or corroded key, and it is obscured by a heavy black patina. I'd give that possible identify only a chance of about 1%. One thing that makes the identity difficult is that we see it only in two dimensions. You can't tell if the area that might be seen as the key's bow is actually flat or more rounded.
Mark G. wrote and said, "If it were a key it would probably be more of a charm for a charm bracelet. I found something similar in a parking lot hunt. It was not in the surf so not corroded but lost a lot of the gold gilding." He showed an example.
The 1715 Fleet key shown at the top of the page is very ornate and could have had a religious meaning. Laura Strolia, a top researcher on Spanish Colonial religious artifacts, said it could represent the "key to heaven."
Keys are used in other symbolic ways, for example, "key to the heart," You can find ornate keys sold as charms on the internet.
Form goes along with function, but form and function are not the same. A key could be an actual functional key, or it could be religious, decorative or symbolic. And of course, any resemblance in form could be accidental or coincidental and completely wrong. My observation of some resemblance is most probably wrong (as I said, perhaps as much as 99%).
I told Nick, who found the mystery object to take it to have the metal tested. I hope he does that and we hear the results.
---
Identifying objects is often difficult, especially when you only have a two-dimensional photo to go from. There is so much more information that would be helpful. People often forget to include some idea of the size of an object. But besides that, color is often not totally accurate in a photo. The angle of the photo and lighting can make a big difference. Being able to move an object around to view it from different angles can be helpful, as can feeling it for weight, hardness and texture.
I'm very much interested in the cognitive/perceptual process of identifying objects. The process is pretty complex, which is why they don't have computer programs to identify error coins, for example. They do have facial recognition these days, which, of course, is a relatively recent development. I don't know how accurate those systems are, but they are certainly complex.
Determining shape would seem to be simple enough but is a more complex process than you might think. Below are a few examples.
The first shape (a) would be almost universally identified as a circle but is actually a bunch of unconnected dots. What makes people say it is a circle rather than a bunch of points? It involves perceptual processes done in the eye as well as the brain.
So what determines a circle? A circle is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center). How do we know that the points are equidistant from the center. If we consider a third dimension, could it be that some points are actually not in the same plane, ie some are farther from the viewer and some closer even though they appear to be the same size. Actually, points have no size. But if we question a lot of our assumptions, we can deconstruct to some extent the processes that we do automatically. You might say there are a lot of assumptions or organizing processes involved in the most basic levels of perception. Just using the definition. of circle, we start from a center point, which we don't actually see, and conclude that all the points we do see are equidistant from that center without measuring them. Actually, the points we do see might not be the points of the figure, but the figure could be the white space, and the dark points holes in the white space or missing parts of the large figure. That is the figure/ground problem that is done automatically for us by our marvelous, but sometimes deceived, information processing system.
Take the next figure (b). Is that one a circle. I bet you'd find a few people that would say yes. Probably more people would say yes if the figure wasn't so symmetrical, which suggests a purposeful pattern other than a circle. If the deviations from circularity were more random, I think people would take the randomness as inconsequential and round it out to being circular. So how perfect does it have to be? When is it close enough? To some extent it would depend upon the context and other factors as well as the person. Some pay more attention to small differences and some people kind of round things off. If we were talking about something you dug up and the object was corroded, you might accept a less perfect circle as being circular, and once you determine that it is a coin, your perception would be modified to seeing it as being more circular than it actually is because you would then discount some of the imperfections.
You perceive raw sensation. Processing takes place before you realize it. The brain feeds back to the eye what it thinks it should be seeing, as one example. Sensation is always organized and interpreted to some extent immediately. Some of that processing is actually done in the retina and then you have input from the brain feeding back in a continual loop.
Some people see what they hope to see. Everything is a treasure chest. Their hopes and fears determine to a large extent their perceptions.
If you are in a forest at night and are frightened by a bear, after that your senses are heightened and every noise you hear is perceived differently. The brain adjusts the sensory system.
You can't discuss things with people whose prior conclusions heavily determine what they see and hear. They have so much investment in a conclusion that they can't see or hear what is actually being said or what is in front of them. They simply can't be objective.
Some types of meditation attempt to shut down the information processing and very accomplished meditators do a good job of that, but it isn't easy.
Which of the shapes above would you say are the most complex. By some measures, it would be the circle. Once you determine that it is a circle, ie. that each point is equidistant from a center point, it takes very little information to predict the location of each point. Knowing three points tells you exactly where the next should be.
When eyeballing, there are several things that are important. Shape is one, but also color and texture.
When I found my first great white shark tooth, I bent over thinking I saw the bottom corner of a partly buried bottle. It was an ever so slightly rounded triangle shape, very smooth and dark color. The three features of shape, color and texture is what caught my eye, but the item was still misidentified until I picked it up and saw the tooth with serrated edges.
Perception is complex, but most of it is done automatically. I could have gone on about this for pages, but will leave it there. Like understanding your metal detector, understanding your own information processing and perceptual system can be helpful.
---
 |
| Surf Chart From Surfguru.com. |
I consider a four-to-six-foot surf to be kind of borderline. It usually isn't sufficient, but can be - other factors considered.