Tiompan,
I agree, we have no dates. No funding, no dates. Outright knee jerk reaction, no funding. This vicious circle exemplifies the plight of new discovery analysis. Note Bednarik's comments about all archaeological discoveries being the work of amateurs. How do we rectify this problem?
If a patina observed on an artifact is deemed to be ancient, what other hominid would be present at that time besides HE or HN, ancient being i.e. 50,000 ybp?
Topper may contentious, but it is claimed that the stratigraphy is tight. Since the final reports are not yet published, to my knowledge, maybe we should await that information before we knee jerk it.
I doubt that all of Carter's work and theorizing can be disclaimed over one dating problem, however unfortunate that was.
With Bedarik, the Coa Valley analysis was only one topic of many in his paper and may serve to emphasize his neutrality when confronting problematic situations.
Problematic Discoveries
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: Problematic Discoveries
“Note Bednarik's comments about all archaeological discoveries being the work of amateurs. How do we rectify this problem? “
Springhead ,
I have pointed out here in other contexts , that the majority , not all , of rock art discoveries tend to be that of non pro Archaeos .The vast majority of misunderstood/mistaken finds also tend to be those of amateurs too ,although archaeos also get it wrong . The problem is having to deal with the mistaken examples , the genuine examples take care of themselves . Unless of course outrageous claims are made for the interpretations or age of the engravings .
“With Bedarik, the Coa Valley analysis was only one topic of many in his paper and may serve to emphasize his neutrality when confronting problematic situations.”
I like a lot of what Bednarik has to say about rock art and interpretation , but he does have a chip on his shoulder and the Coa Valley story may show that neutrality is not quite the full explanation .
Btw , why not send him a cd of what you believe to be engraved / painted rocks etc ?
“ If a patina observed on an artifact is deemed to be ancient, what other hominid would be present at that time besides HE or HN, ancient being i.e. 50,000 ybp? “
What hominids have been found in the Americas at that date ? That should be the basis for any conjecture . As none have been found why multiply entities beyond necessity ?
It depends on the evidence for the age of the patina and whether the example is a genuine artefact . Got any examples in mind ?
“Topper may contentious, but it is claimed that the stratigraphy is tight. Since the final reports are not yet published, to my knowledge, maybe we should await that information before we knee jerk it.”
Maybe the stratigraphy is tight , but that is not the problem , as always it is the claims . Worth a read https://www.academia.edu/7029751/Geoarc ... h_Carolina
The supposed fire , was shown not have been a fire etc.
The knee jerking is from those that make claims for pre Clovis finds without the supporting evidence . Like all science all you have to do is find something genuine and everyone will accept it . But until you do ………….. .
“
I doubt that all of Carter's work and theorizing can be disclaimed over one dating problem, however unfortunate that was. “
The problem with the dating was that the erroneous dates were central to his “theorising” and is typical of the agenda driven , evidence free attitude .
“I agree, we have no dates. No funding, no dates.”
There has been a huge amount time and money spent on various excavations ,yet not one bone fragment that has been dated earlier than Monte Verde (14,600 BP) .
Springhead ,
I have pointed out here in other contexts , that the majority , not all , of rock art discoveries tend to be that of non pro Archaeos .The vast majority of misunderstood/mistaken finds also tend to be those of amateurs too ,although archaeos also get it wrong . The problem is having to deal with the mistaken examples , the genuine examples take care of themselves . Unless of course outrageous claims are made for the interpretations or age of the engravings .
“With Bedarik, the Coa Valley analysis was only one topic of many in his paper and may serve to emphasize his neutrality when confronting problematic situations.”
I like a lot of what Bednarik has to say about rock art and interpretation , but he does have a chip on his shoulder and the Coa Valley story may show that neutrality is not quite the full explanation .
Btw , why not send him a cd of what you believe to be engraved / painted rocks etc ?
“ If a patina observed on an artifact is deemed to be ancient, what other hominid would be present at that time besides HE or HN, ancient being i.e. 50,000 ybp? “
What hominids have been found in the Americas at that date ? That should be the basis for any conjecture . As none have been found why multiply entities beyond necessity ?
It depends on the evidence for the age of the patina and whether the example is a genuine artefact . Got any examples in mind ?
“Topper may contentious, but it is claimed that the stratigraphy is tight. Since the final reports are not yet published, to my knowledge, maybe we should await that information before we knee jerk it.”
Maybe the stratigraphy is tight , but that is not the problem , as always it is the claims . Worth a read https://www.academia.edu/7029751/Geoarc ... h_Carolina
The supposed fire , was shown not have been a fire etc.
The knee jerking is from those that make claims for pre Clovis finds without the supporting evidence . Like all science all you have to do is find something genuine and everyone will accept it . But until you do ………….. .
“
I doubt that all of Carter's work and theorizing can be disclaimed over one dating problem, however unfortunate that was. “
The problem with the dating was that the erroneous dates were central to his “theorising” and is typical of the agenda driven , evidence free attitude .
“I agree, we have no dates. No funding, no dates.”
There has been a huge amount time and money spent on various excavations ,yet not one bone fragment that has been dated earlier than Monte Verde (14,600 BP) .
-
circumspice
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Odd... Calico elicits very strong reactions...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site
In her autobiography, Mary Leakey wrote that because of Louis's involvement with the Calico Hills site she had lost academic respect for him, and that the Calico excavations was "catastrophic to his professional career and was largely responsible for the parting of our ways".[13] She did not share his visionary views about the Calico site. She regarded Louis as often slipping into incompetence and often publicized that opinion.[7] Louis Leakey continued to visit the site several times a year and was connected with the project until his death in 1972
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site
In her autobiography, Mary Leakey wrote that because of Louis's involvement with the Calico Hills site she had lost academic respect for him, and that the Calico excavations was "catastrophic to his professional career and was largely responsible for the parting of our ways".[13] She did not share his visionary views about the Calico site. She regarded Louis as often slipping into incompetence and often publicized that opinion.[7] Louis Leakey continued to visit the site several times a year and was connected with the project until his death in 1972
"Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Circumspice,
Thanks for the link. I am sorry that many see Leakey as having fallen from grace over his ideas about the Calico Early Man Site. I have a soft spot for Leakey after going to a lecture he presented as a kid in Baltimore sometime around the early 60's. He was speaking about the Olduvai Gorge work he is so well known for. Though many doubt his hypotheses about Calico, there are many professionals who believe the site to be authentic and share my disappointment concerning the destruction and disposal of tens of thousands of disputed but previously recorded artifacts. This might be viewed as knee jerk reaction with the challenge to the authenticity of the artifacts having moved from debate to evidence removal. Such may not go down well in the future if the rocks are found to be authentic artifacts.
Thanks for the link. I am sorry that many see Leakey as having fallen from grace over his ideas about the Calico Early Man Site. I have a soft spot for Leakey after going to a lecture he presented as a kid in Baltimore sometime around the early 60's. He was speaking about the Olduvai Gorge work he is so well known for. Though many doubt his hypotheses about Calico, there are many professionals who believe the site to be authentic and share my disappointment concerning the destruction and disposal of tens of thousands of disputed but previously recorded artifacts. This might be viewed as knee jerk reaction with the challenge to the authenticity of the artifacts having moved from debate to evidence removal. Such may not go down well in the future if the rocks are found to be authentic artifacts.
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Tiompan,
Thanks for your comments. Mistaken and misunderstood claims go with the territory of discovery. I disagree with your statement that genuine examples take care of themselves. I would add that if funding for investigation is obtained then perhaps authenticity can be recognized. Finds with unpopular ideas behind them or refutations of popular notions, even if they eventually bear out as true, will probably have a long slog to acceptance with the difficulty of funding excavation, testing, etc.
Bednarik's chip on his shoulder may be a loyalty to the denigrated amateur who remains key to the discovery process. His persistence may honor that loyalty and outdo the "competition" via scientific rigor simultaneously. I would like to send him images of my finds if I can improve their quality.
Patina is not my forte, so I rely on expert analysis of others to have any understanding in that area. The rocks with which I have the most familiarity, i.e. the mountain site, exhibit deep age patina and environmental wear from a soil ph of 4.5 to 6.0 and, when recovered from spring branches, water wear. Between these two and other typical factors, knapping evidence may be totally absent despite the hard crystaline nature of the rock. This can make interpretation and its conveyance to others difficult as the rocks may have a more natural look. Some of the rocks are covered with Bitumen which suggests human modification, not to mention the ochres, white, black, and blue with painted examples.
There has been sporadic possible evidence of hominids in North America. I do not have examples on the top of my head except for a Neandertal type tooth with an associated tool from the Fredericksburg, Va. area. This amateur find has not been analyzed to my knowledge. I'll try to come up with more. The smoking gun for hominids would be tools with art that have ancient context. The rocks are easy to find, the fossils a whole different ball game. Digging deeper may help.
Topper will someday be accepted, but it may take corroborative evidence from other sites. Funding will be critical with all the knee jerking going on. The conundrum of the moneyed status quo funding projects that may overturn their theories persists as an impediment to advancement.
Despite money spent on investigation, "what if" is still as valid as ever in archaeology. A relative of mine who was in charge of the first geologic survey in California, etc, found and examined a human fossil from tertiary gravels in the gold rush era out there. My claims seem rather calm next to such finds, of which there were a number.
Thanks for your comments. Mistaken and misunderstood claims go with the territory of discovery. I disagree with your statement that genuine examples take care of themselves. I would add that if funding for investigation is obtained then perhaps authenticity can be recognized. Finds with unpopular ideas behind them or refutations of popular notions, even if they eventually bear out as true, will probably have a long slog to acceptance with the difficulty of funding excavation, testing, etc.
Bednarik's chip on his shoulder may be a loyalty to the denigrated amateur who remains key to the discovery process. His persistence may honor that loyalty and outdo the "competition" via scientific rigor simultaneously. I would like to send him images of my finds if I can improve their quality.
Patina is not my forte, so I rely on expert analysis of others to have any understanding in that area. The rocks with which I have the most familiarity, i.e. the mountain site, exhibit deep age patina and environmental wear from a soil ph of 4.5 to 6.0 and, when recovered from spring branches, water wear. Between these two and other typical factors, knapping evidence may be totally absent despite the hard crystaline nature of the rock. This can make interpretation and its conveyance to others difficult as the rocks may have a more natural look. Some of the rocks are covered with Bitumen which suggests human modification, not to mention the ochres, white, black, and blue with painted examples.
There has been sporadic possible evidence of hominids in North America. I do not have examples on the top of my head except for a Neandertal type tooth with an associated tool from the Fredericksburg, Va. area. This amateur find has not been analyzed to my knowledge. I'll try to come up with more. The smoking gun for hominids would be tools with art that have ancient context. The rocks are easy to find, the fossils a whole different ball game. Digging deeper may help.
Topper will someday be accepted, but it may take corroborative evidence from other sites. Funding will be critical with all the knee jerking going on. The conundrum of the moneyed status quo funding projects that may overturn their theories persists as an impediment to advancement.
Despite money spent on investigation, "what if" is still as valid as ever in archaeology. A relative of mine who was in charge of the first geologic survey in California, etc, found and examined a human fossil from tertiary gravels in the gold rush era out there. My claims seem rather calm next to such finds, of which there were a number.
Re: Problematic Discoveries
[” I disagree with your statement that genuine examples take care of themselves. “
In what way Springhead ? The genuine finds are recorded and go into the record .Job done .
“ I would add that if funding for investigation is obtained then perhaps authenticity can be recognized. “ Authenticity does not equate with or require funding , it has already been mentioned that the majority of genuine rock art discoveries are found by amateurs , they do out of their own pocket and interest , no funding needed ,
“Finds with unpopular ideas behind them or refutations of popular notions, “ Finds are either genuine or not , unpopular ideas are neither here nor there , I imagine that suggesting that a find from the US was much older than currently accepted beliefs would be really popular ., it wouldn’t make true though .
“even if they eventually bear out as true, will probably have a long slog to acceptance with the difficulty of funding excavation, testing, etc. “ Not if the evidence is clear , once you have that , then you can’t go wrong , until then …..
Bednarik's chip on his shoulder may be a loyalty to the denigrated amateur who remains key to the discovery process.
No , it’s an anti establishment chip .
“I would like to send him images of my finds if I can improve their quality.”
Can you see the what you believe to be present on the rocks in the images ,if so why shouldn’t someone else , especially someone who has he experience of having seen multiple genuine examples .
“Patina is not my forte, so I rely on expert analysis of others to have any understanding in that area…… “
I was asking about specific examples and the evidence for the age of the patina .
“There has been sporadic possible evidence of hominids in North America. I do not have examples on the top of my head except for a Neandertal type tooth with an associated tool from the Fredericksburg, Va. area. “
To date there are no examples of Neandertals or homo erectus fossils found in the Americas .
“The smoking gun for hominids would be tools with art that have ancient context. “
How would recognise you recognise art with an “ancient context” ?
“Topper will someday be accepted, but it may take corroborative evidence from other sites. “ Topper is not accepted now for good reason .If they actually find some genuine finds then it will be accepted , no problem .
“Despite money spent on investigation, "what if" is still as valid as ever in archaeology. “ But finds/coming up with the goods trump “what if “ every time .
In what way Springhead ? The genuine finds are recorded and go into the record .Job done .
“ I would add that if funding for investigation is obtained then perhaps authenticity can be recognized. “ Authenticity does not equate with or require funding , it has already been mentioned that the majority of genuine rock art discoveries are found by amateurs , they do out of their own pocket and interest , no funding needed ,
“Finds with unpopular ideas behind them or refutations of popular notions, “ Finds are either genuine or not , unpopular ideas are neither here nor there , I imagine that suggesting that a find from the US was much older than currently accepted beliefs would be really popular ., it wouldn’t make true though .
“even if they eventually bear out as true, will probably have a long slog to acceptance with the difficulty of funding excavation, testing, etc. “ Not if the evidence is clear , once you have that , then you can’t go wrong , until then …..
Bednarik's chip on his shoulder may be a loyalty to the denigrated amateur who remains key to the discovery process.
No , it’s an anti establishment chip .
“I would like to send him images of my finds if I can improve their quality.”
Can you see the what you believe to be present on the rocks in the images ,if so why shouldn’t someone else , especially someone who has he experience of having seen multiple genuine examples .
“Patina is not my forte, so I rely on expert analysis of others to have any understanding in that area…… “
I was asking about specific examples and the evidence for the age of the patina .
“There has been sporadic possible evidence of hominids in North America. I do not have examples on the top of my head except for a Neandertal type tooth with an associated tool from the Fredericksburg, Va. area. “
To date there are no examples of Neandertals or homo erectus fossils found in the Americas .
“The smoking gun for hominids would be tools with art that have ancient context. “
How would recognise you recognise art with an “ancient context” ?
“Topper will someday be accepted, but it may take corroborative evidence from other sites. “ Topper is not accepted now for good reason .If they actually find some genuine finds then it will be accepted , no problem .
“Despite money spent on investigation, "what if" is still as valid as ever in archaeology. “ But finds/coming up with the goods trump “what if “ every time .
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Hi Tiompan,
Genuine artifacts do not take care of themselves as they require expensive investigative processes whether found by an amateur or professional. Rick's artifacts were analyzed by experts yet skepticism remains rampant. Few amateurs have deep enough pockets to have excavations and expensive high tech testing done. Even with professional analysis by very respected people, as with 30,000 ybp in Chile and 50,000 ybp at Topper, the knee jerk factor remains.
Bednarik may seem anti establishment because he has been able to thwart status quo hypotheses, but I think he sees great value and validity in amateur work, past and present. I am reticent to send him current images as I have received nothing but complaints about the imagery I have been able to provide. It is difficult to clearly photograph subject matter on rocks worked in deep time. I will post an image, if I am able, that I can see reasonably well on my screen, and I will ask you to identify the subject matter that you see. Sorry, after ten tries I am unable.
Evidence for patination present on a rock would be a scientific report ($$$) rather than my analysis.
To date none of the suspected ancient fossils have been tested that may be HE or HN.
Art with an ancient context would be comparative to African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc. art on Pleistocene era tools.
"What if" proceeds any discovery in the sense of ".........we dig here?" ..............."we dig deeper?" .........."the stratigraphy is no good?" ............."we can't get funding to prove this?" etc,etc.
Thanks for your comments and arguments.
Genuine artifacts do not take care of themselves as they require expensive investigative processes whether found by an amateur or professional. Rick's artifacts were analyzed by experts yet skepticism remains rampant. Few amateurs have deep enough pockets to have excavations and expensive high tech testing done. Even with professional analysis by very respected people, as with 30,000 ybp in Chile and 50,000 ybp at Topper, the knee jerk factor remains.
Bednarik may seem anti establishment because he has been able to thwart status quo hypotheses, but I think he sees great value and validity in amateur work, past and present. I am reticent to send him current images as I have received nothing but complaints about the imagery I have been able to provide. It is difficult to clearly photograph subject matter on rocks worked in deep time. I will post an image, if I am able, that I can see reasonably well on my screen, and I will ask you to identify the subject matter that you see. Sorry, after ten tries I am unable.
Evidence for patination present on a rock would be a scientific report ($$$) rather than my analysis.
To date none of the suspected ancient fossils have been tested that may be HE or HN.
Art with an ancient context would be comparative to African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc. art on Pleistocene era tools.
"What if" proceeds any discovery in the sense of ".........we dig here?" ..............."we dig deeper?" .........."the stratigraphy is no good?" ............."we can't get funding to prove this?" etc,etc.
Thanks for your comments and arguments.
Re: Problematic Discoveries
“Genuine artifacts do not take care of themselves as they require expensive investigative processes whether found by an amateur or professional.
“
Springhead ,
The comments were in relation to “genuine examples “ of rock art . It’s simply a question of finding them and recording them properly . It’s what amateurs have always done , as noted by Bednarik ,and they bear the costs which are limited to travel and equipment is minimal e.g. camera , gps etc .
“Rick's artifacts were analyzed by experts yet skepticism remains rampant.”
Even the Pleistocne coalition had to use a disclaimer , not something they tend to do .
“Even with professional analysis by very respected people, as with 30,000 ybp in Chile and 50,000 ybp at Topper, the knee jerk factor remains.”
The knee jerk reaction is from those that leap to fanciful conclusions with no supporting evidence ,e.g. the claims from Topper .
“Bednarik may seem anti establishment because he has been able to thwart status quo hypotheses, but I think he sees great value and validity in amateur work, past and present. “
The same hypotheses are found in the establishment .
He does appreciate the value of the amateur efforts ,as do professional archaeos who are equally vocal in their support , he ,and they are also aware of the huge number of errors and fantastic interpretations from amateurs which outnumber the positives by far .
“Evidence for patination present on a rock would be a scientific report ($$$) rather than my analysis.”
I was asking for examples of genuine (American) artefacts with a report on the patination that shows the artefact to be older than say the Monte Verde fossil .
“ I am reticent to send him current images as I have received nothing but complaints about the imagery I have been able to provide. “ Sometimes the imagery is not great , others are not too bad , the real complaints are that the images do not appear to show examples of anything anthropic .
“Art with an ancient context would be comparative to African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc. art on Pleistocene era tools. "
You could compare art from any period and anywhere but it won’t provide a date .
“
Springhead ,
The comments were in relation to “genuine examples “ of rock art . It’s simply a question of finding them and recording them properly . It’s what amateurs have always done , as noted by Bednarik ,and they bear the costs which are limited to travel and equipment is minimal e.g. camera , gps etc .
“Rick's artifacts were analyzed by experts yet skepticism remains rampant.”
Even the Pleistocne coalition had to use a disclaimer , not something they tend to do .
“Even with professional analysis by very respected people, as with 30,000 ybp in Chile and 50,000 ybp at Topper, the knee jerk factor remains.”
The knee jerk reaction is from those that leap to fanciful conclusions with no supporting evidence ,e.g. the claims from Topper .
“Bednarik may seem anti establishment because he has been able to thwart status quo hypotheses, but I think he sees great value and validity in amateur work, past and present. “
The same hypotheses are found in the establishment .
He does appreciate the value of the amateur efforts ,as do professional archaeos who are equally vocal in their support , he ,and they are also aware of the huge number of errors and fantastic interpretations from amateurs which outnumber the positives by far .
“Evidence for patination present on a rock would be a scientific report ($$$) rather than my analysis.”
I was asking for examples of genuine (American) artefacts with a report on the patination that shows the artefact to be older than say the Monte Verde fossil .
“ I am reticent to send him current images as I have received nothing but complaints about the imagery I have been able to provide. “ Sometimes the imagery is not great , others are not too bad , the real complaints are that the images do not appear to show examples of anything anthropic .
“Art with an ancient context would be comparative to African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, etc. art on Pleistocene era tools. "
You could compare art from any period and anywhere but it won’t provide a date .
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Tiompan,
Unfortunately, in my case all found suspected artifacts are surface collected, and even with that surface location known, they do not have much context, something that requires excavated finds. As a layman, other than test pits which provide weak context at best, I am unprepared to dig and will not do so without professional guidance.
The Pleistocene Coalition issued that disclaimer because Rick's finds do not have stratigraphic context which would lend dating and credence to the assemblage. Other than recording the location of surface finds, someone like Rick has to await funding to properly excavate.
In the case of Topper, is it fanciful to have dug well below clovis and find artifacts that, with tight stratigraphy, date to 50,000 ybp? Is this really impossible?
Though amateurs make most initial discoveries, that they make often incorrect conclusions is simply part of the process that professionals go through as well. The amateur has much more freedom of conjecture than the professional because they are not having to walk the line of the status quo established by their peers. Perhaps this factor allows more imaginative approaches yielding more varied hypotheses which then can be scrutinized via the scientific process. This seems a small price to pay for a longer baseline from which to proceed.
I cannot provide an American artifact with provenance and context to predate the Chilean fossil. There are claims of such dates from Brazil, but they are swamped by the "geofact" din, a subjective rejection, a determination that perhaps should be in the realm of the geomorphologist rather than the archaeologist.
Carving, bas relief, pecking, intaglio, sculpting, painting, and combinations thereof are anthropic. That they cannot be recognized is both an imagery conveyance problem coupled with the lack of in person experience with the rock finds. The extreme age of the work being thrown into the mix only paves the way further for a difficult situation.
Art from any period or location may not be able to provide a specific date, but it can suggest a range of possible dating as well as speculation concerning provenance or influence.
Thanks for your interest. I believe we have established that we have fundamental agreements and disagreements concerning the presence of middle and later Pleistocene tools with art in the Americas. I will need some time to go through the thousands of rock finds I have to find examples that at least can be seen as anthropic, even by skeptics. The fact that an archaeologist with great tool expertise has identified some of my finds as "provable Pleistocene artifacts" seems to mean nothing to skeptics with no personal time with the rocks. It is difficult to imagine how many hoops one would have to jump through to gain even a shred of acceptance of the validity of the subject assemblage with such folks.
Unfortunately, in my case all found suspected artifacts are surface collected, and even with that surface location known, they do not have much context, something that requires excavated finds. As a layman, other than test pits which provide weak context at best, I am unprepared to dig and will not do so without professional guidance.
The Pleistocene Coalition issued that disclaimer because Rick's finds do not have stratigraphic context which would lend dating and credence to the assemblage. Other than recording the location of surface finds, someone like Rick has to await funding to properly excavate.
In the case of Topper, is it fanciful to have dug well below clovis and find artifacts that, with tight stratigraphy, date to 50,000 ybp? Is this really impossible?
Though amateurs make most initial discoveries, that they make often incorrect conclusions is simply part of the process that professionals go through as well. The amateur has much more freedom of conjecture than the professional because they are not having to walk the line of the status quo established by their peers. Perhaps this factor allows more imaginative approaches yielding more varied hypotheses which then can be scrutinized via the scientific process. This seems a small price to pay for a longer baseline from which to proceed.
I cannot provide an American artifact with provenance and context to predate the Chilean fossil. There are claims of such dates from Brazil, but they are swamped by the "geofact" din, a subjective rejection, a determination that perhaps should be in the realm of the geomorphologist rather than the archaeologist.
Carving, bas relief, pecking, intaglio, sculpting, painting, and combinations thereof are anthropic. That they cannot be recognized is both an imagery conveyance problem coupled with the lack of in person experience with the rock finds. The extreme age of the work being thrown into the mix only paves the way further for a difficult situation.
Art from any period or location may not be able to provide a specific date, but it can suggest a range of possible dating as well as speculation concerning provenance or influence.
Thanks for your interest. I believe we have established that we have fundamental agreements and disagreements concerning the presence of middle and later Pleistocene tools with art in the Americas. I will need some time to go through the thousands of rock finds I have to find examples that at least can be seen as anthropic, even by skeptics. The fact that an archaeologist with great tool expertise has identified some of my finds as "provable Pleistocene artifacts" seems to mean nothing to skeptics with no personal time with the rocks. It is difficult to imagine how many hoops one would have to jump through to gain even a shred of acceptance of the validity of the subject assemblage with such folks.
-
circumspice
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Hmmm... You seem to be fixated on 'tools with art'...middle and later Pleistocene tools with art
This puzzles me because the vast majority of tools are utilitarian objects lacking any adornment whatsoever. And it doesn't seem to matter what material they are made from. Most are plain & unadorned.
Yes, there are a few examples of decorated tools in the archaeological record. But they are extremely rare. The older the context, the rarer they are.
The burden of proof lies with you because this hypothesis is yours. Saying "what if?" & "why not?" will not suffice. "What if?" & "why not?" do not support or give proof to your hypothesis. You need to present evidence not conjecture. Trying to link your hypothesis about your rocks to a distant tool assemblage that is unrelated in physical context is ridiculous. Show the proof. Give us the body. Context is everything. Conjecture is nothing.
"Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
Re: Problematic Discoveries
“ The Pleistocene Coalition issued that disclaimer because Rick's finds do not have stratigraphic context which would lend dating and credence to the assemblage. Other than recording the location of surface finds, someone like Rick has to await funding to properly excavate.”
Springhead,
There are other problems , have you seen the iconic examples ?, that is what gets amateurs a bad name ,which is a shame as Rick probably has a good eye ,it’s just the interpretation ,( including seeing Levallois as somehow having been introduced from the “ Old World “ when it is simply a technique used by punters in many parts of the world at different times with no need for diffusion as an explanation for it’s ubiquity ) ,that spoils everything .
“In the case of Topper, is it fanciful to have dug well below clovis and find artifacts that, with tight stratigraphy, date to 50,000 ybp? Is this really impossible? “
When we consider all the problems with Topper , it is highly unlikely
“Though amateurs make most initial discoveries, that they make often incorrect conclusions is simply part of the process that professionals go through as well. The amateur has much more freedom of conjecture than the professional because they are not having to walk the line of the status quo established by their peers. Perhaps this factor allows more imaginative approaches yielding more varied hypotheses which then can be scrutinized via the scientific process. This seems a small price to pay for a longer baseline from which to proceed.”
The far greater number of errors from, amateurs is not only that of interpretation , or more likely over interpretation , but also that of getting the basics wrong , i.e. they are much more likely to mistake natural markings for what they believe are man made engravings , or geofacts for artefacts , or think that a monument is aligned on a marker at some auspicious date in the calendar ,when it isn’t etc .
“Carving, bas relief, pecking, intaglio, sculpting, painting, and combinations thereof are anthropic. “ Only when they actually are , saying doesn’t make them so .
“ That they cannot be recognized is both an imagery conveyance problem coupled with the lack of in person experience with the rock finds. “
Can we clear this up ? Are you saying that your images do not show what you see ? Or ,can you see any of what you believe to be present in any of the images ?
“The extreme age of the work being thrown into the mix only paves the way further for a difficult situation.”
You and Jack don’t know the age of the putative tools or art .
“Art from any period or location may not be able to provide a specific date, but it can suggest a range of possible dating as well as speculation concerning provenance or influence.” Depending on the source of the material it is possible to suggest likely dates e.g. in the Americas there is no art older than the Holocene so it doesn’t make sense to attribute anything older than without very good evidence . Bedanrik’s comments on this “It follows from this review of the empirical evidence that there is currently no credible evidence of Pleistocene (or Mesozoic) rock art in North America. Even plausible datings from the early Holocene are surprisingly rare. Despite many endeavours to find early material, all claims of this nature appear to be unsubstantiated.”
The fact that an archaeologist with great tool expertise has identified some of my finds as "provable Pleistocene artifacts" seems to mean nothing to skeptics with no personal time with the rocks.”
Some peoples ideas re. “provable “ are different from others . I would like to see the proof . Maybe getting the opinion of an archaeologist who won’t tell you what you want to hear and without an agenda might be helpful
Springhead,
There are other problems , have you seen the iconic examples ?, that is what gets amateurs a bad name ,which is a shame as Rick probably has a good eye ,it’s just the interpretation ,( including seeing Levallois as somehow having been introduced from the “ Old World “ when it is simply a technique used by punters in many parts of the world at different times with no need for diffusion as an explanation for it’s ubiquity ) ,that spoils everything .
“In the case of Topper, is it fanciful to have dug well below clovis and find artifacts that, with tight stratigraphy, date to 50,000 ybp? Is this really impossible? “
When we consider all the problems with Topper , it is highly unlikely
“Though amateurs make most initial discoveries, that they make often incorrect conclusions is simply part of the process that professionals go through as well. The amateur has much more freedom of conjecture than the professional because they are not having to walk the line of the status quo established by their peers. Perhaps this factor allows more imaginative approaches yielding more varied hypotheses which then can be scrutinized via the scientific process. This seems a small price to pay for a longer baseline from which to proceed.”
The far greater number of errors from, amateurs is not only that of interpretation , or more likely over interpretation , but also that of getting the basics wrong , i.e. they are much more likely to mistake natural markings for what they believe are man made engravings , or geofacts for artefacts , or think that a monument is aligned on a marker at some auspicious date in the calendar ,when it isn’t etc .
“Carving, bas relief, pecking, intaglio, sculpting, painting, and combinations thereof are anthropic. “ Only when they actually are , saying doesn’t make them so .
“ That they cannot be recognized is both an imagery conveyance problem coupled with the lack of in person experience with the rock finds. “
Can we clear this up ? Are you saying that your images do not show what you see ? Or ,can you see any of what you believe to be present in any of the images ?
“The extreme age of the work being thrown into the mix only paves the way further for a difficult situation.”
You and Jack don’t know the age of the putative tools or art .
“Art from any period or location may not be able to provide a specific date, but it can suggest a range of possible dating as well as speculation concerning provenance or influence.” Depending on the source of the material it is possible to suggest likely dates e.g. in the Americas there is no art older than the Holocene so it doesn’t make sense to attribute anything older than without very good evidence . Bedanrik’s comments on this “It follows from this review of the empirical evidence that there is currently no credible evidence of Pleistocene (or Mesozoic) rock art in North America. Even plausible datings from the early Holocene are surprisingly rare. Despite many endeavours to find early material, all claims of this nature appear to be unsubstantiated.”
The fact that an archaeologist with great tool expertise has identified some of my finds as "provable Pleistocene artifacts" seems to mean nothing to skeptics with no personal time with the rocks.”
Some peoples ideas re. “provable “ are different from others . I would like to see the proof . Maybe getting the opinion of an archaeologist who won’t tell you what you want to hear and without an agenda might be helpful
-
uniface
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Always with you the pose of casual, easy superiority -- the pose of the fop in all ages.
Enjoy your preening. And your imaginary admirers.
Rick's knowledge of Levallois technology exceeds yours (assuming you have any at all, which is dubious. Actual knowledge is not considered essential in such undertakings as yours) by several orders of magnitude. Focus intently on one objective long enough, buy the reference works, digest them, ask questions of experts, and such is indeed possible.
You want to reduce Levallois to a free-floating abstraction. But it is not one. It is an interrelated set of concrete facts -- realities. I pointed this out before but you seem to have missed it in the scramble to know more and better. Elements of Levallois -- specific procedures -- underlie later technologies (Clovis in particular). But as a pure, stand-alone lithic reduction system, it is specific to antiquity in Europe, Africa and Asia. That being the case, the supposition of similar age here is one you have to overcome -- not one he has to "prove" to anyone's satisfaction. Least of all, yours.
He has given anyone interested one end of a thread which, if followed and wound up as he goes, leads to the answer once and for all. Smirking about it not being completed yet is fatuous. You have no final answer, and no advice to offer that wouldn't be self-evident to a ten year old.
Enjoy your preening. And your imaginary admirers.
Rick's knowledge of Levallois technology exceeds yours (assuming you have any at all, which is dubious. Actual knowledge is not considered essential in such undertakings as yours) by several orders of magnitude. Focus intently on one objective long enough, buy the reference works, digest them, ask questions of experts, and such is indeed possible.
You want to reduce Levallois to a free-floating abstraction. But it is not one. It is an interrelated set of concrete facts -- realities. I pointed this out before but you seem to have missed it in the scramble to know more and better. Elements of Levallois -- specific procedures -- underlie later technologies (Clovis in particular). But as a pure, stand-alone lithic reduction system, it is specific to antiquity in Europe, Africa and Asia. That being the case, the supposition of similar age here is one you have to overcome -- not one he has to "prove" to anyone's satisfaction. Least of all, yours.
He has given anyone interested one end of a thread which, if followed and wound up as he goes, leads to the answer once and for all. Smirking about it not being completed yet is fatuous. You have no final answer, and no advice to offer that wouldn't be self-evident to a ten year old.
Re: Problematic Discoveries
As always with you the pose of the gormeless buffoon .The idiot of all ages .
When this was pointed out “Look at Clovis blades they are pure levallois technology .” You responded with “ With this we have reached the outermost limit of imbicility. “
Now it has become “. Elements of Levallois -- specific procedures -- underlie later technologies (Clovis in particular).”
Make your mind up . Have you been reading the SOTT version of Levallois ?
At the most basic level you are entirely ignorant of the “ Levallois problem “ .
“But as a pure, stand-alone lithic reduction system, it is specific to antiquity in Europe, Africa and Asia. “ .
You mean most of the “ old world “ and over a huge time span . It is a simple technology that punters with a bit more nous than homo erectus developed ,the only dating that it provides when without context is that it is almost certainly younger than approx 400,000 BP .
You didn’t read or understand “See ournal.lithics.org/index.php/lithics/article/viewFile/406/387 For British examples of similar technology from 10,000BP or nearer to home (for you) and even later i.e. 4000 BP on the Columbia plateau see Muto, Guy Roger 1976 “The Cascade Technique: An Examination of a Levallois-like Reduction System in Early Snake River Prehistory. “ Later still look at the Mayan techniques .” These are some of the later dates of the simple technology found in the Europe and the Americas .
“That being the case, the supposition of similar age here is one you have to overcome .”
If you won’t read the content then you can fantasise all you like . Which end of the nearly half million years of the technique do you think might apply to similar American finds . Why even consider the lower end when there is absolutely nothing to support these dates ? .The much later dates are also much closer geographically and far more sensible but that would spoil the great antiquity that you fantasise about , and as always , fail to provide any support for .
When this was pointed out “Look at Clovis blades they are pure levallois technology .” You responded with “ With this we have reached the outermost limit of imbicility. “
Now it has become “. Elements of Levallois -- specific procedures -- underlie later technologies (Clovis in particular).”
Make your mind up . Have you been reading the SOTT version of Levallois ?
At the most basic level you are entirely ignorant of the “ Levallois problem “ .
“But as a pure, stand-alone lithic reduction system, it is specific to antiquity in Europe, Africa and Asia. “ .
You mean most of the “ old world “ and over a huge time span . It is a simple technology that punters with a bit more nous than homo erectus developed ,the only dating that it provides when without context is that it is almost certainly younger than approx 400,000 BP .
You didn’t read or understand “See ournal.lithics.org/index.php/lithics/article/viewFile/406/387 For British examples of similar technology from 10,000BP or nearer to home (for you) and even later i.e. 4000 BP on the Columbia plateau see Muto, Guy Roger 1976 “The Cascade Technique: An Examination of a Levallois-like Reduction System in Early Snake River Prehistory. “ Later still look at the Mayan techniques .” These are some of the later dates of the simple technology found in the Europe and the Americas .
“That being the case, the supposition of similar age here is one you have to overcome .”
If you won’t read the content then you can fantasise all you like . Which end of the nearly half million years of the technique do you think might apply to similar American finds . Why even consider the lower end when there is absolutely nothing to support these dates ? .The much later dates are also much closer geographically and far more sensible but that would spoil the great antiquity that you fantasise about , and as always , fail to provide any support for .
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Circumspice,
Thanks for your comments. Here are three images of a tool with art, though some folks may not recognize it as such. This tool has been posted before on this thread with analysis, but an administrator criticized emphasis lines to delineate various subject matter, so I will not include anything like that. Hopefully I can get these to post:
[img
][/img]
[img
][/img]
Well, I could only get two of the three to post. The top image has subtle profiles of human faces as well as a front on image of what looks like a baby with a beard that encompasses the entire rock face. There are also many micro images on the rock that are apparently painted which may be difficult to characterize to anyone unfamiliar with this scale of representation.
The lower image is the reverse side of the upper image in a similar vertical attitude. Viewed from more afar, this tool has a human face image to encompass the entire rock face. The entire left side profile of the rock is another human face. The forehead of that profile delineates yet another human profile. The top portion of the rock shows another human profile looking up and to the right. Additionally, and as with the other rock image, much micro imagery is present, but the age/wear of the rock make the subject matter of these images difficult to discern.
Profiles in these tools are typical, for instance, of human profiles and three quarters views seen on middle Pleistocene hand axes from Africa, to mention one comparison. I am not claiming a date here, simply that comparative subject matter and technique does exist that suggests influence despite great geographical separation of the finds.
My "fixation" with art on tools is rather my bearing witness to all tool finds from the mountain site having art incorporated into them with painting and carving. This reality may be rare with accepted examples in the archaeological record, but is quite common in this assemblage, being the rule rather than the exception. That it is not recognized is the impetus behind this thread.......to open folks to the idea that there is a vast, unrecognized assemblage in North America that at least bears consideration as opposed to outright rejection.
That I have found literally thousands of examples of these type rocks on the mountain site gives enough locational context, in my opinion and despite lack of stratigraphic context, to warrant serious further investigation. I do not think it "ridiculous" to cite other physical locations of similar technique finds. One who finds Roman artifacts far from Rome may cite the Roman motherland artifacts to characterize these finds. Other than the fact that my work is preliminary and therefore undated, what is the transgression?
I appreciate your interest here and respect your skepticism.
Thanks for your comments. Here are three images of a tool with art, though some folks may not recognize it as such. This tool has been posted before on this thread with analysis, but an administrator criticized emphasis lines to delineate various subject matter, so I will not include anything like that. Hopefully I can get these to post:
[img
][/img][img
][/img]Well, I could only get two of the three to post. The top image has subtle profiles of human faces as well as a front on image of what looks like a baby with a beard that encompasses the entire rock face. There are also many micro images on the rock that are apparently painted which may be difficult to characterize to anyone unfamiliar with this scale of representation.
The lower image is the reverse side of the upper image in a similar vertical attitude. Viewed from more afar, this tool has a human face image to encompass the entire rock face. The entire left side profile of the rock is another human face. The forehead of that profile delineates yet another human profile. The top portion of the rock shows another human profile looking up and to the right. Additionally, and as with the other rock image, much micro imagery is present, but the age/wear of the rock make the subject matter of these images difficult to discern.
Profiles in these tools are typical, for instance, of human profiles and three quarters views seen on middle Pleistocene hand axes from Africa, to mention one comparison. I am not claiming a date here, simply that comparative subject matter and technique does exist that suggests influence despite great geographical separation of the finds.
My "fixation" with art on tools is rather my bearing witness to all tool finds from the mountain site having art incorporated into them with painting and carving. This reality may be rare with accepted examples in the archaeological record, but is quite common in this assemblage, being the rule rather than the exception. That it is not recognized is the impetus behind this thread.......to open folks to the idea that there is a vast, unrecognized assemblage in North America that at least bears consideration as opposed to outright rejection.
That I have found literally thousands of examples of these type rocks on the mountain site gives enough locational context, in my opinion and despite lack of stratigraphic context, to warrant serious further investigation. I do not think it "ridiculous" to cite other physical locations of similar technique finds. One who finds Roman artifacts far from Rome may cite the Roman motherland artifacts to characterize these finds. Other than the fact that my work is preliminary and therefore undated, what is the transgression?
I appreciate your interest here and respect your skepticism.
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: Problematic Discoveries
Tiompan,
Once again, it is a pleasure to contradict your appreciated comments. Perhaps evidence of the levellois technique in various more recent times and varied locations speaks to the great underlying influence of and expediency of levallois as developed in deep antiquity. It has been noted by Rick and others, that levallois is actually a more sophisticated technique than is exhibited in later technologies which could indicate its lasting influence. This "spoils" nothing other than your preconceived notions that limit your conclusions, with all due respect.
Topper is an unfinished story that will have a surprise ending for the ever vocal skeptics. It may behoove those folks to disagree with conditions just in case.
We are all faced with the dilemma of bias, amateur and professional. Projecting belief into theory is part of the human condition, and as E.P. warned me early on in this thread, these things can be an impediment to clear thinking. When we are free from these constraints, if possible, more pure science can ensue. Nonetheless, the imperfect ideas of both groups with the following inevitable squabbles is still pushing us forward, albeit in an often painful fashion.
Anthropic evidence on rocks being promoted is no less valid than outright denial of such.
I am able to see the subject matter and techniques I have been describing in looking at the stones and in the imagery I have produced. Others may have great difficulty with this due to unfamiliarity and age/wear problems. I am seeing such repetitive form and subject matter in hundreds of examples to have gained some insight into the culture of the assemblage,
a point you have taken exception to. As with study of anything, time spent with the subject elicits better understandings that add to potential future question solving, including totally off base ideas that may become the "why nots" of the investigation.
I am not trying to avoid the difficulties of understanding this assemblage. That dates have not been established is, as I have previously mentioned, in deference to the scientific process. Dating will follow excavation and stratigraphic analysis.
Bednarik uses conditional phraseology ("appear to be") as he cannot rule out the possibility of Pleistocene rock art. Do we now have in hand that which has been deemed unlikely?
I invited Jack to my site to view what I thought to be paleoindian material. I had no Pleistocene agenda and was confronted with his expert opinion. When he pointed out the salient features of the nature of Pleistocene tools and art, I was able to see in front of me exactly what he was referring to. Later and with time, I developed my own observations concerning the subject matter in the rocks, a process that continues.
I would like to get the opinion of another archaeologist, but where can I find someone educated in a subject that is not believed by mainstream professionals? Open mindedness can be a danger to careers, a common occurrence.
Once again, it is a pleasure to contradict your appreciated comments. Perhaps evidence of the levellois technique in various more recent times and varied locations speaks to the great underlying influence of and expediency of levallois as developed in deep antiquity. It has been noted by Rick and others, that levallois is actually a more sophisticated technique than is exhibited in later technologies which could indicate its lasting influence. This "spoils" nothing other than your preconceived notions that limit your conclusions, with all due respect.
Topper is an unfinished story that will have a surprise ending for the ever vocal skeptics. It may behoove those folks to disagree with conditions just in case.
We are all faced with the dilemma of bias, amateur and professional. Projecting belief into theory is part of the human condition, and as E.P. warned me early on in this thread, these things can be an impediment to clear thinking. When we are free from these constraints, if possible, more pure science can ensue. Nonetheless, the imperfect ideas of both groups with the following inevitable squabbles is still pushing us forward, albeit in an often painful fashion.
Anthropic evidence on rocks being promoted is no less valid than outright denial of such.
I am able to see the subject matter and techniques I have been describing in looking at the stones and in the imagery I have produced. Others may have great difficulty with this due to unfamiliarity and age/wear problems. I am seeing such repetitive form and subject matter in hundreds of examples to have gained some insight into the culture of the assemblage,
a point you have taken exception to. As with study of anything, time spent with the subject elicits better understandings that add to potential future question solving, including totally off base ideas that may become the "why nots" of the investigation.
I am not trying to avoid the difficulties of understanding this assemblage. That dates have not been established is, as I have previously mentioned, in deference to the scientific process. Dating will follow excavation and stratigraphic analysis.
Bednarik uses conditional phraseology ("appear to be") as he cannot rule out the possibility of Pleistocene rock art. Do we now have in hand that which has been deemed unlikely?
I invited Jack to my site to view what I thought to be paleoindian material. I had no Pleistocene agenda and was confronted with his expert opinion. When he pointed out the salient features of the nature of Pleistocene tools and art, I was able to see in front of me exactly what he was referring to. Later and with time, I developed my own observations concerning the subject matter in the rocks, a process that continues.
I would like to get the opinion of another archaeologist, but where can I find someone educated in a subject that is not believed by mainstream professionals? Open mindedness can be a danger to careers, a common occurrence.