That is a bit subjective if you ask me. On one hand you talk about the skills displayed in workmanship which distinguished it as an artifact. Then you say that it just has to have some kind of visible sign. Also according to what you say rocks can be shaped into almost anything and everything by nature but this same force isnt supposed wear away these signs of being worked. As far as this particular rock goes I see signs of it being worked.
When I see Several different things, My Mind says Natural rock.
When I first Glance at Something & see just 1 Figure, I think created.
it would take me some time to see other Figures in this one
because to me the Obvious is Too Obvious to be Natural.
to me even the Mouth looks cut/Worked.
this is why I threw the 50/50 in here
But then every single Indian artifact I see lying on the Ground,
Looks like a Natural Rock to me, Till someone else, Picks it up & says look
it's a (whatever)
and by Contrast even some of the Indian artifacts that the experts I.D. look natural to me.
artifacts are just as Subject to weathering as rocks are.
I would imaging if a 50,000,000 Year old Statue Of liberty
is still standing, there will be a debate over Natural or created
if copper gets Petrified over 50,000,000 years of inactivity.
Justin1978, wowWhy so serious ?
I'm not versed enough to know if "artifact workmanship" was a thing practiced by everyone in the tribal community. However, I'd venture to say it was done by a select few in the community who were skilled enough to do it proficiently. Other than maybe common pots and drinking vessels. I'm sure, as with most things though, there are exceptions to the rule.
