I’d keep looking where you found that

Fred250

Hero Member
Jun 30, 2018
524
408
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
That is what Dr. Gramly said about this piece. I posted it long ago but took some better pics last night and emailed them to the guy who wrote the bipolar knapping articles I posted last week. He also wrote an article on a Venus figurine for the Pleistocene Coallition’s last issue, which is what I have long wanted this piece to be. What it actually is I have no idea. The guy I sent pics to wasn’t even sure it wasn’t natural and wasn’t seeing a Venus, but Doc Gramly did recognize it is worked, whatever it is. Notice the precarious balance, not thinking that could be an accident of nature, Any opinions are welcome, that is the fun of this type of thing.
IMG_7608.jpeg
IMG_1365.jpeg
IMG_7607.jpeg
IMG_7615.jpeg
IMG_7616.jpeg
IMG_7609.jpeg
IMG_7611.jpeg
IMG_7618.jpeg
IMG_7619.jpeg
IMG_7620.jpeg
IMG_7621.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7613.jpeg
    IMG_7613.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 4
The inspiration for Pac-Man 🙂 just kidding. Looks natural too me.

The inspiration for Pac-Man 🙂 just kidding. Looks natural too me.

I wish I could capture tthe texture difference from the possibly water smoothed exterior to the rough interior feel where material was removed in my pics. It isn’t clear cut in pics but I think most would admit the sharp angles on the “back” don’t look entirely natural
 

Sorry, it is natural stone.
While I appreciate your opinion I hope you aren’t offended that I place more value in Dr. Gramly’s in hand assessment of the piece. Still only his opinion though, everyone is wrong sometimes. I hope you will at least leave it up for a little before hiding it in geofact
 

I would say natural and it could have been tumbled in a river which also removed most of the material that created the split. Some of the material is still in the split and my guess would be that it is calcite, formed from water entering the split. JMO
 

I would say natural and it could have been tumbled in a river which also removed most of the material that created the split. Some of the material is still in the split and my guess would be that it is calcite, formed from water entering the split. JMO
I believe the split is natural also, just a cool rock someone found and manipulated until it would balance on 5 sides. I’m not sure purely natural rocks could balance on the 3 small points of contact like this one does at that one angle, but anything is possible.
 

It looks entirely natural to me also. As for the precarious balance, I don't think that primitive man would have shaped a rock just to get it to balance in an odd position. Nature, however, does it all the time.
Thanks for offering your opinion as such, obviously I disagree but I can see where you are coming from.
 

Thanks for offering your opinion as such, obviously I disagree but I can see where you are coming from.
So this Dr. Grimly stated this.

"I’d keep looking where you found that"

What does that state?
Could be the resume stuffed academia brushing off the less informed, but still maintains some politeness.

Though you hold his opinion in the highest regard.

Yet you won't be swayed on reading any other opinion.

Yet you post up what appears to be a natural forming rock (the general overall opinion) and ask for the readership's opinions.

This what confuses me to no end about this (and other similar past posts)


It's like the OP knows fully well an apple is an apple.
But posts up an image of a Granny apple.
"Could this be an orange?"
Then defends it to no end.
It's like some weird game to play with folks. :dontknow:

OBW I'm siding with the readership on their findings also.
Natural rock.
Cool, but not worked by man.
 

Not an artifact, moving to Just rock forum.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top