Can you see an Indian head on the left of this stump?

Stump recently uncovered, see Indian head image?

I do now left edge facing left. Also a primate face facing right in the center. Real or the P-word I don’t know, but I see it.

I'm not sure what this demonstrates if anything? We all know we can see images in dense random or semi psudo random patterns/details as in the image above. Less is often much more with portable rock art in a way, there are only a few features in the stone below, there is a matmatical relation between them, they are also framed mathematically in the stone. The chances of this being a natural occurance is mathematically 0, it also closely resembles other finds.

I see the Indian looking faces on the left edge looking left; one with gaped open mouth, one smoking a pipe and the other looking somewhat upwards.

I also see the figure in the center with elongated head and a few other faces besides, in the background trees too.

To me, this demonstrates strong pareidolia and humans' unconscious ability learnt over many eons to interpret shapes.

It is this learnt reflex unconscious reaction, stronger in certain people, that enables us to recognise and understand these pictorial stories.

In my opinion many magnitudes better than the writtten word.

it's an important survival trait to recognise a pair of eyes looking out of the jungle at us, or to make out the camaflarged sillouete of a tiger creeping through long grass. Have you ever been in a very crowded room and some one looks at you from the other side of it, and instantly your gaze meets there's? That's my explanation for it rather than as a feature to decode dodge art skills

Indeed. Funny how the same faces pop up.

In my opinion it's more than just faces. It's maybe faces that we first recognise which is to be expected, but i also recognise many other primitive shapes that makes me wonder why.

Another stone with faces popped out at me again today. There must've been some stone mason doing portraits here ages ago.

But i digress. Below is a nice chunk of flint with central image that reminded me of Native Indians, although at the present angle it appears more canine in appearance.

It looks like a Bigfoot type creature head facing the other way from the figure you describe, your photography is excellent, really allows one to “see into the stone.”

Thank you Greglafla.

Often, while photographing the stones, other images become apparent that i previously didnt notice. I spend a fair bit of time looking at them through a camera lens.  

I'm so glad i'm not the only one seeing these images   It's funny sometimes how they flash in and out for me, dissappearing and reappearing. It tricks my brain and vision; one of the best characteristics of this artform.

I also see a lot of Bigfoot like images in stones and around the forests in amongst the trees and bushes. Somewhat akin to stone giants, or the Easter Island heads known as Moai.

I think the faces in stones allow us to orientate ourselves so other scenes may then be viewed.and read.



It rained in London yesterday. I went for a walk over the common and came back with another 2 coat pockets full of stones, one or two of which are stunning! I was amazed at how well the artwork showed up in the rain with the morning sun. I'll try to photo them later.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact i see similar images in the forest photos posted from across the pond.

ATB

I'd love to photo some of the flint from this bloke's collection.




Photography by Richard Cannon

I put such images in finds down to wild imagination, until evidenced otherwise. Any decent figure stone can be identified by the key characteristics described on my blog, now if i could see a framed half elephant here, and a symmetrical framed face looking right at us, or similar documented iconography, or it was an obvious flint tool I would delve deeper into what can be seen. Likewise definitive human agency, logical flake removals, pigment application will also peak my interest into interpretation. Im not saying this find is not portable rock art, just that it cannot be scientifically quantified as such until qualifying conditions are met, so its like looking at a cloud.

Simply its not art until it has proved agency, or mathematical geometry of features and or probability of framed known content gives bias towards artifactuality. If all portable rock art proponents followed those simple rules, PRA would be known as mainstream scientific fact, not fringe lunacy. Not to say I know everything a prehistoric person imprinted on a rock, I don't, and I couldn't.

I did try to meet John Lord, and his son when they were local a few years back, but it just never happened.

"I put such images in finds down to wild imagination, until evidenced otherwise."

Don't say those 4 words Brett!

We are talking across, in my opinion, very different timelines.

Whilst you are trying to showcase the very first examples of this art, i am looking for examples that combine pigment with micro flaking, specifically in flint.

I think it's a stretch to say that one is easier to prove or disprove as intentional for art's sake.

Taking the Elephant as an example; archeologists may argue that the simple hand axe/gouger naturally takes this shape. They may also argue the shapes images and pigments are coincidence.

This we both know to be untrue.

Anil wrote:"I put such images in finds down to wild imagination, until evidenced otherwise."

Don't say those 4 words Brett!

Its true though, Im qualified to say it because i use the word science a lot

Anil wrote:
Taking the Elephant as an example; archeologists may argue that the simple hand axe/gouger naturally takes this shape. They may also argue the shapes images and pigments are coincidence.

This we both know to be untrue.

The problem is we know that sometimes these shapes were made intentionally, sometimes they were natural, sometimes a natural looking stone was slightly modified to make it look more like the shape required.

Muddy waters.

Anil wrote:We are talking across, in my opinion, very different timelines.

Whilst you are trying to showcase the very first examples of this art, i am looking for examples that combine pigment with micro flaking, specifically in flint.

I think it's a stretch to say that one is easier to prove or disprove as intentional for art's sake.

Taking the Elephant as an example; archeologists may argue that the simple hand axe/gouger naturally takes this shape.

I wouldn't agree. I have been putting efforts in to scientific proof, testable, independently testable, demonstrating, evidencing and re-evidencing my discoveries. I saw a really good blonde haired partial female face in one of your finds, but without you showing better angles of it to qualify it via topology, or proving its applied pigments its not art, its the dreaded P word.

Anil wrote:

Anil wrote:
Taking the Elephant as an example; archeologists may argue that the simple hand axe/gouger naturally takes this shape. They may also argue the shapes images and pigments are coincidence.

This we both know to be untrue.

The problem is we know that sometimes these shapes were made intentionally, sometimes they were natural, sometimes a natural looking stone was slightly modified to make it look more like the shape required.

Muddy waters.

Yes agreed, but  I have noticed how the selection process is often to put as much of the known common content in as possible, again giving qualifiers.
If you showed me an elephant, a bear or a monkey in this piece, I would be ranting about how brilliant an art work it is on my blog.

When i see a face it's all a series of lines/shades...whether on an actual face or in a painting/other art work.

If i see an elphant, bear or horse i'll let you know but my eye is fixated on other things.

Closest i've come recently is a unicorn looking serpent thing reared up and smiling. I see more mythological representations in the art I find but again that IS what i'm looking for...

I do have the most beautiful Bovine representation 6"x3"x3" i'll photo when i get some new backing.

For me, it's not pareidolia when the stone has multiple faces on it at many orientations.

I have been meaning to try to capture this aspect for a while. I think i have a suitable stone.