Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Clovis Engraved Stones: Possibly the earliest "art' in the New World, engraved stones are known to have repeated motifs and show careful attention to detail. Dozens have been found at the Gault site near Georgetown. The specimen on the left shows feathered spear shafts imbedded in something. Others have grid patterns, spirals, possible animal representations, and other symbols.
Lol! Right. Not sure what they were trying to do...maybe just doodling?Charlie, that stone on the right ain't art ... it's obviously tic tac toe on steroids!
Good call, Charlie... No doubt you're familiar with the discussion of this at http://www.daysknob.com/Gault_A.htmI suspect the first piece is a bird, and the incisions are feathers:
Hey Alan.Good call, Charlie... No doubt you're familiar with the discussion of this at http://www.daysknob.com/Gault_A.htm
Dr. Collins seems to reject this idea, but who knows? As you well know, he does not communicate meaningfully or straightforwardly with amateurs.
This one's tough to make out over the net, because it has a 3D element to it, and it's all brown (rusted iron):...effigies of wooly mammoths...
Thanks, Charlie! I appreciate it.Hat's off Bro!
Maybe so... One thing I figured out in the engineering/corporate rat race was that when I thought I had a good idea and was trying to convince an obstinate boss of this, it was best to present my case articulately and then shut up for a while. Typically he would think about the idea long enough that he would come to perceive it as his own, then present it as such and, of course, get the credit for it. Since he was paying me well to keep him looking good, I just grumbled all the way to the bank. I suspect the matter of this heretofore officially unrecognized/rejected iconography will eventually work itself out in a similar manner, both here and in Europe - the body of evidence is just so huge. Don't bet on our "intellectual property" being respected - the professionals/academics will grab all the credit they can. One thing in our favor, though, is that these days e-mail and internet postings provide a sort of "audit trail".Apparently he's drifting, though, ever so slowly, towards your interpretation.
Believe me, I know it's an outrageous hypothesis. What's weird about this is I was pointing out the human profile to my sister, and she said, " Cool! Look at the elephant!". I never even saw it until she pointed it out. I had just noticed the possibility of a person's profile, with a bird riding on its head...like a headdress. She kept trying to show me what she was seeing, but I couldn't grasp what she was talking about...then it leapt out at me...in 3D...tripped me out big time!! Haven't been able to shed the affliction to date...Hello there, Charlie. Just an observation here but one thing that might cast doubt on that mammoth stone is that the image, if it does indeed depict a mammoth, seems to depict one in perspective. I'm no expert but (that's my catchphrase there by the way) as I understand it perspective is a relatively recent development in art and there's precious few examples of it prior to (I'm guessing here) 10th century-ish. I can't think of any ancient art I've seen (aside from the fully sculptural) which shows its subject in anything other than profile. Not that that necessarily rules out the possibility (there's always exceptions I guess) but it's something to consider perhaps?
...3D and in perspective...O.K., walk me to my padded cell... 
Bruce wrote:The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)
At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)
I don't want to get very involved with this, but the Martis Complex people disappeared only 1500 years ago. Their suggested ability to make a map in rock art doesn't mean HE was doing it hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.
). I guess once again it's down to 'has this rock been worked by human hand' and I'd bet some of the stuff we're seeing around here has. and from pg 7..Bruce wrote:The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)
At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)
Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.
Am I missing something here??Doug Weller wrote:Bruce wrote: Bruce wrote:
The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)
At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)
I don't want to get very involved with this, but the Martis Complex people disappeared only 1500 years ago. Their suggested ability to make a map in rock art doesn't mean HE was doing it hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.
