Comments on: Bayer Stone Head Continues

By: tmwilcox

tmwilcox — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:45:15 +0000

After eliminating color and bumping up the contrast of the photos, I see a craftsman’s discarded attempt at a head stone to mark a grave. He began with a block, chose a reasonably flat side as the base, and set to work with simple, metal tools. The tool marks, especially those made by a roughing-out, star point chisel are clearly visible on the back side of the head. Perhaps the head was intended as a feature or detail of a much larger monument or grouping of stone objects, owing to the flattened area on the left side of the head. He put some thought into it considering the layout on the right side that strikes a straight line through the shoulder and the chin. Working with a mallet and a star point, this head could have been roughed out in a day’s work or less. I imagine he was not a figurative sculptor, but was asked by a client to give it a try, and so he did. His usual trade of carving grave markers served him well, but he needed some practice. That still leaves one big question: Why the simian look? This was not an accident. A client demanded of the craftsman an authentic-looking Head Stone. I like the idea of the Hear/Speak/See No Evil design. It just fits. I can imagine someone with a fair amount of money to spend asking the craftsman to make a large-scale, three-figured sculpture to mark an important grave or group of graves, maybe even his own. The Monkey Heads would have sat atop much larger stones, perhaps carved from near life size blocks with added details representing ape-like bodies and the requisite flat areas for inscription. But that begs another question: Who might be worthy of such expense, and what had they done to deserve this kind of wit? I think the grave held an important person, someone who knew how to behave in the contentious culture of a 15th to 19th century American village. That describes a politician pretty well, or a clergyman, perhaps. Maybe even a businessman like a financier or an importer. I would suggest searching the region for an existing grave with a finished marker of the type described. I’ll bet there’s more than one.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:33:13 +0000

By the way, I don’t know if there are stone quarries in New York, but where I grew up it wasn’t uncommon for stone masons to carve faces in their spare time. One town here in Indiana is named “Stone Head” and has a marker at the crossroads of a carved face. I remember seeing such carvings at the quarries a half-mile from where I lived. Back before the turn of the 20th century and after, many such carvings were made. So it could be modern.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:18:20 +0000

Seems like I remember reading about 2 other stone heads in found in Michigan I think. They too were smiling also although rounder-faced as I recall. Could this be a motif that some ancient cultures adapted, perhaps to convey a welcome to visitors?

By: jayman

jayman — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:29:02 +0000

North America has a rich legacy of various “artifacts” associated with some ancient culture long before the time of Columbus. The ancient Israelites have been espcially popular, probably due to certain 19th century religious ideas. Few if any of these objects, most of which are much more sophisticated than this one, can hold up to scrutiny.

By: Chisholm

Chisholm — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:30:53 +0000

After some research of the area it was found in, I am leaning toward the stone type to be limestone. Will post results once a Geologist has a look and am hoping they can also determine if it was carved with steel tool or something else. That will tell if it is modern or not.

By: thebunyip

thebunyip — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:04:08 +0000

this reminds me of the situation surrounding the Wabansee stone here in chicago, with some claiming ancient origins while others say a 19th century amateur….

By: CamperGuy

CamperGuy — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:36:34 +0000

Following this thread with interest please keep us posted. Surely someone will give some professional opinions.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:31:20 +0000

MOULDED CEMENT FROM A PLASTER MATRIX?

Mr Chisholm may well be as sincere as he seems, but what of those who passed it to him? And even if they’re sincere, how can they be certain of its age, never mind its provenance: they may well be simply mistaken because, afterall, all they know of it is the family legend.

The thing that screams at me as an artist is that this object wasn’t carved, but moulded with, at best, a little light chistling added on after it dried; either that or it was carved by a remarkable sculptor who, paradoxically, had sufficiently terrific chistle control to leave no significant indications of tooling, yet was only capable of producing the lopsided image of what still looks to me like Homer Simpson melting.

It may well be a genuine artifact - a piece by an apprentice, as it were - but its author’d never seen a Bigfoot up close, and must’ve viewed them in generally genial terms.

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:39:36 +0000

I am very inpressed with Mr. Chisholm’s honesty as to the history of this item since its discovery. With a person like that owning the item there may be a chance to actually get at the truth. An expert who can identify the stone type is step 1, then a closer look could tell where in the country it originated. This is one I really hope Cryptomundo follows closely. It has real and very interesting possibilities. Please stick with this one.

By: Chisholm

Chisholm — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:12:00 +0000

No determinations have been made of any sort, hence the postings. To date the University at New Paltz and the Smithsonia have been contacted, talked to, asked for photographs then declined further study once they saw the pictures.