Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,

if you could supply pics resembling anything like even the poor quality earlier pics of some of the figurines in books and on the web ,then you would have no problem convincing anyone of at least the fact that they were figurines .
Dating and provenance would be another matter but get to stage one first .

[Springhead]

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

Tiompan,

I have not yet identified a figurine in the sense of the artifacts in the article. The second from the top image is typical of the more two dimensional nature of the portraits and is created on more of a plaque type stone. The top and bottom images are two dimensional or lightly carved relief. The third image down shows some naked ladies done in heavier relief with additional images. I will now be reviewing the stones for actual figurines, but, as seen in these mediocre images, most portraiture is two dimensional in nature. They apparently represent individuals and can show many hairstyles, partially shaved beard and mustache styles, and with the men partially shaved heads with various hair styles.

I will be reviewing finds to try to locate actual figurines. My immediate sense of the more two dimensional nature of the mountain art assemblage may be due to greater antiquity than the articles sculptural examples. I am finding three dimensional animal representations, so it's my guess that three dimensional human sculptures are there, unfound or found but not yet recognized.

There are piles of possible artifacts on the mountain site that have not been analyzed as well as thousands I have here at home which demand repeated analyses depending on what aspect of the pieces might be o importance at the time, i.e. figurines. I would suspect I have some in hand, but it will take time to know that.

I have not forgotten the Spout Run matter, and I will try to find relevant material from the book. I lost all research time this past week and am trying to catch up.

[Springhead]

Lily,

Thanks for the advice on a computer course. I suspect I should have done that long ago. Now I have a clear reason to do so.

[kbs2244]

Unless you are working with fine marble there is a big difference between stone and wood in the amount of detail you can show.

[Springhead]

kbs,

Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I am not following the gist of your post and would appreciate some elaboration. Are you implying that there is great difficulty in expressing detail in various types of stone except fine marble? Please forgive my confusion here.

[Springhead]

Lily,

Thanks for your observation. I posted that image to exemplify a type of portrait stone I am seeing despite its poor quality as the primary subject, a man with a full red beard in three quarter view looking left appears quite realistic and individual. This was taken with the point and shoot on microscope setting which is hit and miss and lacks many pixels.

With thousands of rocks and little storage space, it is quite difficult to retrieve stones to re image them. I simply lack the time and resources it would take to do this presently, but I am working toward that goal. Frankly, I need at least a year of time just to get caught up with finds that lack any analysis.

Yesterday I identified many potential artifacts, a number of which are medium to large size effigies and many tools. These were in a garden setting and had been transported to my home from the mountain twenty years ago for landscaping. Though lacking context, I know approximately where they were located, so they are of some use in gaining overall perspective.

[Springhead]

Lily,

Perhaps someone will find these images of use until better material can be posted. Thanks for the instruction.

[Springhead]

[urlhttp://portablerockart.blogspot.com/][/url]

This is an interesting and relevant article in the March 1 post. I only wish I had access to this demonstrated technology to clarify the subject matter I am seeing in theses stones to the kind folks that remain skeptical. Every crack in their armor is a boon for the understanding of ancient America and the associated artifacts that are being ignored or misunderstood.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
There is little doubt that the pics of the typically angular engravings are not natural or a case of pareidolia .It would be interesting to compare simple digital images of the artefacts .
But they are nothing like the supposedly representational examples you have provided , or what is generally found on that web site .

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

Point well taken. It's the detail and condition of mountain site artifacts that make them difficult to qualify. I feel that technology such as that in the linked article would be extremely useful in simply demonstrating the composition and subject matter seen in the stones. Any debate concerning where it all fits in or does not fit in could then follow. Context, of course, would add invaluable perspective to this inquiry.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
PTM manages to highlight engravings that would ordinarily be invisible to the naked eye . In your examples the naked eye has already seen something without the need for technology .
It is not the presence of the markings that is the problem but whether the markings are natural or not .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I think the presence of the markings has not been verified to the extent that I have recognized them, and others question the possibility. I have identified an ice age culture with representations of aspects of daily life that cover religion, war, hunting, habitation, travel, ice age and interglacial animals, love, family, transportation and beauty, all expressed through art on stone. I was amused by a comment concerning the idea that Brazilian artifacts of great age (i.e. 30,000ybp) were in fact geofacts. It was mentioned that there seems to be a question of how mother nature fashioned these falling off some cliff. I am reminded of that here, as I also wonder how mother nature could have fashioned a portrait done in three or four colors through applied painting as the rock went along its merry way. This does not even address the carving of stone. For these images I see to appear before others to evaluate, there must be good imagery as with the technology in the linked article. Otherwise skepticism will reign. With no personal professional status, no one who is a professional is going to give me the time of day unless they can see this stuff.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,

I think you omitted the imporatnt qualifier i..e "I believe " ,to your comments about identification and period .

Any example that you believe was painted can be tested .

I and others have seen examples of what people believe to be man made engravings (as in the rockartblog you linked to ),it's not a case of technology being required to clarify the markings and it's perfectly clear what they are seeing ,we just don't think that they are man made .

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

Point well taken again. If I omit the "I believe" qualifier again, the assumption can be made that I do, in fact, believe what I am saying. Funding is the problem with testing pigments as it is with imagery. As to the veracity of the subject rocks being artifacts, I believe nothing short of actually handling, examining, and participating in lengthy training sessions with them can actually peel the resistive objections away from skeptics. It is far too easy to simply dismiss the objects because the comfort levels with them are low. It must be remembered that Jack Hranicky, who has been cited repeatedly on this forum prior to my brief time, and who is an expert in pre historic tools and material culture, is a proponent of this art assemblage and is investigating many sites to include the Virginia mountain site this thread references, among others. I would think his presence in this work justifies folks taking time and making effort to illuminate this process of understanding new North American possibilities in archaeology.

On the bright side, it would also give skeptics a voice based in analysis rather than preconceived notions.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
I don't doubt that you believe what you say ,my point was that belief doesn't make something true .
Jack may know about artefacts,I don't know , but his suggestions concerning the putative "alignments" at the site are hugely problematic ,as I have shown .

Judging by the pics I doubt that his recognition of engravings /paintings is much better .
If an expert in Paleolithic engravings /paintings recognised them as such I would still be sceptical but would be more likely to pay more attention .