Archaeologica.org

stan wrote:Manystones, i am hampered by not seeing all those pieces in my hand.

Accepted.

stan wrote:I would like to know more about the contexts, whether there were other indicators of human presence where the pieces were found, for example.

Lithics a little further along the Gade (my house sits between the rivers Gade and Colne) are positively dated at 450,000 with some being suspected to be older..

http://www.iceage.org.uk/South%20East/H ... ml#Croxley

See also the tools section on my website..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... index2.htm

stan wrote:I would like to see other views of that interesting detailed face! The photo seems taken from an angle to show it to its best advantage.

See the entry page www.palaeolithicart.co.uk for one of the side profiles in addition to the image you have seen. It is the same piece - a blue beach pebble.

and also

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

for other views - note also the embryo shape in the middle of this piece.... Too many face images to be a coincidence.

stan wrote:The other one, the white oval with the holes, looks like the work of water to me.

Could you explain how this would likely happen please?

stan wrote:was there a cultural tradition as you suggest...through religious symbols...of passing the knowledge down so that we simply became better educated?

I think so.. evidence the Gorilla images seen (including Gorilla 01) here in Europe which must have been carried with the culture since no remains have been found here.

[quote]Could you explain how this would likely happen please?

/quote]

If a person did it, why is it so crooked? The jaw is lopsided, and the
mouth doesn't line up with the eyes. More substandard "art."

I suppose these holes are some sort of erosion...lots of rocks have holes in them, caused by pebbles in water, worms, or whatever. On this one three of them happen to be in a triangular orientation on an oval rock, with some sort of crevice below them.

I think the "appearance" of a "face" is in the eye of the beholder.

Worms?

What experience with knapping or lithic identification do you have Stan?

This is a pebble. I except it was quite difficult to work.

You still haven't managed to explain what sort of forces and situation would cause this "coincidental arrangement of damage".

What about the statistical likelihood of finding so many items in such a small area which all conform to standard themes such as bird, face, bear, gorilla, etc. and note _not_ cars, tvs, alarm clocks, etc? What about the multiple images of the SAME animal on one piece?

I note that you have not commented on the item Face 01 which _was_ under discussion.

Actually I have been thinking about this "Worm" theory and you could be on to something...

I read about a heap (technical term for a large group or "herd") of worms with teeth like pneumatic drills infamous for devasting crops and curiously creating replica palaeolithic tools.

Apparently they were last seen heading for North Carolina.

Hi Richard et al...

I'm just scanning through the many and varied postings that have appeared since yesterday. I will comment on these as soon as I can (could be a challenge). I want to mention one thing right away, though: From a geological standpoint, Stan is not completely off base in proposing worms as a source of holes, as sometimes the roundish vestiges of worm burrows do appear in sedimentary rock - but in flint I would think this unlikely, since flint nodules are apparently secondary in nature, formed after the deposition of chalk sediments. Worm tracks ("trace fossils"), are also often presented as a facile dismissal of V-profile grooves that have every appearance of being artificial (sharp-bellied levitating worms?).

Later... Alan

I probably should have added in my previous message that the worm burrows were into the sediment of which the rock was composed, before this hardened in to sandstone or whatever (i.e., no carbon-bit teeth required). Again, not something one is likely to see in flint.

Richard, Are you saying this is flint?

I believe it is flint - it is a pebble/cobble.

See more pics here of the same item here.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... ask_01.htm

My first impression is that this is probably a limestone.
If so you can do an acid test (hydrochoric acid I believe)
on it like in Geology 101, and if it fizzes it's limestone.
Most limestones commanly have marine fossils, or other
organic material that decompose at an early stage leaving
holes in rocks similiar to these. It's all of natural geological
formation and very common. You see it a lot in rocks of
the Cretaceous Period in Southeastern U.S. And in our case,
most commanly it's crinoid stems (plant stems) that break
up into small disk that have deteriated and leave a hole.
Some times if you look closely you will see other fossils
within the rock IF it's limestone.

Sometimes you see these holes in quartz agate as well.
Still natural. But, with a vivid imagination, and some times
the right herbal essence we all begin to see the artistic side
of Mother Nature. And there's nothing wroung with that
either! CHEERS

It is not a limestone pebble, that is for sure.

It is flint.

It seems porous or granular, which flint is not.
And it looks as if that "mouth" was already there before the
pebble got rounded down.

stan wrote:It seems porous or granular, which flint is not.
And it looks as if that "mouth" was already there before the
pebble got rounded down.

The cortex is grey and may appear to some to look porous or granular but I can assure you that it is not limestone.. I don't need to smash it to see, there are plenty of others to reliably infer this in addition to the glimpses of flint that can be ascertained from the piece itself. I trust this can be made out from the three photos hyperlinked below.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... esnose.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... t2/eye.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... /mouth.JPG

Look again at Face 01 - which is really the piece that was up for discussion. This is clearly not limestone. Look at the cortex of this - it is in many respects very similar to the cortex of the pebble face.

So far at least three issues have not been addressed;

1. The multiple images of human faces on piece Face 01,

2. The consistency of finds adhering to themes, and with tools.

3. Two different perspectives of a Gorilla on piece Gorilla 01.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... %20002.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... %20005.jpg

Roberto I do appreciate your input.

I have posted a few more photos of a different piece - a tool and a piece of the debitage. The difference in patination on the cortex between the two pieces is remarkable. Hopefully it will be apparent that the cortex of this pebble is very similar to that of the Pebbleface and that it is flint - to the best of my understanding. However, this one appears to have been treated with heat? or at least I am lead to understand that this type of patination is caused by heat. i.e. man made.

The piece that I am holding is the tool itself which shows retouch and underneath where my thumb is what appears to be a residue that I guess could be analysed?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... 20001a.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... 20002a.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... 20003a.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... 20004a.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... 20005a.jpg

I'd be grateful for any further opinions you could give.

Manystones, I forgot you were in England, which would go a long way to explaining how the lithics found near you are 450k years old.

The only flints nodules I have studied are black and dark red inside.
I am just an amateur American "arrowhead" collector, and we don't have
flint in piedmont NC.

If you found only one piece that is what you claim, it would be a great find. But there are so many in the various collections you have posted. Someone stated that they found numerous pieces in a small test dig, sorry I don't remember if that was you. It just seems like too many, to me.

I would think that if the widespread practice of producing images had started so long ago it might have gradually become more refined and defined earlier than the flowering of cave images made by Homo sapiens from about 30k bp. (about 400k years later.)

I wonder why Face 01 is the only one of its kind? That is a fascinating and beatiful rock, though.

I have stated all my suspicions already in previous posts, so I won't argue any further with you.
As I said before, I hope you find or have found what you claim, and that more convincing evidence will be forthcoming.

Skeptically yours....

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... ask_01.htm

In my field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest the Katcina HeHea is described "mask or face design, with toothed mouth at 45-degree angle
Petroglyphs, Los Lunas, New Mexico

The crooked mouth...is a diagnostic feature of HeHea, a widely distributed katcina. Fewkes (1903:74) expressed the opinion that "HeHea is evidently an acient katcina, and from his apperance in many primitive ceremonies, public and secret, we may regard him as connected with very old ritual."
(Schaafsma 1980:276, 295)

HeHea has the eyes and mouth but lacks a nose. I couldn't find a picture on the net but they have the same looks, and what this has to do with rocks in Britian I don't know.