Archaeologica.org

Rich, I still say this is a masterpiece!!

Like you pointed out, compare it to this hunk of garbage:

You'd think there would be someone out there prepared to do more than state it is "natural".. like a little microscopic evaluation....

Anyway

I couldn't help but notice the similarity between this

from your site

and from Alans site.

I couldn't help but notice the similarity between this ...

What do you think...a lion, or maybe a ram?

You'd think there would be someone out there prepared to do more than state it is "natural".. like a little microscopic evaluation....

To whom have you showed the piece, Richard?

That things got definite knapping marks!

Does look like a lion, but also a human.

My take is that it is very much a stylised/refined image.

The similarity is remarkable - what is the physical distance between the two sites? Talk about replicability

Charlie Hatchett wrote:To whom have you showed the piece, Richard?

That things got definite knapping marks!

In England - I am still trying to get the "National Ice Age Network" to come and look at my collection..

This was a later find, but prior to this I had presented some "stones" to a local museum who tentatively noted that 1 piece out of 11 was "possibly Mesolithic or Neolithic"... (There is a bigger story here - the Portable Antiquities Scheme, run from National Lottery funding, had a forum to identify material found by the public.. the resident lithics expert at the museum - who then denied he was such argued with me.. I put my case forward politely and succinctly and the website got closed down???)

They all tend to dump anything in the "Neolithic" or "Mesolithic" largely because a) they haven't been exposed to much EP, MP, UP stuff or b) they read somewhere that EP material is rare in Britain....

Nick Ashton at the British Museum - says it is all (correction from frost damaged to natural - sorry checked my facts when I got home) natural (from pictures) - when I asked him to substantiate the claim that most of it was caused by frost damage (which he said he would be able to do) .. guess what .. he was not forthcoming - despite periodic reminders!!!

Seriously my four year old son is better at recognising worked material than some of the "experts" over here.

So, so far with this particular piece it has all been via photos..

what is the physical distance between the two sites?

Ca. 850-900 miles.

Nick Ashton at the British Museum - says it is all frost damaged

And he couldn't answer the point I made about the number of finds within a 1m square hole and the statistical probablity of pulling out so many "coincidental" images.

Nick Ashton at the British Museum - says it is all frost damaged

Frostbite will make your hands bleed too, Charlie!

Such objects can only be produced through freezing and thawing over a long period time and by pure chance superficially resemble the images you suggest. As a matter of interest it would be virtually impossible to replicate such objects even with modern technology

the last bit cracks me up

even with modern technology

well it could be true
we don't have an ice age in the modern world

Frostbite will make your hands bleed too, Charlie!

Ouch..or fall off!

Such objects can only be produced through freezing and thawing over a long period time and by pure chance superficially resemble the images you suggest. As a matter of interest it would be virtually impossible to replicate such objects even with modern technology

What he's talking about is spalling.




Chris Hardaker addresses this issue nicely. Experimental lithics analyses...reproduced over and over.



Not natural.

http://www.earthmeasure.com/bipolar/index_bipolar.html

What you got there, ain't no spalling.

you guy's got me looking and came up with these.

http://www.bbrotemarkle.com/Album36/11_22_2006_029.html

Manystones, I'm hurt that you didn't put my bear in with alans and charlies rocks.

Still haven't figured out how to post a picture-probaly a good thing!