I would like to make some general observations regarding the recognition of rocks that have been altered by humans and are artifacts, or rocks simply showing usage wear indicative of human activity(such as hammerstones not shaped, but showing battering usage), and are also artifacts.
I have not reviewed this entire thread, prior to these comments, and those comments I've posted above. And I don't wish to come across as the sole authority on artifacts and geofacts, or rock art, and natural marks/fissures, etc seen on many rocks.
But, I'll go out on a limb and observe that it is quite possible many of the other posters here also are at a disadvantage judging man made from natural, be it artifacts, or be it rock art. And this disadvantage may be born from inexperience, just as I believe that is clearly the case where the OP is concerned. My apologies to those posters to whom such a generalization does not apply. I have not re-read the entire thread.
With that said, I have some 60 years experience hunting for, and analyzing artifacts fashioned from rock in the eastern United States, mostly in the Northeast. I do not regard myself as an authority in petroglyphs/rock art, but there I do have some 40 years experience, and some of my work is published in books dealing with rock art in the Northeast Woodlands.
A certain advantage is gained when one has the level of experience I do have. And a disadvantage also develops, having to do with the ability, or lack thereof, of actually educating someone with little or no experience, and trying to do so in an Internet forum venue, as opposed to in person, when the rocks in question can be passed back and forth, and discussed in person. So, here is that advantage, which is also a disadvantage. When I see a rock that I know has not been altered by human hands, (and my experience is such that, in hand, I can usually detect even the most subtle evidence that a rock has been altered by humans, either by work, usage wear, or both), I do not need, I no longer need to, go through a series of logical deductions in my mind to reach a conclusion. And that is because my experience has made both the knowledge and the recognition second nature. When knowledge, born of study and experience, has arrived at the state where it is now second nature, not only does one not have to spend that much time examining the rock, the recognition of man altered or natural is close to instantaneous, but it also becomes extraordinarily difficult to actually explain how that recognition is determined. Things have become second nature as a result of decades of experience. Explaining one's deductions to the inexperienced just becomes more difficult as a result. This is why, while it is very easy for me to see, that the rock I commented upon above, was never shaped by human hands, it is far from easy for me to explain how I am able to come to that conclusion, to do so with ease. It's unfortunate, which an in hand and in person discussion can likely only partially rectify. In this venue, it's only that much more difficult.
I have trained my eyes, when hunting for artifacts, to such a degree, that I often find crude artifacts, notched net weights would be a good example, that others, with experience even, might actually walk by without noticing them, simply because they may not recognize very subtle alteration.
All this is to say, for someone like myself, even with decades of experience and a highly developed eye for recognizing both artifacts and man produced "art" on rock, it can be very, very difficult to convey the reasoning involved, and which lies behind, the almost instant recognition and distinction between natural and man made.
I suffer no illusions here that my analysis of the rock I commented on in my most recent observations, will ever alter the belief the OP has in that rock. Part of the reason is because my recognition of this, and the other examples offered in this thread, is at the level of second nature. But part of the reason I will not alter the OP's opinion is because he has complete faith in his conclusions, and that very faith ensures that he will remain closed minded to the possibility, which is a certainty from my point of view, that he is complexly mistaken here. And I suspect other posters here may not have the level of experience I have that permits me to dismiss these rocks as just that, rocks, and not artifacts. My apologies to those who may indeed have the education and experience to recognize that the rocks posted are not artifacts, and the rock art posted, are not man made rock art at all. This appears to be a case where an individual has created a narrative based on false assumptions that at some point became articles of faith that reason and experience will simply never budge. To some degree, we may as well be talking to ourselves here. The OP's faith will not allow an open mind to develop, nor will it allow the OP to realize the errors he is making.
I've run into situations like this many times over the years, and often on forums dealing with artifacts and/or rock art in the Americas.
Here is a site in Virginia where a jasper flake was able to be dated to the Paleo Era, and which was investigated by Jack Hranicky. It needs to be pointed out that the above ground features reman controversial to many other archaeologists. And it absolutely needs to be pointed out, that the animal effigies mentioned in one of the links below, are highly dubious as to actually being effigies created by humans, as opposed to natural shapes interpreted as effigies. Which is not to say natural landscape features looking like things cannot, or were not, incorporated into sacred landscapes. But, it is to say, that inexperienced eyes often make leaps regarding concluding an effigy is man made, when it is not man made at all....
http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/co ... b2370.html
http://www.clarkedailynews.com/new-equi ... tice-site/
http://www.clarkedailynews.com/archaeol ... ke-county/
