A face on an ancient Native grinding stone

[herenow]

This is a photo of an ancient Native People's grinding stone in the woods in Massachusetts.

The stone is about the size of a small couch and has been used for thousands of years to grind maize, nuts and medicines.

I took the photo a couple years ago, and just saw this face on it.

[Rafterman]

Do you have any evidence that it's an Indian grinding stone?

[herenow]

Do you have any evidence that it's an Indian grinding stone?

Archeologists and local historians say it is.

Edited June 8, 2013 by herenow

[Rlyeh]

I just found two other faces!

[herenow]

Damn!

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Maybe you should forward your findings to your local archaeologists and historians, would be cool to have the rock named after you too wouldn't it?

[Rlyeh]

Or look up what Pareidolia is.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Or look up what Pareidolia is.

Do your eyes and my eyes seeing faces on a rock have to be some sort of a problem with the way we perceive things? There is no chance that these patterns are intentional at all? Have indigenous people ever carved drawings into stone, or are we just seeing patterns because our minds played tricks on us?

[Rlyeh]

Do your eyes and my eyes seeing faces on a rock have to be some sort of a problem with the way we perceive things? There is no chance that these patterns are intentional at all? Have indigenous people ever carved drawings into stone, or are we just seeing patterns because our minds played tricks on us?

If a logical fallacy is your best argument, you've got more problems than just perception.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

If a logical fallacy is your best argument, you've got more problems than just perception.

Argument? I wasn't arguing a single thing, just giving another possible option to the OP while reinforcing your option.

As far as 'fallacy' goes, please do explain what you define as such...

[Rlyeh]

Argument? I wasn't arguing a single thing, just giving another possible option to the OP while reinforcing your option.

So you weren't presenting an argument for the possibility of faces on rocks?

As far as 'fallacy' goes, please do explain what you define as such...

Indigenous people carve rocks, therefore any resemblance to a face must have been carved by indigenous people.

Do you see a problem with this logic?

[herenow]

Indigenous people carve rocks, therefore any resemblance to a face must have been carved by indigenous people.

Do you see a problem with this logic?

This is where I was kind of going with this. I think I found a petroglyph.

[Rafterman]

Archeologists and local historians say it is.

Do you have any links supporting this claim? There are literally millions of rocks just like through all throughout New England. Is it in the middle of what was a village at one point?

If this one particular stone had been identified and proven to be an Indian grinding stone, that would indicate that it had been studied by researchers, correct? Wouldn't they have found this face?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Rafterman

[herenow]

Do you have any links supporting this claim? There are literally millions of rocks just like through all throughout New England. Is it in the middle of what was a village at one point?

If this one particular stone had been identified and proven to be an Indian grinding stone, that would indicate that it had been studied by researchers, correct? Wouldn't they have found this face?

I have written documentation from the 1950s but I don't think there is anything online.

I’ve visited this stone for 20 years and had not noticed the face. There’s a lot of ancient energy in this area, and some ceremonial stone piles as well. The stone is maybe 20 yards off an old trail which connected native villages.

I just happened to be looking at a 2 year old photo of the stone when I saw it recently. I’ve gone out there again and moss is growing over that section of the stone.

[DKO]

I have written documentation from the 1950s but I don't think there is anything online.

I’ve visited this stone for 20 years and had not noticed the face. There’s a lot of ancient energy in this area, and some ceremonial stone piles as well. The stone is maybe 20 yards off an old trail which connected native villages.

I just happened to be looking at a 2 year old photo of the stone when I saw it recently. I’ve gone out there again and moss is growing over that section of the stone.

Let's just say for arguments sake it is a Native American grinding stone. Wouldn't the archaeologists notice it first?

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

So you weren't presenting an argument for the possibility of faces on rocks?

Nope, just giving another point of view.

Indigenous people carve rocks, therefore any resemblance to a face must have been carved by indigenous people.

Do you see a problem with this logic?

Yep, I never said they must have anything.. I said have they ever done so..

You're reading into what people type much more than you should. Making statements insulting other's perceptions based on your own perception is... You should just be happy when someone reinforces your statements...

Edited June 9, 2013 by xFelix

[herenow]

Let's just say for arguments sake it is a Native American grinding stone. Wouldn't the archaeologists notice it first?

Probably not if there was moss on it, as there is right now.

I’ve found it identified on a map of this conservation area.

The map was made by the town’s Conservation Commission – a town board.

[DKO]

Archaeologists wouldn't let a little bit of moss get in the way.

Would you be able to upload some of the documentation you have?

[herenow]

Would you be able to upload some of the documentation you have?

Here's a section of the map of the conservation area. This is published by the town.

[Cynical Sounds]

I have to ask why post it on here? Just report it to the closest archaeology society/institute.

personally I don't really see a face.

[DKO]

I don't know what to say but surely you've heard of pareidolia before?

[herenow]

Here's a map I made from a 1930s aerial photo:

[herenow]

Here’s a quote from a town website. The second set of streets they describe are the red dots on the previous map.

“Present day Route XX follows to a large degree what was an early Indian path, as was the route of XX Road to XX Street to XX Street and onto XX Street into XXX. These paths would have connected the sites of known villages.”

I have to ask why post it on here? Just report it to the closest archaeology society/institute.

personally I don't really see a face.

I'm looking for anonymous feedback, as I’m getting here, and I do appreciate it.

[herenow]

I don't know what to say but surely you've heard of pareidolia before?

Yes, and probably that is all there is to the face.

As Smokey Robinson said: ‘just my imagination’.

[lightly]

.. or.. it could be the image of a face someone scratched into a grinding stone. Like herenow said in the first place.