An arch is visible. A shared object, use or meaning still needs evidence.
4 selected records · 4 intake leads. Membership records a resemblance; it does not establish common origin.
Compare the recorded features
Each row describes one object, surface or textual scope. A dash means “not recorded”, not “absent”. Features across different rows do not establish co-occurrence.
Nationalmuseumofiran CC BY-SA 4.0 Image record Existing source image; displayed uncropped. No generated reconstruction.
The identification queue
Leads worth following.
Preserved claims and images, awaiting the checks needed for object records.
Identification open · claim
Another bird-headed protective relief
Bucket, cone and bird-headed figure are visible. It is not assumed to be the Met panel already registered.
Images, source check & next step
Bird-headed protective figure with bucket and cone; exact relief record untraced. Supplied reference; original photographer or compiler uncredited unless stated in the audit. Rights unresolved; retained for source criticism. Not covered by the code licence.
Next: Identify the museum relief and attach this image to its correct object.
The screenshots extend the single Jiroft record with several designs. Their caption’s “3000 BC” is not an independently checked date; exact provenance and authenticity remain open.
Images, source check & next step
Handled stone object attributed in the post to Jiroft; individual provenance unresolved. Supplied reference; original photographer or compiler uncredited unless stated in the audit. Rights unresolved; retained for source criticism. Not covered by the code licence.Handled stone object attributed in the post to Jiroft; individual provenance unresolved. Supplied reference; original photographer or compiler uncredited unless stated in the audit. Rights unresolved; retained for source criticism. Not covered by the code licence.Handled stone object attributed in the post to Jiroft; individual provenance unresolved. Supplied reference; original photographer or compiler uncredited unless stated in the audit. Rights unresolved; retained for source criticism. Not covered by the code licence.Handled stone object attributed in the post to Jiroft; individual provenance unresolved. Supplied reference; original photographer or compiler uncredited unless stated in the audit. Rights unresolved; retained for source criticism. Not covered by the code licence.
Next: Match each design to an inventory and find context; establish whether any image repeats the existing record.
Fenton compares a bark bucket with the pillar’s upper forms. The ethnographic excerpt appears to concern Wunambal country in the Kimberley, not the Arnhem Land painting’s context.
Images, source check & next step
Bark bucket, Pillar 43 and an ethnographic excerpt in Fenton’s comparison. Supplied archive; see original image register. Underlying rights unresolved; reproduced for commentary.
Next: Verify the publication page and illustration, then record the container separately from the pillar’s uncertain interpretation.
The archive identifies the Injalak Hill painting and reports scholarship placing it among recent, post-contact paintings. It cannot be assigned the pillar’s Neolithic age.
Images, source check & next step
Yingarna painting at Injalak Hill; bags and creation narrative are part of the comparison. Supplied archive; see original image register. Underlying rights unresolved; reproduced for commentary.
Next: Follow the local interpretation and earliest documentation; separate the painting’s age from the age of the tradition.
