Archaeologica.org

Hi Richard - and Happy New Year to everyone!

I suspect the casual viewer would see that and just think "rock", but it certainly has the common simple zoomorphic form dear to my heart, as well as, more importantly, "reflectional symmetry" (actually thematic symmetry with these cruder figures), a hallmark of human agency. Specifically, there is the position on both sides of your stone of an eye (likely a natural feature on one side) relative to the mouth or beak. Nice piece.

Alan

Thanks Alan, happy new year to you too.

Here's one that shows some similarity to one of Charlie's rocks.











and a "cuboid" type..

I got the article Richard. I'll have to read it carefully a little later. Thanks.

Thanks Alan, happy new year to you too.

Here's one that shows some similarity to one of Charlie's rocks.

Happy New Year, fellow art freaks!

Richard, is the piece trianguloid in overall morpology, like this piece:



What's the pink stuff on the pieces. Looks like carbonate. No doubt about the piece being man made. Beautiful chert.

SNAP.

yep... it's trianguloid

SNAP.

yep... it's trianguloid

Man, are you still pulling these out of the small square your excavating?

If so, what a concentration of artifacts!

Yes, all out of my 1m x 1m hole. It is thick with the stuff....

here's another..

Yes, all out of my 1m x 1m hole. It is thick with the stuff....

here's another..

Amazing, Richard. Looks like you ran across a cache, an old campsite, or an old kill site. Nice piece, bro. Again, I love the chert coloration. Look's like a hand ax.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Looks like you ran across a cache, an old campsite, or an old kill site.

That's what I have been thinking - that or I am completely mistaken by the whole thing...

It gets difficult when I try and show a tool though when almost every time it has image "written" all over it.

Take this one for example, what would you make of it? Another geofact??

i love that multicoloured piece
to my eyes that is obviously man made

That's what I have been thinking - that or I am completely mistaken by the whole thing...

It gets difficult when I try and show a tool though when almost every time it has image "written" all over it.

Take this one for example, what would you make of it? Another geofact??

Though my right brain registers the images your seeing, art is such a subjective thing. My advice is to prove the functional aspects of your pieces, which are more objective, and then, after perhaps many years of validation, bring up the artistic dimensions of the pieces (at least to the academics).

Just my two cents, Bro.
You've got some very nice stuff!

Not sure which one you mean Marduk,

but the next question is how old?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... index3.htm

I reckon that Gorilla01 piece could be in excess of 500,000 years old...

which would mean _who_ making images?

However... that piece that lots of people seem to like (including me)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... ace_01.htm

could be Neandertal??

i love that multicoloured piece

Right? That's some of the most beautiful chert I've seen.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:(at least to the academics)

I hear you Charlie... thanks for the advice.

I hear you Charlie... thanks for the advice.

Yes sir. The ol' school of hard knocks.

I took off on the same path, and it was unproductive.