Thought Police

"Sorry about that I should have said you can suck my big hairy balls" Tribal Council Member 'Bobby'

"(Ken Johnston) has been banned. Future threads about pareidolia-inducing items will be carefully monitored, if allowed at all." Moderator "KnifeRiver"

After I received a bunch of replies to my posting these two photos and a few simple questions I made the following comments in a discussion chain. Here's the heresy that got me banned for life:

"Thanks for all of the comments.

Maybe some are judging artificiality on an item like this by, in part, looking for characteristics you are familiar with for coarse stone tools such as peck/grind/polish technology and bilateral symmetry. P/G/P did not emerge until the early Holocene after a shift in lifeways after colder times. So what did rock art before then look like? People were inspired by natural rocks they found and then made some tweaks and alterations to affect the final image or motif they wanted. They exploited natural rock features (like cavities) as eyes etc. Stone cortex often remains on parts.

Almost none of the primitive portable rock art is symmetrical which has become a bellwether for human work as well. This is because Archaeology officialdom is still “mound bound” in its thinking. What was recovered in mounds in early Archaeology was used to set a standard for what portable rock art looks like in North America but it is only a very small slice of the pie. Nor does it have to look like anything covered by Ed Lenik’s book but thanks for the tip.

Indeed, there is no way to know for CERTAIN if this bird-form was recognized or not in the Stone Age, but I think there is a way to know MORE about the possibility. You consider and note finds like this over time and sometimes observe patterns which could be meaningful. Interestingly, this piece may exhibit two rock art motifs which have been previously described by independent rock art researchers. Alan Day of the Day’s Knob archaeology site in Ohio commented in part:
“It does seem to be in the long-recognized theme of a bird with head turned back, apparently first spotted by Ursel Benekendorff a long time ago. (And occasionally other creatures are depicted in this posture.) … It could well be that the object in the bird's beak is in the very old and common theme of one creature emerging from the mouth of another (see A close look under magnification might be worthwhile.” 
Day has had University petrological confirmation of exclusive human agency on a number of figurative rocks from his site and others. A couple have been published in the nation’s largest journal of its kind, Ohio Archaeologist.

Archaeologist Jan van Es of the Netherlands has described some of these ‘preening water bird’ pieces as including an ‘anvil’ or small, flat work surface on the bird’s back (pers. comm.) This piece stands upright in correct orientation and presents a more or less horizontal plane on the ‘back’ in line with his hypothesis.

I agree surface surveys usually have little value to archaeologists (same as with tools) and yes, cultural affiliations and time periods understandably needs to come from secure and documented archaeological digs.

Most of the people I hear from have somehow just discovered the ground exists and see all kinds of crazy things in rocks they are looking at for the first time. Pareidolia. But some can demonstrate “rocks that look like things” in concentrations which seem statistically unnatural by their (perhaps faulty) reasoning and/or which are strikingly similar to others’ finds (perhaps coincidence).  Send me your delusional, the trolls, the crackpots and the irrecoverably stupid. I will be happy to help them sort things out. Service with a smile.

Folks here probably need to lighten up on the “trolls post just rocks over and over just to piss everyone off” stance. People are usually very well intended and are trying to understand what they see. For example, the fusiform-gyrus in the brain will automatically assemble a ‘face’ out of two dots and a line in certain parameters and none of us can escape it. And you just can’t argue with people about what is meaningful for them. Heck, I heard they set a giant scarecrow on fire out west and a whole city shows up.

Also, there are inherent communication problems for people trying to photograph things they see. They take a picture and assume it captures what they see and it does not. What looks possible or obvious to them looks impossible on the other end.

And yes, they sometimes get insistent but that is just human nature to hunker down and defend your observation. Let – it - ride.  A comment like “nice rock” does not help. All you have to do is frame it like “I think it is probably a natural rock, I can’t see how it has been altered by people in any way, but you might look around and see if you can find more like this or maybe some tools to help develop more information.” It goes a long way. You do not know for CERTAIN and presenting like you do is a fraud and you lose credibility and come off as a bunch of sycophants to newbies. Too many of you are too sure of yourselves so just zip your lips.

By falling into their maelstrom time after time, members here just feed the beast and seem to thrive on it. Why not refrain from comment after a clear, polite and informative reply has been made?  The problem is that never occurs. Comments from the peanut (or popcorn in your case) gallery are a waste of time. Why ridicule people or the topic time after time after time? It has gotten very old. Let – it –ride. I am pleased with the mostly thoughtful and courteous replies here and appreciate your taking time to offer opinions on this piece.

No one can adjudicate with near absolute certainty if a stone has or has not been modified by human action by photos alone. We are all sharing opinions. I say bucket, you say chuck-it. I say this piece I presented is more likely an artifact than not and a better candidate for a very close petrological examination rather than for a doorstop. To each, his or her own. Right? Riiiiiight on!!

Next month’s topic: let’s find a potential art piece to consider which is an artifact by general consensus."
(Banned for that!)

After Bobby's invitation to fellatio, I made the comment that they had a "generally sucky board" and they did not find that amusing.  He informed me I am a "stupid jack wagon" and asked if I was 10 or 12 years old after I called him a punk and then a double-punk after more vulgarities.

Joshua Ream, a "Moderator," told me to go outside and wait by my mailbox when I asked the owner to contact me about this unchecked outrageous behavior which continues to corrupt the good will of the site. Nice.

"Bobby" would be "Goneby" at any legitimate outfit but I have been banned? Seems a little backwards. SHANNON GRAHAM is a coward.

As I stated in my post I am of course not a "troll" and am not aware of any other user name which would be associated with my IP address. In the past 7 years I have only made around 40 comments under the N2RKLOG name.

I was not banned for violating courtesy and decorum, rules, or for language, but rather for expressing my thoughts. Arrowheadology is afraid of opinions it does agree with. It is not a Forum which allows the free flow of ideas.

These people set up a message board (Forum) and invite the public to raise questions like "What in the World? Artifact or geofact?" This was a discussion Forum specifically for questionable items! Forum members have become hostile toward a well-intended public who seeks information but finds only smugness, hostility and censorship once they reach the oracle.

Bobby! Just gave your opinion? Got jumped on for no reason?? You are a first class liar and are being enabled to continue your abuse of members by site owner SHANNON GRAHAM. I have never seen anything more dishonest and corrupt in live action. is a joke on the public and not a funny one. You are miscreants.

What we have these days are people who are unable to confront differences of opinion in their lives without calling for a ban or patrol on the offending ideas. I was banned for no specified reason.

Many, many, well-intended people have had the same experience at, including the senior Administrator at ALLEMPIRES, the nation's largest history discussion forum who was also recently BANNED (12/6/2016):
(Click to enlarge image)

To end positively, the following is an example of the thoughtful commentary I have received from some of my blog readers:
"I've found similar objects in the NH/VT area, which leads me to speculate that this style of rock carving was not only widespread/ continental in scope, but may have functioned as a unit of exchange. The interpretation of a bird emerging from its shell is spot on in my opinion, and reveals a sophisticated approach to object-making indicative of a well-developed artistic tradition. The bird becomes a metaphor for the sculptor, who has liberated this figure from the rock; we are left to wonder not about the subject of the representation but rather the inherent incompleteness of art making, the impossibility to separate form from raw material. If we are to explore this discourse further, we may find that the culture responsible for these objects was very much like our own, and conceived of art in highly poetic, theoretical terms." -Jonathan Lohse

1 comment:

  1. What a fantastic looking rock and you would have to be out of touch with reality to not observe human agency upon its sculpture...I wish I had found it...Good luck