Archaeologica.org

Uniface,

Please check your PM.

It suffices to refer you to the post before yours, C. Nothing needs added or clarified.

Principles are true across the board. They do not depend on specifics.

If you drop a stone, it falls. No "proof" required.

What passes for "education" in this country is truly frightening if you and Min are examples of it.

uniface wrote:It suffices to refer you to the post before yours, C. Nothing needs added or clarified.

Principles are true across the board. They do not depend on specifics.

If you drop a stone, it falls. No "proof" required.

What passes for "education" in this country is truly frightening if you and Min are examples of it.

Uniface, step it back. I will not warn you again.

Eat shit.

uniface wrote:Eat shit.

What??? Do you find yourself at a loss for words???

uniface wrote:Eat shit.

Say goodbye.

MichelleH wrote:

uniface wrote:Eat shit.

Say goodbye.

Goodbye uni.

He probably sees himself as a martyr with 72 evidence free conspiarcy theories awaiting with nobody around to provide the refutations .

Tiompan wrote:He probably sees himself as a martyr with 72 evidence free conspiracy theories awaiting with nobody around to provide the refutations .

Highly likely.

Addition by subtraction.

[img][/img]

Hello,

After all the carnage I thought a little break was in order. Please bear with the focal problems of this previously posted image. This image represents an actual diameter of perhaps one eighth inch. The white horizontal curved line at the top is the cortex of the one square inch stone chipped off to reveal an interior plane. The material in this plane was then modified to exhibit the subject matter the artist desired.

The subject matter is a (red) full bearded male in three quarter view looking left. On top of his head is the representation of a four legged animal with all fours draped down, the front legs framing either side of the chap's forehead. The chin of the animal rests about mid forehead on the red head. With the age and size of this work of art, it is almost impossible to get the clarity one would prefer, but for working purposes I believe it to be sufficient to simply demonstrate that there are extremely small works of art on these stones that require very careful examination to see. Many of the images are a good bit smaller than this example.

Typical of the assemblage of tools with art and pure art, humans are almost always paired with animals, often on top of the head, or perhaps on the back of the head faced opposing to the human. This juxtopposition of humans and animals is also found in the sculptural compositions. This particular human is no Native American in the present sense, but may be descendant from more original native populations of the North American continent. Pure logic clearly suggests that with various access points, modes of access, and analysis of mammoth, camel, horse etc. movements back and forth across Beringia, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that ancient hominids could have had widespread presence in the Americas.

As with the clovis "certainty," where we did have to dig deeper to find pre clovis, the order of the day might be to really consider the possibility/probability that Homo Erectus and Neandertal were here and thriving. With levallois assemblages popping up in widespread geographic locations, outright denials of ancient hominids here have become fossilized stances that may break off as new discoveries and theories surface. I do not know how the presented assemblage from the mountain site fits into this pattern, but it is certainly highly related. Jack Hranicky and I will be evaluating a limestone cave with art overlooking a river and alluvial bottom system with an attendant mountain stream close by this summer. This is three miles to the WSW from the mountain site and three miles upstream on the river from another limestone cave with art.

Because a few folks here on the board disagree with some of these ideas is not enough reason for me to quit this trail. In fact, much of the arbitrary thought simply strengthens my resolve. I have greatly appreciated many helpful comments, suggestions, and corrections I have received in this thread. Some were lost with the recent carnage and the withdrawal of material from the board. My hope is that open minds will prevail and allow a courteous exchange of ideas.

Hello Springhead ,

I would diasgaree about earlier explalnations , reasons and comments being arbitrary .
As usual I'm not convinced bythe latest image .

Have you ever seen a similar example of prehistoric rock art at that scale ?

Hello Tiompan,

Thanks for your comments. I was not characterizing all my feedback as arbitrary, but that which was spurred me onward. My next sentence was one of appreciation for the responses to include corrections, many of which were yours.

I have seen thousands of these small scale rock art examples in my rocks. I have also seem multitudes of mid and large scale works to include five ton carved boulders. On this forum was an article showing some very small scale carvings that, if I remember correctly, were about 20,000 ybp. I commented on this in my thread. There is a photograph from the news article that shows these with clarity. Other than from my rocks, I have not seen more two dimensional images as small as those I often encounter such as the attached image.

I'll try to find that article in a bit when I have more time. The article is from Feb. 18, 19 about the venus figurines. Check out the carving in the last image and look at the upper back thigh area.

Springhead ,

I was thinking of an example of accepted prehistoric rock art at that scale , rather than a small part of a larger example .

Hi Tiompan,

I am not aware of accepted examples of this scale rock art off the top of my head. This small scale art work is generally incorporated into larger sculptural forms with the mountain site finds and the six other sites I have come upon. Often larger compositions are defined by multiple small subject matters incorporated together to form the greater scale images. This can be seen in both sculptural applications as well as painted, subtractive pitch removal, and carved cortex or manipulated inner mineral layers as may be the technique in the presented image.

This small scale rock art, being so difficult to initially detect, may have more presence than previously recognized in some forms of rock art. It follows that this unusual technique may be unique to the type assemblages I and others are recognizing in North America and Europe. It defies imagination as to how such representations were accomplished, though there are suggestions that Neandertals had extremely acute vision. Also, there are high technology indications in subject matter I have seen that indicate the use of lenses.