“I Have no Idea how the Marks were made.” (With Steven & Evan Strong and Professor X)

Photo by Samarah Wood

“I Have no Idea how the Marks were made.”

By Steven, Evan Strong and Professor X

Amongst all the tragic consequences that evolve out of the Australian Museum’s refusal to acknowledge that Ros’ rock is either Australian or of any interest to Original culture or Lore, none is more galling than the illogicality of their proposition that about hundred years ago either an African tourist, or an Australian just returned from holidaying in Africa, brought the rock across from Africa and accidentally dropped it while walking in the bush near Kariong.

2014-07-24 15.53.43 - Copy

With no option but concede the technology needed to mark this rock is far too advanced to be part of her understanding of Original history before the Invasion, the Australian Museum spokesperson (Tessa Corkill) was adamant the carved rock came from “Africa,” or somewhere else “overseas.” She is wrong. Knowing it was found in sandstone country near Kariong and even claiming it would take only 100 years for one metre of sandstone to cover the engraved rock on the site it was found is a geological impossibility. Irrespective of the faulty premises, let us assume that the rock was found in Africa and brought here 100 years ago and an avalanche fell on top. It still doesn’t work, simply because the technology to make a variety of markings, some thick, some delicate and quite a few extremely small, just wasn’t in existence anywhere at that time. Australia, Africa or Europe, it makes no difference as no tool or device is up to the task on display. And if there was one cutting-edge machine getting close to be able to cut, peck and chisel delicate and thick lines over a century ago, why waste the time, blades and expertise to cut into a common rock? How does such a fruitless economic enterprise cover expenses, and what purpose does it serve?

The location of discovery does not lessen this scientific truth, even if the rock is an import it makes no difference whatsoever. It breaks the rules no matter where the geography. This blaring scientific truth and imperative was lost in translation by Corkill and deserves to be addressed. And in answer to these questions avoided, Professor X provided a measured written response to the rock and the riddle of the engraved lines, peckings, packings and polishing.

The Rock is not …

“The rock is definitely not ironstone. This rock came from a river and is well-polished slightly jointed block of hard sedimentary rock. The small infillings took place sometime afterwards (after the initial polishing) and I have no idea how the marks were made. River, and less often beach, pebbles and cobbles can acquire a good polish naturally. This no doubt happens at innumerable places in the world. I am very familiar with natural polish on stones, but of course artificial polish on stones is also possible. The polish on Ros’ stone could well be natural but the straight lines on it don’t look natural to me.”

Professor X has done exactly what the Australian Museum should have done, carefully look, examine, assess all of the six articles we have written and then, after all the information and data was in, has given a considered mid-term verdict. All we are championing here is good science, we have made multiple approaches and offered to liaise with the Australian Museum, and this is what we get!? If they had just ignored us and said nothing, as the other organisations did, it is more of the same and no big deal. But once ringing Ros, saying so many wrong things then threatening to pass these mistruths on to the Gosford City Council, a line has been crossed, errors have to be corrected and blame must be apportioned.

The two points deserving of immediate attention relate to the polishing and lines. We made note in our previous article that Professor X had identified two distinct stages when polishing occurred. This means that the rock was marked at two different times then placed in the water for many, many, decades until a natural polish began to form, or was it artificially cut then polished twice. That’s it, there are no other cards on the table, it has to be one or the other. On at least two occasions the rock was engraved and polished, and knowing the sophistication of the tool kit needed to cut, incise and peck a rock of this hardness is present and accounted for, being able to polish the end-result of this cut and paste is no stretch in technology or logic.

The Blombos Rocks, Lascaux markings, the Calgary Rock, and other rocks bearing ancient markings are simply scratchings or engravings into a piece of rock using a crude sharp object, one process from start to finish, end of story. On this rock, which is far harder, we have evidence of no less than four processes, two cuts and two polishes. The agency responsible for the polishing is still a maybe, but certainly leaning towards human intervention.

When it comes to the “infilling,” which happened “after initial polishing,” whatever took place and however this was done, this is an example of non-natural activity. Of a different colour, surrounded by the lipping of the base rock, the skills and expertise required in packing and attaching is again very advanced and so at odds with conventional historical accounts.

2014-07-24 15.54.07 - Copy

The same applies to the “marks” and “straight lines,” which “don’t look natural” and could only come about through the application of technology of the highest refinement applying blades of exceptional strength. Forget 1913, that date can be thrown out the window, this is a big ask today let alone one hundred years ago. In referring to the engraved lines our guide conceded that “I have no idea how the marks were made,” or to put it another way, “the straight lines on it don’t look natural to me.” Over his many years examining all types of rocks and marks, this rock stands apart simply because what is carved has no parallel or precedent, and in what only adds to the complexity there may well be another contribution to this narrative. The only difference being that this time it was not engraved into the surface, but pecked or incised.

In the Light of the Mid-day sun

Due to a combination of enlightening factors which included a magnifying glass, the midday sun, clean glasses and some serious staring I was able to substantially add to the tally of peckings on the rock. In particular Side 2, which looks quite innocuous at first glance and until now had never been scanned by a magnifying glass, actually has nineteen new pecks marked on the diagram. There are only two that are not absolutely artificial, but are quite likely due to the impact of a tool. On Side 1 four more were found, which in total adds up to 28 peckings, and there may be more. What this does is add a lot more gravitas to this complex story-board and yet another level of narrative in this rock.Ros' Rock Three Sides Diagram 2_0002


For myself the biggest surprise was not so much the discovery of that which was pecked, but what is two series of very old incisions, one is of three vertical notches in a row and the other four. In our earlier, less well-lit inspections, we assumed these two clusters were each one older thick depression in the surface which was the result of one strike of the blade. Extremely fine, small and with the finest margin between each cut, these markings require blades of a finesse and hardness that is difficult to conceive. Just as important, this is the third technique used in engraving this rock. We have already examined a large variety of engravings and peckings, but these seven marks were incised into the rock, it seems like a blade rock dug in and then flicked out. All other ancient engraved rocks found throughout the world are limited to one type of cutting or engraving, never three.

This rock is wrapped around so many additions to this ever-expanding tool-kit of blades, chisels and hammers, and we have no doubt there is more to come.

A Mid-term Report

However, amongst all the mystery and hints of advanced technology some signposts have been recognised. At the present stage of proceedings we have identified the presence of 44 engraved lines, 54 points of intersection, 74 shapes, 28 pecks and 7 incisions. We are of the belief that the depth of lines, angles, intersection points, shapes, spaces in between, peckings, incisions, angles of surface, interrelationship between the three sides, in-fillings, prescribed manner of holding the rock and length of each line are but some of the contributing factors that go some way towards creating this multi-dimensional ancient narrative of time, events and space.

What can be declared with certainty is that the lines, pecks, incisions and in-fillings are not natural, that much is definite. When dealing with who, when, why and how, our research is still developing and often promising. However, when it comes to deciphering what this interplay of symbols and markings actually means, whether we can confidently substitute words and numbers and read this as sequential narrative/map, while there is hope Derek can rise to the occasion and ‘crack the code,’ we still harbor substantial doubts. It is our belief that the combination of so many diverse characters and engravings is too cryptic, intelligent and just too hard for the intellect of today’s crop of Homo sapien sapiens. The inclines, proximity, shapes and so many other factors add to the difficulties in ascribing meaning, and by comparison, makes the decoding of the Rosetta Stone analogous to reading “The Cat in the Hat.”

In the meantime, even if any interpretation is beyond the reach of mere mortals, there are two immediate concerns that deserve further attention. A closer inspection of the surface through more powerful magnification and a camera-zoom lens may assist, as too is the measurement of every line, shape and space a task of the highest priority. There may be a repetition in number, ratio, proportion or shape within that is deliberate and adds yet another course to this ancient conversation.

An Inconvenient Truth

Yes this is an extremely inconvenient piece of archaeology that breaks so many rules, in fact nearly all of them, but looking the other way will not make it go away. This is the sixth article on Ros’ rock, with more to come. Our challenge to mainstream outlets like the Australian Museum is simple and justified, isn’t it time that this important part of the Original truth, as inconvenient as it may be, is acknowledged? Or could it be, they just don’t care, or maybe they do?
Just like the polish on the rock, there are two answers to select from, and only one can be right.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.