Problematic Discoveries

[circumspice]

The 'closing of ranks' argument always follows when the person doesn't gain the concurrence that he so desperately requires. It's ALWAYS a conspiracy if a group of people don't buy into the fantasy. You know... Das Klub, et al...

The semi-humorous/semi-serious 'The Harte Ultimate Dumb’ chart (THUD) Index for AE Cranks .005 that I had posted especially for Skiessa (on the Contemporary Great Pyramid Document thread) could easily be used on this thread with a little judicious editing... (it's originally meant to score the fantasy/paranoia factor regarding Pyramidiots)

Anywho... These guys will always believe that there's a great conspiracy to hold them back, to keep them from receiving the accolades that they believe they justly deserve.

[circumspice]

I've become bored with the repetitive nature of the thread. The lines have been drawn & nothing anyone can say or do will convince either side that they are wrong or mistaken.

I do agree with shawomet & others on several issues, but there is no coordinated conspiracy to hold back Springhead. That would be akin to herding cats. Ain't gonna happen...

I too would like to see Jack Hranicky post on this board because we have nothing but Springhead's word that Jack has certified any of Springhead's rocks. Just sayin'...

In the meantime, I'll step away from this thread. It's a senseless waste of bandwidth.

[Springhead]

Shawomet,

Thanks for your comments. Jack has described quite a few artifacts seen on the Portable Rock Museum site gallery as "provable Pleistocene." I think your blanket rejection of all the pieces as natural rocks may be premature. One example, the very pure red jasper hammerstone (grouped with a gastrolith and possible dinosaur egg) is obvious even in the image with a flattened work end to the right. I could go on, but I am not here to take anyone to task or espouse any expertise. Advice I get here says find a reputable archaeologist to analyze the finds. Having done so, now that person is said to be mistaken. I doubt Jack would devote time to a forum when he has many Pleistocene sites to figure out in Virginia. His most recent book would be instructive relative to Pleistocene archaeology in the mid Atlantic.

I appreciate the time you have taken to post on this thread. I do not think you are part of some conspiracy, rather an example of orthodox thinking in archaeology today. I respect your experience with Holocene artifacts, but I do wonder about any training you might have in Pleistocene archaeology in the Americas and elsewhere. I personally am on a very steep learning curve with this subject and must depend on expertise from Jack and any related reading. As to the veracity of my claim that Jack categorized twenty or so pieces in my possession as "provable Pleistocene," you may want to verify with him if my truthfulness is an issue.

Thanks Again, Shawomet

[Springhead]

Hello Circumspice,

I am sorry you feel this thread has become (or always was?) a waste of bandwidth, but I certainly respect your stance and choice to step back. I have never been likened to a cat before, and truly, I am not a herd animal. My ability to care for animals, children, and the aged is reasonably OK despite the fact that I say reality can be elusive. I would not want to be part of a world where all sought the comfort of a static base line. I do agree that perceptions change, but are not our perceptions the tools with which we qualify reality, and as these perceptions change or evolve our understandings, whose perception of reality is correct?

As I mentioned to Shawomet, Jack is an extremely busy guy (who is confident in his ideas and theories and knows a lot about tools and how they were made to include the eccentricities of Pleistocene materials). I have no wish to drag Jack into some debate on my behalf, and I was initially hesitant to even mention his name. Eventually, with his permission, I did so. If you have a bone to pick you might contact him.

Thanks for your responses over time (sans the insults and amateur hour psychoanalyses), and if I am better able to characterize or represent this assemblage, I hope you will respond then.

[circumspice]

Hello Circumspice,

I am sorry you feel this thread has become (or always was?) a waste of bandwidth, but I certainly respect your stance and choice to step back. I have never been likened to a cat before, and truly, I am not a herd animal. My ability to care for animals, children, and the aged is reasonably OK despite the fact that I say reality can be elusive. I would not want to be part of a world where all sought the comfort of a static base line. I do agree that perceptions change, but are not our perceptions the tools with which we qualify reality, and as these perceptions change or evolve our understandings, whose perception of reality is correct?

As I mentioned to Shawomet, Jack is an extremely busy guy (who is confident in his ideas and theories and knows a lot about tools and how they were made to include the eccentricities of Pleistocene materials). I have no wish to drag Jack into some debate on my behalf, and I was initially hesitant to even mention his name. Eventually, with his permission, I did so. If you have a bone to pick you might contact him.

Thanks for your responses over time (sans the insults and amateur hour psychoanalyses), and if I am better able to characterize or represent this assemblage, I hope you will respond then.

You probably have an idea about how much you intrigued & excited us with your first posts. It was like a teaser, with more & better promised in the near future. Then came the let down... If you think in your wildest, most paranoid imaginings that we were resistant initially, think again. What you promised & subsequently failed to deliver is the Holy Grail of paleoanthropology in the New World. Something akin to a prick tease. All promise & no delivery... So you can drop your specious whine about us closing ranks & excluding you because you operate outside our little infantile comfort zone... We listened & listened & listened... We squinted our eyes & turned our heads 45 degrees... We looked & looked & looked... Then we discovered that the emperor wore no clothes. You're all talk & no action. You can't deliver the goods because they don't exist independent of your fantasies. Got it? You toyed with us & are most probably now trolling us.

Give us what you promised us, in a form that is recognizable to all, not just a few 'savants' who 'see' what others don't. In other words: Put up or shut up.

As far as perceptions are concerned... Fire is hot, it burns... That is immutable. Time moves on at a measurable pace, only our perception of time is variable. That is immutable. There are many more examples of actual reality vs defective perceptions. Get a true sense of reality or you're doomed to live in a Neverland fantasy for the rest of your existence. You remind me of the confused protagonist in an Aussie flick who believed that he had invented a suit of invisibility... And his girlfriend believed that she could pass through solid matter by moving between dimensions... The movie showed their perceptions of reality & it showed the actual reality. It was one of the most depressing & boring films that I've seen in quite a while. The reality is that we, the board members, are watching you bumble around in your suit of invisibility & it's painful to see.

[shawomet]

Shawomet,

Thanks for your comments. Jack has described quite a few artifacts seen on the Portable Rock Museum site gallery as "provable Pleistocene." I think your blanket rejection of all the pieces as natural rocks may be premature. One example, the very pure red jasper hammerstone (grouped with a gastrolith and possible dinosaur egg) is obvious even in the image with a flattened work end to the right. I could go on, but I am not here to take anyone to task or espouse any expertise. Advice I get here says find a reputable archaeologist to analyze the finds. Having done so, now that person is said to be mistaken. I doubt Jack would devote time to a forum when he has many Pleistocene sites to figure out in Virginia. His most recent book would be instructive relative to Pleistocene archaeology in the mid Atlantic.

I appreciate the time you have taken to post on this thread. I do not think you are part of some conspiracy, rather an example of orthodox thinking in archaeology today. I respect your experience with Holocene artifacts, but I do wonder about any training you might have in Pleistocene archaeology in the Americas and elsewhere. I personally am on a very steep learning curve with this subject and must depend on expertise from Jack and any related reading. As to the veracity of my claim that Jack categorized twenty or so pieces in my possession as "provable Pleistocene," you may want to verify with him if my truthfulness is an issue.

Thanks Again, Shawomet

What the hell does "provable Pleistocene" even mean? You've mentioned it several times. It conveys nothing, it actually proves nothing. It does not even necessarily denote man made since Pleistocene is simply a geological era. And Hranicky is not the only archaeologist working on Paleo Era(i.e. Pleistocene) sites in the United States, nor the only archaeologist working in the field of Native American rock art. Hranicky's invokvement with your sites proves nothing where your sites, or your rocks, are concerned. Citing Hranicky, over, and over, and over, as you have, proves absolutely nothing. And his opinion is not the only opinion that is valued where Paleo Era sites is concerned. Proof by citing authority does not cut it with me. If Hranicky thinks the rocks at the portable rock art sites you placed your photos are man made, or if those on other portable rock art sites of the same ilk are man made, it only demonstrates that some archaeologists are sadly mistaken. Namely Hranicky. One man's opinion means nothing, especially with such a ridiculous declaration as "provable Pleistocene". Lol, so PROVE it already. So suggested rock art is now simply declared to be both man made and of Pleistocene age?!?! That's it. It's "provable Pleistocene", with no evidence and no actual proof required. And, of course, now that Hranicky has spoken from on high, you would never even think of, oh, I don't know, maybe asking for the opinions of a few dozen other archaeologists with experience in North American Paleo studies? Or, I don't know, maybe citing peer reviewed papers by Hranicky where one could, hopefully, see the proof for the man-altered nature of these rocks? Oh, and BTW, my experience dealing with rock art and artifacts for decades does not require that such art and such artifacts be Pleistocene in age. It simply requires expertise in recognition of rocks altered by man. I have that. In spades. And in several publications. It sounds like Hranicky may have some learning to do. Then again, I have heard he has had "unusual" ideas at times. But I do not know him personally, so I'll leave it at that.

[shawomet]

Here is a surface find for which it can safely be said it is "provable Pleistocene" in age:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... s-science/

You cannot say that about the so-called art shown at the portable rock art page.

You cannot, generally, provide more then relative age to any artifact found on the surface. Since we know the ages of specific types of projectile points, for instance, since each style has been found in a professionally excavated context that yielded dates via accepted dating methodology, one can, when finding a know point style on the surface, assign a relative age, a date range, such as Late Archaic, Woodland, and Paleo in the case of known Paleo aged projectiles.

It's a whole different story with the rocks found on the portable rock art page. Not only do they show no physical evidence of tooling by humans, not only do they show no recognizable evidence at all of being images created by man, on rock, or rocks shaped by man into effigies, but how many were found in a professional excavation where either relative or absolute age could be determined? I'm pretty sure I know the answer since almost all are contributions by enthusiastic amateurs with no training beyond their fecund imagination.

"Provable Pleistocene". What a joke. A meaningless term without context, assigned, apparently, if we are to believe the OP, to rocks that show no evidence of alteration by humans. And if assigned by Hranicky, an even bigger joke, since the man should know better. If I were conducting a controlled excavation and reached a layer that could be demonstrated to date to some stage of the Pleistocene, I could, provided all other depisitional circumstances were eliminated, assign an ordinary rock found in that layer as having been deposited in the Pleistocene. But it would need to show actual evidence of having been altered or utilized by humans before I could call it an artifact.

The rocks at the portable rock art site are the surface finds, for the most part, not the controlled excavation finds, of amateurs with very fertile imaginations. How one can say "provable Pleistocene", if such a term applies to man altered or man utilized rocks dating to the Pleistocene, to surface collected(i.e. no datable context) ordinary rocks with no such sign of workmanship or utilization, is beyond me. I guess it's just another example of our passage into the Post Truth Era, where it's true if someone simply says it's true. No evidence required. And neither the original poster, nor Hranicky, has provided any evidence whatsoever in this thread to demonstrate their rocks are artifacts, or rock art, dating from the Pleistocene.

[Springhead]

Hi Circumspice,

This thread was never intended to troll members past, present, and future. Paranoid is a strong and highly derogatory term that does not describe my mind set. I might be described better as a generalist with wide ranging pursuits. My interest in archaeology has been life long, and early on was sparked by travel to various archaeological sites. Currently I am in the midst of an accidental realization that a long owned property is an archaeological site that appears to bear an unknown assemblage. Seeking advice, I contacted Jack, he visited and helped me form an understanding of what I had found. You know the rest.

Variability in perceptions is a dynamic that keeps people searching for new and better explanations with which we can better understand what reality is. So we chase truth though we can only approach it. Benefit in the process is the progressive accumulation of perceived snippets of truth which may provide jumping off points for new or improved ideas. This does not appear to me to be a static system. Secular and religious "fencing" provides comfort to those who want or need it because they prefer a static system. Others may thrive on modification or replacement of orthodoxy. We need both, the former to keep us from floating away, and the latter to keep us from fossilizing. Ideally, these approaches should benefit one another and be infused with mutual respect.

[Springhead]

Hello Shawomet,

"Proof by citing authority does not cut it with me."

Any surface find has a context problem but may still fit into a pattern with volume of finds, their relation to natural and man made features, and their function as a tool, effigy, etc. Jack was able to see that certain found pieces from the mountain site were Pleistocene artifacts. "Provable Pleistocene" are the exact words he used to describe the twenty or so artifacts that he sorted out from about three hundred pieces. He said that I should hang on to everything I had found as he had seen no Holocene finds amongst them. The provable pieces showed him their Pleistocene creation by such things as striking angles and similarities to artifacts with tight context from Europe and Africa. What this boils down to is that he can prove the pieces were fashioned in the Pleistocene by form, function, and technique.

How would finding a dozen archaeologists to consult with regarding the subject stones sway your opinion if citing authority does not cut it with you?

I appreciate your link to the mammoth bone carving, a truly wonderful artifact. This is a very late version of artistic endeavor if one includes the Valsequillo Gompother bone carving.

I as well lament the "Post Truth Era" we have allowed and engineered to happen. "Apparently" orthodox thinking in archaeology bears no connection to this despite the fact that they say no to whatever offends them while relieving themselves of the burden of proof they clamour for from others. Cultural unraveling may continue unabated and accelerated by the PTE, to include anthropology.

Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope RI hydrangea blooms have remained inspiring.

[circumspice]

Hi Circumspice,

This thread was never intended to troll members past, present, and future. Paranoid is a strong and highly derogatory term that does not describe my mind set. I might be described better as a generalist with wide ranging pursuits. My interest in archaeology has been life long, and early on was sparked by travel to various archaeological sites. Currently I am in the midst of an accidental realization that a long owned property is an archaeological site that appears to bear an unknown assemblage. Seeking advice, I contacted Jack, he visited and helped me form an understanding of what I had found. You know the rest.

Variability in perceptions is a dynamic that keeps people searching for new and better explanations with which we can better understand what reality is. So we chase truth though we can only approach it. Benefit in the process is the progressive accumulation of perceived snippets of truth which may provide jumping off points for new or improved ideas. This does not appear to me to be a static system. Secular and religious "fencing" provides comfort to those who want or need it because they prefer a static system. Others may thrive on modification or replacement of orthodoxy. We need both, the former to keep us from floating away, and the latter to keep us from fossilizing. Ideally, these approaches should benefit one another and be infused with mutual respect.

Ok... If I read this right... You repeatedly state that Jack Hranicky has endorsed your theories... Does that mean that Jack Hranicky agrees with you that Homo erectus/Neanderthal hybrid hominids made it to the New World, that they settled on properties that you own... That they built & farmed terraces on your vertical acres... That they built astronomical observatories & marked significant celestial events with carved/decorated monoliths... That they created fantastic works of micro art with the aid of some kind of magnifying device. That they left parietal artwork in 2 caves... That every tool they ever made is covered in artwork, some depicting diagnostic facial features, clothing, head gear, boats & buildings... (some painted in color too?)?

Have I gotten this correct so far?

Notwithstanding the fact that none of the above has ever been found associated with Homo erectus in any Old World context?...

You do realize that Homo erectus is one of the most primitive members of the Homo genus right? So, maybe that's why you posit that your hominids may have been hybridized with Neanderthals? And... All this was deduced by you, an amateur armchair archaeologist with no related education or training.

And Jack Hranicky has personally endorsed all of your theories concerning your 'discoveries'? All without feeling the necessity of conducting an excavation to place the finds in even minimal context? Really? If he did, he's behaving in a criminally negligent manner. Or did he just say 'provable Pleistocene" in reference to a few stone
tools?

Let's clarify & set a baseline here. Who said what? As I said before, we have only your word that Jack Hranicky endorses any of this.

[\size]

[Springhead]

Hello Circumspice,

You are running with the bit in your teeth, as you may suspect that I have done. Your recall of some of my offbeat ideas and analyses of stones is impressive. Yes, a distinction needs to be made about what Jack endorses about this assemblage. As stated previously, Jack has said that twenty or so of the finds are "provable Pleistocene" (and these pieces are characterized by the inclusion of art in the form of carving, chipping, abrading, baas relief, intaglio, painting, subtractive compositions accomplished by strategic removal of applied pitch {my list, his guidance}, and as is common in rock art, the opportunistic use of natural form and mineral colors in the creation of art). Jack has in no way endorsed my personal ideas and analyses that you mention.

Jack was instrumental in calling to my attention that the assemblage is characterized by the incorporation of art. His expertise is in tools and material culture, and his analyses are based on mechanics of production and what they say about the era and style they were made in.

Jack has in no way acted irresponsibly in this matter. His most recent book (see archeology.org {Virginia Academic Press}) would be a good start in understanding his thinking about Virginia Paleo archaeology. The mountain site is one of six similar assemblages he is working on in Virginia.

Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to set strait what Jack did and did not endorse.

[circumspice]

Hello Circumspice,

You are running with the bit in your teeth, as you may suspect that I have done. Your recall of some of my offbeat ideas and analyses of stones is impressive. Yes, a distinction needs to be made about what Jack endorses about this assemblage. As stated previously, Jack has said that twenty or so of the finds are "provable Pleistocene" (and these pieces are characterized by the inclusion of art in the form of carving, chipping, abrading, baas relief, intaglio, painting, subtractive compositions accomplished by strategic removal of applied pitch {my list, his guidance}, and as is common in rock art, the opportunistic use of natural form and mineral colors in the creation of art). Jack has in no way endorsed my personal ideas and analyses that you mention.

Jack was instrumental in calling to my attention that the assemblage is characterized by the incorporation of art. His expertise is in tools and material culture, and his analyses are based on mechanics of production and what they say about the era and style they were made in.

Jack has in no way acted irresponsibly in this matter. His most recent book (see archeology.org {Virginia Academic Press}) would be a good start in understanding his thinking about Virginia Paleo archaeology. The mountain site is one of six similar assemblages he is working on in Virginia.

Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to set strait what Jack did and did not endorse.

So, for the record, you are stating that Jack Hranicky has only endorsed 'twenty or so' knapped stone tools as 'Provable Pleistocene'? Am I correct? All the rest of the 'theories' are your own. Correct again? If so, the baseline of the more or less pertinent 'facts' in this thread have been established.

Thanks.

By the way, in context, you should have spelled strait as straight.

[Springhead]

Hello Circumspice,

The facts of this thread were established from the get go. Speculation (not theory) I have espoused has never been attributed to others. These speculations would have to be way more fleshed out to be hypotheses much less theories. Strait line logic and common sense are my tools of thought, and the artifacts' subject matter is the inspiration for conjectures I have made.

Do you find "twenty or so" "provable Pleistocene" artifacts to be insignificant or irrelevant as a starting point in assessing thousands of finds on the mountain site? Should I put up or shut up if I cannot leap in a single bound to some airtight theory that sounds plausible? I keep hearing "follow the evidence" in archaeology yet am apparently seen as concocting a tall tale so I can be some hero.........there are far easier ways to be a hero than asking strangers to believe you, if one saw the oft misused term "hero" as a desirable label in the first place. This is not my world.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. Maybe I should stick with phonetics.

[shawomet]

[img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]

Hello,

Here is what looks to be a spear point of some size. The top two images show the thickness and are opposite edges. The lower two images are opposite sides of the artifact. There are art components to this rock as well which will not be discussed at this time. As with many of these associated artifacts, the extreme age and wear from the acidic environment and water action obscures the patterns of chip removal when created. This was found in a spring on the mountain site. The dimensions are four and seven sixteenths inches by two and three sixteenths inches by nine sixteenths of an inch at the thickest part.

Just going through the thread trying to find any actual artifacts or effigies from this Virginia site. This is a perfect example of the type of rock many people with no experience with artifacts might mistakenly think is a spear or knife. Now I know Hranicky cannot be agreeing that this is an artifact. Or, I would not understand what happened to all his experience with lithics if he did. It would be inexplicable, really. He has more experience then that. His typologies are not based on amateur mistaken identities at all. Which is what this "spear" is, a rock mistaken for a spear by somebody who apparently decided he did not need to learn how to recognize a lithic artifact, and just picked up a vaguely look-alike geofact, and called it a "spear". This is absurd. Other then the photos of Mayan ceramics, there are no photos of actual artifacts seen anywhere in this thread. I had heard, from someone who knows him, that Hranicky was a bit off the wall with some of his ideas. But still, if he is saying any rock in this thread is what you claim it is, then I'm surprised. That would be a whole lot more then a bit off the wall. I would expect better of him. He has put together decent guides of projectile point typology, so I don't understand what has happened to his mind if he is going along with all this. But, I don't believe he is going along with your interpretations of one single rock you have shown in this thread. But, with allowance for the possibility that he could have succumb to some sort of mental illness. And it would have to be something like that to go from respectable projectile point typologies to this. This is a rock. It is not a spear. It is not an artifact. It's a rock mistaken for an artifact by someone who bypassed learning how to recognize lithic artifacts, and decided they could just wing it.

[circumspice]

Springhead's calm, humble demeanor is beginning to fray on the edges. Regardless of what he has stated in previous posts it's clear that he did expect concurrence with his ideas/hypotheses/theories... I suspect that he expected our concurrence because he got it on the fringe websites where he had posted previously. Having gotten their concurrence I suppose that it was the logical next step for him to seek it on a website free of the fringe/alt taint. I imagine that he is sorely disappointed by the reception he got here. After all, on a fringe website one needs only to make claims. No one is expected to show evidence or proof because that might invalidate the fantasy. If you look up the Spout Run archaeological site you will find connections to the Portable Rock Art website, The Arkfeld site, Jack Hranicky, etc. The whole thing has strong ties to the fringe/alt crowd. And there's money to be made from these sites... Chris & Renee White (who claim Native American ancestry) have turned their fortuitous find into a 'sanctuary'... Imagine that. Cue Twilight Zone theme music. Another caveat is the fact that Jack's theories about the Spout Run site have never been peer reviewed.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hranicky

In 2011, Hranicky excavated the Spout Run site in Virginia, which he and the current landowners claim is a paleo-calendar, and announced it as the oldest, extant above-ground site in North America.[2][3] However, the results of his work at the site have not yet been peer-reviewed and it remains to be seen whether the rocky areas are natural or cultural features, or if there are actually any Paleoindian artifacts present.

Among the growing list of features claimed for the 2-mile complex are a series of concentric rock rings and associated fire hearth, rock art including two sets of "hand prints", direct alignment with both solar solstices, alignment east-to-west with the seasonal equinoxes, a lunar focus, as well as the site’s major feature, a stone altar which also aligns with the summer solstice.[4] No other known Paleoindian sites exist with any of these features, casting doubt on the age and validity of the site.

So... This is where we end up in this thread. No concensus anywhere in sight. Springhead expects us to believe his 'ideas' sight unseen because he cites a retired professional contractor type archeologist whose most notable excavation site hasn't passed through the peer review process... Could it be because the Whites are doing the 'mystic crystal revelation' thing on their property?

Yeah... Right... My bullshit meter is pegged. If it's too good to be true it probably isn't...