Archaeologica.org

Let's say, just hypothetically, that one had access to a small Shawnee pictographic inscription on stone. Let's say, just hypothetically, that it measured about 2-3 inches across.

Could you use "Sculpey" to get a clear impression of it?
If so, what type of "Sculpey"?
How do you keep it from sticking to the original?
Wouldn't talc fill the details?

Is there some other material that could be used to gain an impression, that would then be hard enough to make a cast from?

How do you do it?

Try Bondo.

Of course, what you mean is, "how do you do it without risking damage to the original?"

Tricky.

There was a technique mentioned in regard to the Gabriel Revelation Stone. As you may recall that was an ink-on-stone inscription with a missing letter in a strategic spot. IIRC the technique involved high resolution photography although as I also recall it failed to discern the letter in question.

No ink is hypothetically present.

I'm going to stick my neck out with a statement of the obvious - turn it over to a hypothetical expert so it doesn't get hypothetically screwed up and lost for all time. The fact that you're asking for advice means you aren't the hypothetical expert....

Neither am I - and that isn't hypothetical at all.....

oldarchystudent wrote:I'm going to stick my neck out with a statement of the obvious - turn it over to a hypothetical expert so it doesn't get hypothetically screwed up and lost for all time. The fact that you're asking for advice means you aren't the hypothetical expert....

Neither am I - and that isn't hypothetical at all.....

Hi OA -

Hypothetically, its not mine to "turn over" to anyone.

It hypothetically won't be accessed my anyone other than myself for quite a while.

So how do you make an impression, without the use of modeling clay and kiln?

Sculpey and an oven, but which type of Sculpey?
And then how do you turn that impression into a mold and cast so "experts" can "read" it?

Why is it so important for you to make an impression ? If the markings can't be seen clearly in various types of light, then
maybe it should be left until such time that you/others have access to technology allowing a better "reading ".
George

E.P. Grondine wrote:

oldarchystudent wrote:I'm going to stick my neck out with a statement of the obvious - turn it over to a hypothetical expert so it doesn't get hypothetically screwed up and lost for all time. The fact that you're asking for advice means you aren't the hypothetical expert....

Neither am I - and that isn't hypothetical at all.....

Hi OA -

Hypothetically, its not mine to "turn over" to anyone.

It hypothetically won't be accessed my anyone other than myself for quite a while.

So how do you make an impression, without the use of modeling clay and kiln?

Sculpey and an oven, but which type of Sculpey?
And then how do you turn that impression into a mold and cast so "experts" can "read" it?

flexible silicone mold http://www.makeyourownmolds.com/
You can obtain some pretty detailed results using casting resins http://www.alumilite.com/
stolen from http://www.alumilite.com/Applications/Museums.cfm

basically you use the silicone to make the mold then cast your impression with the resin.
E.P. Youtube has many mold making and casting how to videos
.. when you become a master you get results like this.. he calls it reverse archaeology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acONYEaQC3w

Tiompan wrote:Why is it so important for you to make an impression ? If the markings can't be seen clearly in various types of light, then
maybe it should be left until such time that you/others have access to technology allowing a better "reading ".
George

Damn - no "thumbs up" smiley....

Photography would seem to hold the most promise for recording the hypothetical information it hypothetically preserves absent the risk of non-inadvertant-destruction.

Fixed camera positions. Multiple pictures with low-angle light from various directions to highlight hypothetical incisions via shadow edges. Images then superimposed.

Or (and ideal when photographing stuff like guns, where you want even illumination), fixed camera, long exposure, and "paint" the light during it (hand held light source).

Hi Ernie, uniface -

Sorry to be so late in thanking you. My computer seems to have developed this habit of logingf me out immediately after login.

Uniface, If the hypothetical object was dark, then it would take a set-up like they are currently using on the tablets to photograph it. Hence hypothetically you would take a quick rubbing.

Ernie, thanks. I will look at the videos and check out those materials to see if any are appropriate.

OA, many years ago I had a friend with mensa. He would yell at his girlfriend for doing "stupid" things that did not appear all that "stupid" to mere mortals. I don't know how that relationship turned out.

But you do not have a great bod, and did not send money or even a Harry and David's gift pack along with your question.
However, as this is Christmas, here's a quesion for you:

Why do you think the original hypothetical finder did not take the hypothetical object to the hypothetical archaeological
"experts" of Ohio when he/she first found it?

As you get to make multiple guesses, that ought to tie you up for the next couple of weeks. Take your time.

OA, my advice to you is to stick with Templars, Vikings, and beautiful young werewolves fleeing to Minnesota.
You can even throw in an Irsh priest if you want.

EP , in your round of thanks you failed to respond to "Why is it so important for you to make an impression ? If the markings can't be seen clearly in various types of light, then
maybe it should be left until such time that you/others have access to technology allowing a better "reading "

George

George, let me tell you this little story. Many years ago I had a friend with mensa. He would yell at his girlfriend for doing "stupid" things that did not appear all that "stupid" to mere mortals. I don't know how that relationship turned out.

But you do not have a great bod, and did not send money, or even a Harry and David's gift pack along with your question.
However, as this is Christmas, here's a question for you:

How many of the First Nations used pictoglyphs?

As you get to make multiple guesses, that ought to tie you up for several months.

As to who might be able to "read" them, it isn't Barry Fell or anyone with NEARA.

EP,that's not a response , that's an evasion .

George

EP, are you implying that you can decipher pictographs, or know someone who can? Here are links to photos of a Native American Powder Horn that the current owners would love to know more about. It is currently in the possession of the Wyandots and they circulated photos to some archys several years ago to try to gain some knowledge about it. I'd have to backtrack through my saved emails to find the source of the photos.

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... 1.jpg.html

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... 3.jpg.html

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... d.jpg.html

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... b.jpg.html

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... d.jpg.html

http://s508.beta.photobucket.com/user/l ... 1.jpg.html