I thought Buckeye Lake hoard #6 of 7 had some quasi-zoomorphic features and a gouged and then drilled hole on side 2 of the piece which demonstrated its artifactuality. When I came across this piece identified as an intended sculpture by Gaietto, I recognized the strong similarity to the Ohio sculpture. They both share a snout-like aspect on the left in these views, an arched gap in the base line and a squared off aspect on the right end.
The Ohio #6 sculpture cannot exist wholly independent, however far in time and distance, of influence from the peoples who made sculpture #5.24 found at Campo, Liguria, in northern Italy. The morphology is too complex, so tied to deep culture, spirituality-- and so very similar, that Ohio #6 cannot be an artifact of independent invention or coincidence.
first identified by Jacques Boucher de Perthes in 1860, helped identify a bearded man right facial profile image on #7, which was not detected prior but found in place by Johnston as predicted by Gaietto. The successful interpretation of the Ohio sculpture using previously described methods helps confirm its status as a European influenced American art sculpture. Likewise, Gaietto's descriptions of proto-art, pre-sculpture and early sculpture of hominins, which is not accepted by mainstream archaeology, is validated by being applicable (replicable) and informative to this case and must be so credited and duly recognized.
- From a lettter from Jacques Boucher de Perthes to Victor Chatel, Oct 20th, 1866