Lower Palaeolithic Art in Britain?

AD · Post by AD » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:29 pm

Well... To me, that nice stone looks very much like Pictish handiwork, common in eastern Scotland. The animal imagery and the classic sideways "Z bar" are typical of this. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Fortunately, the Covenanters (Scottish equivalent of Taliban) did not destroy all of these.

Alan

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:10 am

Possibly on the subject of hybridization....

Note how this blue beach pebble sculpture shows a "modern" at one end

and a "flat head" (neandatheral) from a different angle..

not by any means a unique phenomena with Palaeolithic art.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:21 am

its not that unique a phenomenan for rocks either
i found one once that looked like Bruce Forsyth
Simulacra are quite common in nature
Vegetables often resemble people too
well, bits of people
we used to have a program in the U.K. called thats life, where each week people would send their phallic shaped vegetables in to be broadcast live to the nation
none of them were carved either

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:38 am

marduk wrote:its not that unique a phenomenan for rocks either
i found one once that looked like Bruce Forsyth
Simulacra are quite common in nature
Vegetables often resemble people too
well, bits of people
we used to have a program in the U.K. called thats life, where each week people would send their phallic shaped vegetables in to be broadcast live to the nation
none of them were carved either

I agree there are many instance of simulacra in nature however the item shown above can be proven to be worked and exhibits multi-tiered symmetry something seen very rarely in nature.

Taken in context with the other finds - also showing multi-tiered symmetry - and it becomes statistically very unlikely that each and every piece is coincidental.

Unless of course the Tan-Tan and Berekhat Ram were the only two pieces of art made in the space of +1 million years

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:07 pm

Unless of course the Tan-Tan and Berekhat Ram were the only two pieces of art made in the space of +1 million years

The Tan Tan and the Berekhat Ram figures are clearly worked anthropomorphic scultptures
the example you just posted is a rock
Its clearly an example of simulacra
from any other angle it looks like a rock
its only when its held a certain way it resembles anything at all
the Tan Tan and the B Ram are recognisable from every direction
personally I can see the face in the first picture but can see nothing at all in the second
i can only presume therefore that your eyes are doing something that mine can't

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:10 pm

The Tan Tan and the Berekhat Ram figures are clearly worked anthropomorphic scultptures the example you just posted is a rock

The Berekat Ram

- looks like a lump of rock to me from this angle

We're back to that issue of subjectivity... IMHO neither of these items (the Tan Tan and Berekhat Ram) are particularly clear..

personally I can see the face in the first picture but can see nothing at all in the second
i can only presume therefore that your eyes are doing something that mine can't

perhaps I assumed too much sorry..

Its clearly an example of simulacra
from any other angle it looks like a rock
its only when its held a certain way it resembles anything at all

try this angle.. (and also rotate 180 degrees to see another)

and note the shape of an embryo carved from the middle too... (seems to be a bit of a theme going on here

)

or this angle...

or this angle..

(hint - try using the dot as an eye - profile to left)

including the original which was tentatively "accepted" that's SIX angles now

if you need a hand with your Rorschach test let me know

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:23 pm

please don't take what I'm saying as criticism
but the best picture I've seen so far was the one with the yellow outline
I have excellent vision and qualified as an army sniper at my first attempt
this means I can make out lots of detail at a great distance
but when it comes to things right in front of my face it seems to be lacking when it comes to rocks such as these
The Tan Tan figure apart from its Red Ochre seems to be an entirely natural formation selected for its natural simulacra shape
the Venus of Berekhat has been proven to contain three deliberately carved grooves

so what evidence is there on these samples that you are displaying of either unatural colouration of deliberate carving
If theres none what evidence is there that it was found at a site inhabited by a homo species

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:40 pm

marduk wrote:so what evidence is there on these samples that you are displaying of either unatural colouration of deliberate carving

A few professionals (some with "titles" some without) have given their expertise on this piece... It has been variously described as Mesolithic, Early Palaeolithic and natural (not a view I subscribe to clearly).. other comments include "shows intentionality", "makes my hair stand on end", etc. However, I have yet to interest someone enough to come and look at it.. NIAN were due to come tomorrow but unfortunately have postponed the visit.. I'll happily post the results here either way.

If theres none what evidence is there that it was found at a site inhabited by a homo species

Context. See earlier in the post, burnt flint, charcoal in situ, numerous "standard" lithics...

and my "site" sits just down the stream from the rivers Gade where lithics are positively dated at 450,000 with some being suspected to be older..

http://www.iceage.org.uk/South%20East/H ... ml#Croxley

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:54 pm

so what evidence is there on these samples that you are displaying of either unatural colouration of deliberate carving

What evidence can you provide that this piece is the result of natural processes?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:07 pm

What evidence can you provide that this piece is the result of natural processes

you want me to prove that rocks are natural ?
that could take some time

In which capacities did you utilize these skills. I've heard there's no athiests in fox holes

woah who said I was an atheist

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:11 pm

you want me to prove that rocks are natural ?
that could take some time

Well, get to work my man. You brought up the issue of falsifying the hypothesis. Falsify away!

And standby, Richard. You'll be required to provide an adequete response.

Sorry about the last blurb...I was yacking with my wife and trying to write...they just don't understand, do they...

Your a crazy mofo...actually, I think I might be comfortable with you in a foxhole.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:49 am

Hey Richard.

Have you ever run across this guy (or girl?):

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20408.jpg

This image is a recurrent theme here. I'll post some more a little later...gotta run.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:54 am

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:02 am

Damn. That's him!!

ROTFL

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:16 am

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg

__________________________________________________