But Is It Art?

[CMD]

Yeah, I was just thinking of fossil worm trails myself, Tom. It's certainly a possibility. I suggest the poster use Google Image and search "fossil worm trails" or a similar search. They will often meander about the surface of the rock in exactly the fashion seen in the poster's rock. And I am thinking worm trails is exactly what was in the back of my mind all along. And I call myself a fossil collector, lol....

https://healingmagichands.wordpress....04/22/fossils/


And a bit more on "trace fossils":

http://www.georgialifetraces.com/2011/11/07/%E2%80%9Cworm-burrows%E2%80%9D-as-a-geological-cliche/

[SurfaceHunter]

Nice example

[Lindenmeier-Man]

I know it’s not going to come to fruition, but I’d very much like to be the third man in the ring !

[SDhunter]

I thought worm fossils too when I first saw it. I have found fossils like that.

[SDhunter]

But to be fair to Magpie, the difference between the two seem to be that Magpies lines will come together, almost creating a design. These worm trails seem to be open ended.
I’m not trying to say they are manmade, only a little different than Charlie’s picture

[CMD]

And to be clear, I was not looking for an exact match....

[MagpieInTheSky]

Thank you for the picture. I absolutely have to agree that fossil worm burrows are the progenitor of what I have. Here's something similar I found the other day. That does not of course preclude the possibility that an ancient human was minded to modify or augment such a curious thing. Proving beyond doubt what I am suggesting would likely require very high power magnification. I am going to try and pursue this evidentially as far as I can (now where did I put that scanning electron microscope...?). Not because I believe I am correct, rather I am driven through curiosity. I believe that certain aspects of prehistoric flintworking are regarded as ephemeral, if they are regarded at all. In essence, I would like to find out if they are being overlooked. There are three strands to what I have been pondering, of which this curio was the first. The second is the use of thermal shattering as an alternative reduction strategy. The third concerns the possibility of zoomorphic forms. Basically, I have an assemblage which I believe may have evidence for all three of these. I would very much appreciate forum members' help in finding out if I'm on a crazy trip or a hiding to nothing. I should probably start posting new threads now. The nurse will be coming round soon so I'd better go now.

[tomclark]

"Here's something similar I found the other day" I think that piece lends a lot of credibility to natural vs man "work" on the piece in question....and the fact that possibly Cretaceous fossils definitely occur on and in flint.

[south fork]

Sure is an interesting specimen maybe formed under heat and a lot of pressure ?

[MagpieInTheSky]

The clincher for me, and a feature which I believe has been accentuated,is this bit with a raised bar in the middle. If this is solely the work of willy the worm then your Uncles Dutch monkey may eat my hat.

[SurfaceHunter]

So what do you think you’re rock looks like?

[flintguy]

At first I too though about worm trails. It also reminded me of the Emerald Ash Bore's trail through the trunk of a tree...however, I don't remember any worm or insect trail turning at a 90 degree or sharper angle. There are several diamond and square shaped pathways on this object. I still feel it's natural, the lines in the close ups almost seemed to be formed by tiny gas bubbles rather than pecking. It is an interesting looking piece for sure. Leaning hard natural but not completely convinced.

[MagpieInTheSky]

I think the point about 90 degree angles and diamond shapes is a valid one. The combination of that, alongside curves feels oddly unnatural.The term 'pecked' was used by the famous knapper I mentioned earlier, which I picked up. I can say that in my time I have seen plenty similar, but never before thought 'hang on". It will be interesting to try and prove/disprove either way.

[CMD]

Perhaps if we could see the lines clearer, they are fuzzy in enlargements. They are not incised, we can at least see that much. They don't look pecked. Only other man made technique I can think of is by punch, using a hammer and a sharp pointed implement. We don't know if this is a hardstone, or one of the softer stones. I doubt we're going to know without being able to hold in the hand and examine, due to the photos being not in focus when enlarged. If we knew if it were an igneous rock, we could at least eliminate any fossil origin altogether. So, we need more info then we have. They do resemble eroded pockets, which would be natural, but, again, without getting the clarity that viewing it in hand would provide, I cannot be certain they are weathered pockets in a hardstone. Tough trying to judge by these photos, and without knowing the rock type. It really would have to be looked at in hand or at least crystal-clear photos, to at least see the surface of the lines in perfect focus. And even then, if one is convinced they are man made, well, it's always the finder's call.

[CMD]

"I think the point about 90 degree angles and diamond shapes is a valid one. The combination of that, alongside curves feels oddly unnatural."

I think you'll agree that this won't really get us closer to an answer, without confirmed examples of Paleolithic or Neolithic rock art from Great Britain that compares favorably with what we do see on the rock. "Feeling oddly unnatural" will fall short. So, I think what you really need to do is someway of determining if those lines are manmade. A physical examination and analysis, not demonstrating that it can only be art based on what we see, because we can't do that. Can we? It will have to be done by perhaps a microscopic examination of the interior of the lines, evidence of tool marks in those lines, etc. We won't solve it by visualizing it as art, short of confirmed similar examples known to British archaeology, or short of actual representational imagery, or obvious geometric imagery that we can more easily recognize as having to be man made, and only man made. They may seem "oddly unnatural", but they are not obviously representational either. So the key will be known examples, or demonstrating the lines could only be man made.

I do see the raised bar that you describe as "the clincher for me". But, and you are entitled, you describing that as "the clincher" implies to me that you had made up your mind prior to inquiring about it here. Your prerogative, but that's just the impression I get. You want us to prove that it is natural, and you are already certain that it is not natural. That probably will get us nowhere. Prove that it is man made.

[MagpieInTheSky]

You are right-I can throw out whatever statements I like and rattle on about what I feel....it proves nothing. Yes, I had made my mind up about it, I am still curious to how others respond and to learn more about its origin, whatever that may be. It is flint, the marks are on the softer cortex. Much of archaeology is comparative and there is simply nothing to compare with. If such an artefact were proven authentic, it would be unique. Perhaps the 'what if' factor makes it worthy of investigation. My belief is that such objects do exist but are easily overlooked. This is the lowlands, there are no boulders. Rock art, as it is known to exist in this country, is not portable, and lies a fair distance away. As I have mentioned, it is part of a large assemblage, the nature of which I need help to determine. If it can be demonstrated that others have been modified in unusual ways it may be part of a bigger picture. As you say, it is down to me to prove...Is there anyone out there with knowledge of digital photography, computers etc. who can say wether a certain resolution image is able to be manipulated, magnified as required???

[gregszybala]

Wow, I'm sorry this does nothing to advance the understanding of ancient humans. These rocks have nothing to do with them other than they may have been picked up.
What do you hope to do here at Arrowheads.com? Use this site to prove once and for all that these are what only you say they are.
Threads like this are useless and to attempt to come to a logical conclusion isn't going to happen. What useful information does this provide the membership and in particular the newbies coming here to learn?

[tomclark]

There should be similar stones and markings in the area if it is natural. Should also be other fossils and markings. Some of the shapes on that piece could also be internal moulds of an ammonite....There is a puzzle like design on the piece that looks like ammonite.

[CMD]

Yeah, I was considering cross sectional views of other fossil organisms, as opposed to trace fossils like worm trails, and I think what I can see of the fuzzy broken surface of the lines Interior surface might better suggest weathered quartz pockets.

[MagpieInTheSky]

If I may, I would like to respond to your criticism.
First of all, it is not only me that believes the flint in question may be anthropogenic. As mentioned earlier, if you actually read my posts, I sent the same pictures to the foremost flint knapper and expert on ancient technology I know of; whose father was also a famous knapper. This man has probably handled and worked more flint than just about anyone on here, or indeed the planet. His whole life has been dedicated to exploring ancient technology and discovering the mindset of the ancients. He apparently had no qualms in agreeing with me, he had not seen the like before, it appeared modified "pecked, to release form on the surface", his words. If an acknowledgedt expert knapper such as this is so easily fooled by something so blatantly purely natural, then perhaps I may be forgiven my inexpert beliefs.
Second, I have clearly stated that I am driven by curiosity, rather than a need to prove that I alone (which I am not), am right. It is my contention, as stated, that certain aspects of ancient flintworking, though easily overlooked, may in fact prove most illuminating. This flint is part of a large assemblage, which in my apparently worthless opinion, may also contain artefacts produced using thermal shattering as an alternative reduction strategy. There are also an abundance of zoomorphic forms, predominantly wild boar; worthy of sharing.
It was my stated aim to enlist help and tap into the knowledge of forum members, to unpick the 3 strands of portable rock art, thermal shattering and zoomorphism, and see wether they exist at all in this assemblage.
I dont know if you have seen my other posts, I assume not. I have tried to demonstrate a willingness to share 'real' artefacts, which members appeared to appreciate.I have also tried to show an earnest desire to learn from other forum members.
I am sorry that you find this thread useless,I have clearly failed in my attempt to advance in my knowledge . I had hoped that this forum was the one place where I could explore certain ephemeral aspects of flint, whilst sharing my finds with a like minded community for the first time.
I am sorry, but I cannot tolerate my opinion being dismissed by another opinion, presented as a statement of fact, when I have asked this not be done.I thought I had established that an objective assessment was required before a statement of fact could be made, and the burden of proof lies with me. Is there any point in my continuing to post if it is so useless as you say?

[gregszybala]

To answer your last question concerning this thread and these rocks, no.

[CMD]

"I thought I had established that an objective assessment was required before a statement of fact could be made, and the burden of proof lies with me. Is there any point in my continuing to post if it is so useless as you say?"

Without the evidence being clearly presented, and not in the form of photos that cannot be enlarged to crystal-clear focus, then of course there can be no objective assessment whatsoever. Unless someone can definitively identify it based on the less then ideal data points presented, then yes, it is useless. You also seem to assume that nothing we have said constitutes fact, when, in fact, you do not know that to be the case at all.