Problematic Discoveries

[E.P. Grondine]

springhead -

Dealing with your extreme case of CONFIRMATION BIAS is delaying board participants from viewing
my and Fletcher Wilson's important and significant new video on Adena Monoliths:

https://youtu.be/yOmmepPWDRI

[circumspice]

EP...

It's extremely rude to hijack another member's thread.

Your link has no bearing on the original post whatsoever.

Shame on you.

[Springhead]

[img][/img]

This is an image of one of my finds, a rock about three and a half inches tall. The focus is a bit off for zooming in to in to investigate details, but I think the image will help to clarify the art nature of this assemblage. When I met with Jack Hranicky on the mountain site, he impressed on me that the makers of Pleistocene artifacts incorporated art into their work. Jack was not referring to micro art that I have spoken of, but, as is the case with the above image, the overall composition of the pieces. The most obvious representation made might be referred to as the primary image, in the above image that being a bearded man, so defined by the entire rock side. Jack told me he did not know what to make of the micro art as he has trouble seeing it, and when I mentioned it to him that's what he said. His focus is the overall art component found in artifacts from the mountain site and many other sites in the southeast separate from the seven sites I am working with.

Though the image shown here has micro art as well as multiple overall subject matter, what Jack was showing me was how to key in on these rocks. "Look for the art" is what he said. Well, I did and was extremely surprised at what I was finding. Most people cannot see the micro art and many of the larger compositions. Al Goodyear said he couldn't see the art when it was pointed out to him on the purported 50,000 ybp artifacts from the Topper Site.

So the micro art is my observation, but certainly not mine alone as many people have seen and written about such in comparable rocks. I am quite sure about my observations or I would not be so persistent, much to the dismay of some members of this board. I believe I could demonstrate the existence of the micro images with cutting edge imaging equipment. Convincing people about the existence of the assemblage and its legitimacy is a tall enough task in itself, such being the case with anything previously unknown. Of course these type artifacts have been found and recognized as such in Europe since the 1850's.

Jack is an extremely busy man and does not want to spend all his time arguing with folks about this assemblage. New sites are being brought to his attention and he is driving to them to investigate. He is working on publishing his analyses of these sites and their Pleistocene Art which combined with all the running around, his time is sucked away. He has certainly come up against skepticism, but he plows through it to get site work and analysis done. I have been careful not to opine for Jack and have stuck with not ingratiating my ideas with his approval except to state the facts of what has transpired between us. I will continue that course.

So, yes, connect art and Pleistocene on the same rocks, it's the basic nature of the assemblage.

[Springhead]

Hello E.P.,

I assure you that I have no intention in hindering anyone's access to your work, in this case your video which I had previously viewed and found very interesting. Despite the various labels I have accumulated here, I do have the right to state my case as I see fit as long as I am not injuring others in their pursuits. I regret that you feel violated and have disdain for my ideas.

[circumspice]

Ah, I see. You're empowered to speak for Jack... (I wonder if Jack knows that?)

If your rocks & the images they purportedly contain are so earth shaking & ground breaking why is it that the entire archaeological & paleoanthropological community is NOT working on one or more of your 7 sites??? Are you going to claim the easy cop out of 'suppression' of your 'discoveries'?

Everything you say, all your claims are just a bit out of kilter. Where's the reality?

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

Prior to any mention of Jack on this thread I called him and asked his permission to use his name if OK with him. He had no problem with that whatsoever. The "reality" is on my back porch and in spring branches, on the ground, and in the ground. What's to suppress? This assemblage is unknown and no one is knocking at my door to know what it might be. I am not empowered to do jack, this is about understanding, not bravado.

[Tiompan]

Of course these type artifacts have been found and recognized as such in Europe since the 1850's.

Can you provide an example of anything from Europe that that has been provenaced and has similarities to any of your putative "art" ?

[Minimalist]

I have to say that this just looks like a rock with some interesting and varied colors on it. But I fully admit that I have virtually no eye for art at all. Music is my thing.

[Springhead]

Hello Min,

When I look at this entire side of the rock without zooming in (the focus could be better) I see a smiling bearded man in profile looking right, another bearded man looking left, and various other semi hidden faces and figures, as is typical in these rocks (in my opinion). The eye of Mr. Smiley appears to be carved and is triangular with the apex up. The nose of the fellow looking left is the ear of the smiling guy and is mid stone on the left edge. If this rock is turned 180 degrees there are other profiled individuals represented. In the present attitude there are at least ten other visible animals and people, but they are difficult to see. I think this rock was carved and painted to exhibit the subject matter.

In my experience, and having an art background, it took me a long time to see the subject matter on the rocks. They sit on my porch and all over the yard, etc., and simply sitting down and studying them every chance I could get finally allowed me to start to see the art. Most folks can't see this stuff, and who has the time to put in to "get it?"

I should ask you to recommend some soothing music to assuage my frustrations with trying to demonstrate what these unusual rocks show.

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I will try to do this. The "mask" is one that comes to mind, but I will need to access a good image. Many European artifacts will have context for the tool form, but the art may be unrecognized. I will look through Mousterian images to see if I can find a good similar example that I can compare to an image I have on hand.

[Minimalist]

Mozart - Piano sonatas.

https://youtu.be/1vDxlnJVvW8

[Springhead]

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

The bottom image is the host stone for the three detail images above it. The details would be described as micro art. The host stone is absolutely covered with subject matter on both sides. One representation is center host stone and shows a hatted man looking left among other things. The details and further subject matter are up for grabs. The host stone is exotic to the mountain site and is imported limestone. The suspected source is about four miles away in a Shenandoah Valley limestone cave on the water course that runs by the mountain site.

[Springhead]

Hi Min,

Thanks for the suggestion and link. I am sure to enjoy.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"

So the micro art is my observation... I believe I could demonstrate the existence of the micro images with cutting edge imaging equipment. "

Cutting edge equipment was never required for us to see genuine rock art . We can see what you believe to be the art but it is nothing like the real thing .

"Convincing people about the existence of the assemblage and its legitimacy is a tall enough task in itself, such being the case with anything previously unknown."

Totally untrue . Even when limiting the commnet to rock art , it has been recognised for what it is ,even with poor pics ,since they were first seen .There may be disagreements about dating and most certainly interpretation but not the fact that it is present .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I would contend that there is no "real thing" in the world of art. If an unknown culture creates art there may be absolutely no resemblance to the art of other cultures, past and present. Our expectations of what pre historic art should be are off base if we are expecting it to adhere to standards non ordinary to an unknown culture. Also, anticipating what art a culture might create relative to the appearance of the art of younger cultures chronologically have created is putting the cart before the horse. Though the art assemblage and creators are without dating, the fact that associated and actual artifacts with art have been professionally analyzed as Pleistocene, then the assumption that the this art must adhere to later art standards is patently absurd.

So the winds and rains of time, geologic transformations, and falls and collisions of rocks, etc. made these carvings and paintings on the rocks? I am interested in the odds associated with, for example, the many hundreds of human images on the rocks with similar compositional style and appearance (though clothed and manicured differently) being essentially geofacts. I think the Powerball odds would be inviting relative to the geofact odds.

Thanks again for your thoughts.