Engraved Symbols or Plow Marks?

Mainstream has dismissed most engraved rock symbols as plow marks however ...


More info can be found here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't agree that the X is the most common symbol in portable rock art, but the video raises some very valid points and is very well presented, its statistically improbable to create an x mark with a plough period, and i suggest close to impossible to  deliberately steer a tractor driven plough to make an x mark on a loose rock.... and of coarse that would be human agency

If I am in doubt whether a piece has been worked I always look for an incised X. This piece has a small hard to see but definitely an incised X in the right eye.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What your saying is irellivent....

I have thousands of pieces, and within in all probability the worlds defining assemblage, one location, one material, one colour, with undoubted tools among them that would not be out of place in any standard flint tool collection, and what I have is but a tiny fraction of what is out there, for someone to justify such a statement they would have to demonstrate it, the video does not even demonstrate an assemblage of portable rock art with x's...

First off, prove some piece is portable rock art.... secondly count its symbols ( cant be done, no one is sure they know them all) thirdly analyze and plot the graph for ALL portable rock art symbols appearance....

None of the other TRUSTED collectors or even untrusted for that matter point to X's as being the most common, even common, or even relevant....

Also if incised X's are so common, they should be the defining characteristic of any finds presentation, 'look at these, they all have X's, so its undoubtable they are portable rock art'

I am not saying X's are the most common engraved symbol however they are quite common in my personal collection found in Canada. As seen in the video above they appear to be common in the USA as well.
A study of cave wall symbols shows the most common prehistoric symbols globally.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I like the chart, although I don't think it has too much to do with portable rock art/figure stones, they have a much different topology and although I feel figure stones were used into a cross over period between the dates given for Genevieve's symbols, there are not enough of those symbols found on Portable rock art (I can only think of a match between five different symbols noticed in my collection, with strict criteria). The piece I did a 3d model of, the one that parallels Ursels treo topology set nicely has two ocher etched symbols on it (side by side), I feel are possibly later additions, one of which could easily be interpreted as being in the chart above.

With all that has been happening lately the video is more likely to be an attempt at underminining in my opinion, im very suspicious of such claims, especially when they are false to my knowledge, "your stones dont have X's so they are not portable rock art"....

At least Two of the symbols are to do with Spirits, I wonder if Tigs will notice that?? and come up with the same symbols???

The statement "your stones don't have X's so they are not portable rock art" is obviously inaccurate. It would be far more difficult to incise symbols on rocks versus creating cave paintings. However it makes sense that similar symbols found on cave walls would also be used on rocks during the same period for whatever purpose that might be. I have seen what possibly appears to be symbols on some of my portable rock art however they are generally too worn to be seen easily.
Here are a couple example of carved symbols. Whether they are art or utilitarian or both is anyone's guess?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Rocky wrote:The statement "your stones don't have X's so they are not portable rock art" is obviously inaccurate.]

Yes, of coarse its false, but its the kind of attack Id  expect , not what i believe or even my view......

Video wrote: Almost all of these artifacts have this x on them

Undemonstrated

Video wrote: X's are the most common symbol found in portable rock art

Undemonstrated

So......"your stones don't have X's so they are not portable rock art" would be the next logical step from that.....

As ive pointed out there is scant evidence that Genevieve's symbols appear regularly as a set on portable rock art, yes a few rocks have hash's, some have x's  or cup marks, but in comparison we talking about 80 caves, vs 5 out of thousands of rocks, and not even a complete set, so statistically nothing compared to Genevieve's findings, a few of the symbols may be present here and there but portable rock art and figure stone have little to do with those symbols in comparison to what they do have to do with, creature descriptions, one or two symbols here and the is insignificant in comparison....

Genevieve's work is funded by the mainstream which doesn't even acknowledge the validity of the vast majority of portable rock art. The real question should be: Did she find any engraved rocks in or outside the caves or even bother to look? There are tens of thousands of figure stone photos posted on the Internet. Unfortunately a lot of those that are for sale to the public are not valid artifacts. That makes it even more difficult to convince the nay sayers that portable rock art artifacts is a very real part of our past.

The Smithsonian has slowly acknowledged the validity of portable rock art in the last few years
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]