Also splendid quotes from TMAers Chris Collyer and Hob. Well done guys.

I think this is all wrong! Here we are congratulating Hob for not finding a prehistoric carving!

Anyone can do that! I'm sat in an office full of people who haven't found a prehistoric carving. Not only that, but I'll bet they've not found a prehistoric carving much more frequently than Mr (so called) Hob.

;-)#

K x

Well I never, Chris and Hob quoted in a paper, how exciting.
I am right in thinking that the article doesn't include the photo of the spiral when it actually 'existed'? which is a bit of a shame.

Stan's rubbing of it is so very neat (I suppose the culmination of lots of messier ones tidied up as he went along?). Presumably he must have been rubbing over something that was different heights from the stone (you can't imagine that a highly experienced stone-frottager like him would be totally imagining being able to take a rubbing off something that was just pigment on the rock)? Anyway my point is, regardless of whether the spiral was there because of pigment or becuase of lichen growing preferentially on a nice yoghurty (etc) base:

- Supposing you get a pattern becasue of lichen, wouldn't the fancy new techniques record this as different heights from the stone, and consequently think that a carving did exist? Can the new techniques distinguish the two? The article was about how old techniques like feeling and rubbing and running around with a sheet over your head might not be as reliable as you'd like. But couldn't there be problems with the new technique?

Superb,
Well done Chris and Mr H.
It's great that this paper is available, it sort of legitamises an issue that many of us have been discussing for quite a while now.

No carving - it was probably yoghurt!