Archaeologica.org

The item is made of fossilised mastodon bone from the Pliocene period, 5.2 million to 2.5 million years ago. Its Providence is from an old Bristol palaeontological collection. Although believed to be carved when the mastodon bone was already fossilized, examining the object I cannot possibly see how this can be the case, as its as hard as any flint, but does not have the usual signs of knapping that a flint would show. I can see other figurative possibilities in this find beside the obvious face, yes things from my chart.


'Tuatara.... no evidence of a continuous fossil record to support this.
Just like almost everything else then, no evidence of evolution.

circumspice wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:34 am

Being sceptical is essential to being a good scientist, being open to ideas, and suggestions is also. There is little point for me to try to prove anything to you, you said you could not see something that I believe most would find easy to see. I only have more of the same things that require seeing things. Its clearly not for you.

In other words, you have no credentials at all. 'Nuff said.

Nooo, Just not supplied here yet. Amateurs built the Ark and experts built the Titanic, so they say.

Haaa HHAAA You cannot even give a face recognition

You're entitled to your opinion but no one is required to be impressed by it.

Yes. This is one of the items I pulled from the chalk cliff, looked unmissed with etc. I don't expect anyone to be amazed at this either, of coarse pareidolia excuses for the dino like head profile left/downwards looking. But there is a thumb and finger hand shape at the bottom, its on my chart, and appears to have finger nail details. Like I say I can find this same shape in more classically styled tools. Palaeolithic handaxes etc. There is something slightly wrong with the scaling, the image is stretched to widely on my screen? it never used to be like that, hope its fine for everyone else.

I did find some of springheads pics, I did see one that reminded me of an accepted 400kya elephant bone tool.

PointBlank wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:35 am The item is made of fossilised mastodon bone from the Pliocene period, 5.2 million to 2.5 million years ago. Its Providence is from an old Bristol palaeontological collection. Although believed to be carved when the mastodon bone was already fossilized, examining the object I cannot possibly see how this can be the case, as its as hard as any flint, but does not have the usual signs of knapping that a flint would show. I can see other figurative possibilities in this find beside the obvious face, yes things from my chart.


'Tuatara.... no evidence of a continuous fossil record to support this.
Just like almost everything else then, no evidence of evolution.

I have no idea why you've fixated on the erroneous notion that fossilized mastodon, mammoth & walrus ivory is petrified or somehow converted to stone. In places where the permafrost never thaws completely, the ancient ivory doesn't truly fossilize. Artisans have used what is euphemistically called fossil ivory for thousands of years. It is no harder than fresh ivory, it hasn't been converted to stone. You might want to research the subject before spewing false info.

What is fossil ivory? Is it petrified? Can you carve it?

A: Fossil ivory is found all over the world, but the only kind considered useful for carving is found in regions of the far north where the ground is frozen for all but short periods of the year. Instead of decaying or undergoing petrification, ivory from animals that died hundreds or even thousands of years ago often remains much as it was, sometimes taking on coloration from surrounding minerals. This can often result in startling colors and patterns, which may be brought out by skillful carving and polishing. Shades of brown are most common, but some mastodon ivory, for example, exhibits a startling blue venation.

https://juxtamorph.com/fossil-ivory/

Oh, by the way, the word is provenance, NOT providence.

circumspice wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:32 pm I have no idea why you've fixated on the erroneous notion that fossilized mastodon, mammoth & walrus ivory is petrified or somehow converted to stone. In places where the permafrost never thaws completely, the ancient ivory doesn't truly fossilize. Artisans have used what is euphemistically called fossil ivory for thousands of years. It is no harder than fresh ivory, it hasn't been converted to stone. You might want to research the subject before spewing false info.

I have no idea why you would have the erroneous claim the item is not stone. THE ITEM IS STONE

It does not mater if you have heard of gold plated mastodon bones as soft as jello that glow in the dark, THIS ONE IS STONE, the point i was making is very clear, it surely was sculpted before it was stone. You might want to actually read what you post before making any claims and ignorantly spewing false info

The ages that are given match the supposed time line of a particular type of mastodon, and seeing as it was in the hands of a palaeontologist before myself, I think he had recognized the particular type of mastodon and thus we have the age ranges.

PointBlank wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:31 am

circumspice wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:32 pm I have no idea why you've fixated on the erroneous notion that fossilized mastodon, mammoth & walrus ivory is petrified or somehow converted to stone. In places where the permafrost never thaws completely, the ancient ivory doesn't truly fossilize. Artisans have used what is euphemistically called fossil ivory for thousands of years. It is no harder than fresh ivory, it hasn't been converted to stone. You might want to research the subject before spewing false info.

I have no idea why you would have the erroneous claim the item is not stone. THE ITEM IS STONE

It does not mater if you have heard of gold plated mastodon bones as soft as jello that glow in the dark, THIS ONE IS STONE, the point i was making is very clear, it surely was sculpted before it was stone. You might want to actually read what you post before making any claims and ignorantly spewing false info

The ages that are given match the supposed time line of a particular type of mastodon, and seeing as it was in the hands of a palaeontologist before myself, I think he had recognized the particular type of mastodon and thus we have the age ranges.

You're the one making the claims. The burden of proof is upon YOU. Thus far, you've managed to make some very unbelieveable claims & you haven't offered a shred of proof. Yet you demand belief. Your credibility is suspect. Like I said: Put up or shut up. The ball has always been in your court, yet all you can do is whine that I don't believe you because I believe false teachings from the established authorities on the subject at hand. So... prove them false. Don't just say that they are telling lies. PROVE THAT THEY ARE TELLING LIES. It should be a simple thing for you to do if you're not full of shit.

BTW, the claim that dinosaurs and humans coexist is accurate. But, it’s only because most vertebrate paleontologists regard modern birds as avian dinosaurs. And, that is what they are. Birds are avian dinosaurs. For my money, one of the coolest scientific realizations of my lifetime. Non avian dinosaurs died out during the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous Period, some 65 million years ago. But the avian branch of dinosaurs survived.

https://www.livescience.com/are-birds-dinosaurs.html

PointBlank wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:35 am The item is made of fossilised mastodon bone from the Pliocene period, 5.2 million to 2.5 million years ago. Its Providence is from an old Bristol palaeontological collection. Although believed to be carved when the mastodon bone was already fossilized, examining the object I cannot possibly see how this can be the case, as its as hard as any flint, but does not have the usual signs of knapping that a flint would show. I can see other figurative possibilities in this find beside the obvious face, yes things from my chart.


'Tuatara.... no evidence of a continuous fossil record to support this.
Just like almost everything else then, no evidence of evolution.

If it’s not made of something that does not permit a conchoidal fracture, like all the forms of cryptocrystalline quartz do, such as flint, then it could not be “knapped” like flint. Many hard stone tools, and stone effigies I have seen attributed to Native Americans(and I have seen many, and if it were a little easier for me to add photos to this site I could show some; been involved collecting Native American artifacts for some 65 years now) we’re in fact pecked and ground into form, not knapped into form. Knapping is not the only way to reduce rock. And knapping is used pretty exclusively to produce flaked stone artifacts, not effigies. A few exceptions, such as flint thunderbird effigies, however 99.999999% of flint thunderbird effigies are modern fakes.

Sandstone effigy from Rhode Island. Pecked and ground into shape…
Looks humanoid, but it’s also a frog with front feet in leaping position…
I’ll need to do a better job with photos by the looks of it….but from angle below, the effigy is clearly a frog. What were the two eyes in the humanoid form become the nostrils of the frog. It had been suggested that this is a shape shifting effigy, since I can also position it to resemble a turtle. Ed Lenik, a New Jersey archaeologist, and colleague in petroglyph research, wrote it up in his book “Amulets, Effigies, Fetishes, and Charms: Native American Artifacts and Spirit Stones from the Northeast”, and suggested a shape shifting effigy: turtle, frog, and humanoid all in one, and perhaps a charm belonging to a shaman, who might have practiced, or margined, shape shifting in altered states.

Finally, positioned as a turtle. (First image below, still trying to learn how to properly add photos within the text, sorry)The two “cheek jowls”, seen in human form, become the two anterior Gular scutes on the underside of the turtle. At any rate, most all effigies would be pecked and ground. Not knapped like flint. They may be ground to the point that all pecking marks are polished right over, as is the case with this small sandstone effigy.

Clever ambiguous optical illusions is at the core of many of my finds, and other accepted prehistoric artwork finds, perhaps in the less clearly carved/pecked and polished pieces this has aided in doubt, 'I have an elephant effigy', response 'well it looks more like a cow to me'. I am however not fully convinced by my mastodon bone piece as a poly-iconic prehistoric artwork. I see the head of an 'elephant' to the left, and the 'trunk' could also be representative of a finger of a hand, the thumb being to the right. These are the kind of combinations I would expect to find in some Palaeolithic handaxes, and other quality figure stones.

This is similar to my one, and it has a possible trait I've notice in my poly-iconic flint finds. Notice how on its edge some notches are carved, I interpret
a whole thumb shape here, combined with a possible 'face stack', face stacks are head profile shapes, where the nostrils say become the eyes of say another ape profile. I'm also not 100% convinced by this piece. If it had a nice elephant I guess I would be.