The spheres seem to be copies of pollen, or that could be coincidence. But one would be led to think they were patterned after the pollen. But how
could they be seen? You would have to have a magnifying device. Were there any in those times? Well yes there were in the early Greek times.
The earliest written records of lenses date to Ancient Greece, with Aristophanes' play The Clouds (424 BC) mentioning a burning-glass (a biconvex lens
used to focus the sun's rays to produce fire). Some scholars argue that the archeological evidence indicates that there was widespread use of lenses
in antiquity, spanning several millennia. Such lenses were used by artisans for fine work, and for authenticating seal impressions. The writings of
Pliny the Elder (23–79) show that burning-glasses were known to the Roman Empire, and mentions what is arguably the earliest written reference to
a corrective lens: Nero was said to watch the gladiatorial games using an emerald (presumably concave to correct for nearsightedness, though the
reference is vague). Both Pliny and Seneca the Younger (3 BC–65) described the magnifying effect of a glass globe filled with water.
This might account for the existence of magnification that possibly might be able to discern the pollen shapes. I will just leave that there.
Beyond that the spherical stones and the three sided stone appear as though they could well have been Bolo tips. Or a Cat of nine tails type weapon
with a single handle or loop of leather/sinew and the stones affixed by shrinking the leather to fit, or tying them, or possibly some sort of
braiding. Perhaps if they were weapons, they might have come loose in combat and fell to the wayside, or were it in rain, the leather which had been
shrunk onto the spheres, relaxed due to becoming wet again, and were lost in that way.
Of course this does nothing to explain the Costa Rican stones and their meaning, since their size is vastly dissimilar.
You bring up some interesting questions...
edit on 7-2-2013 by Plotus because: (no reason given)