Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
If you believe that lenses would have been used why do you not consider the most obvious explalnation that the examples (if indeed they are genuine from any period ) are more likley to belong to a period when lenses were in use ?

Why mention Neanderthals when there is no evidence for them in the Americas ?

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

It may appear that I am complicating things unnecessarily by mentioning lenses and Neandertals in the same reply, but I am simply going with what I witness in the subject matter of the rocks. I do not know the accepted date of the first use of a lens, and the use of one would appear to be an assumption based on the plausibility of creating a micro image without one. I did choose to mention that some folks have suggested that Neandertals had very acute vision based on skeletal analysis of the skull eye sockets and the possible large percentage of the brain devoted to visual matters. I have seen several examples of what appear to be eyeglasses on individuals carved into rock. I have been unable to capture images of these, and they are currently packed away.

My avoidance of a more modern explanation for lens use could be clarified by expert analysis of the patina on the subject rocks as I suspect they are quite ancient, certainly predating traditional ideas about early lens use. Perhaps the assumption that ancient high technology could not have existed is one to be re examined. With the Neandertal idea, logic demands that this be addressed in the Americas. With Greenland ice core analysis demonstrating radically fast warming at the end of the Younger Dryas, there exists a scenario where destruction of ancient achievements is a possibility. I do not profess to have the answers, but I have plenty of questions.

Thanks again for your comments.

[E.P. Grondine]

Lily,

Thanks again for the suggestions about improving image quality with the suspected artifacts, especially in micro images where I have encountered the daily lives and history of these ancient folks. I may be able to convey this a bit with on hand images, but I have no idea how the clarity will be affected moving through digital landscapes. One fairly sharp image I have shows a composition that is .25 square inches in size, and I hope this will demonstrate my challenge. Much of the art is smaller than this.

Minimalist,

I have been having difficulties with Photobucket. I put in a long uploading session, and when I went back to the site I was unable to log in. Then I started a new account and uploaded the images again. When I went to log on this morning to post images to the board, I could not get logged in again. There is no apparent administrator for the site, so I am a bit frustrated at this point. Any suggestions? I want to give you guys something to chew on.

E.P.G.,

Yes, 501 along the James River would be a great place to corner a mammoth, though I am glad I don't have to do that to get a bite. I have been told of a manmade large fauna funnel trap that is findable in the northern Shenandoah/Blue Ridge area. It would certainly be useful to understand ancient faunal movements in the valley and mountain areas to try to come up with a kill site. I think one kill site has been discovered in SW Virginia around Saltville.

Do you mind me asking the nature and rough location of your work in Virginia?

I may need to use PM's as I progress through my project due to complications mentioned in my initial post.

kbs,

I never realized one could track your work so easily through the xif feature. It's becoming a full time job to cover your tracks in this world, but it's a necessity, especially with sensitive data. Part of me wants to return to pad, pencil, and land line.

Springhead, from what I have seen of your "discoveries", I believe you have a severe case of observational bias.
I can not discuss the locations of the sites of interest to me in Virginia because they are unprotected and would be looted.
I show pictures of them in my talks, but never identify their location - that is all that I can do.
Thew same thing goes for several sites here in Ohio.

I have very skilled people who I work with.
.
Many years ago, I knew the archaeologist who ran the Tundferbird site, up in the North Valley.

Saltivlle is a great site, but there is much modern construction.

As you can read here, I have real time constraints.
I have already suggested to you that you take your "discoveries" to a knap-in; and I really can't do anything other than that for you.
Be sure to let us know what happens after that.



Altogether, I'd rather be on Crete troweling though tsunami deposits, or
diggin up Churh backyards in Cholula.

[circumspice]

Um... Let's see if I got this right...

It is your contention that Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis used lenses & who knows what other tools, to make 'micro carvings' & paintings on surface collected rocks. Right?

Added: In the Americas...

[Tiompan]

" Perhaps the assumption that ancient high technology could not have existed is one to be re examined. "
Perhaps , but only when that technology is discovered and provenanced ,the assumption should not be based on undated , unprovenced markings that are almost certainly natural .


" With the Neandertal idea, logic demands that this be addressed in the Americas. "
No it doesn't , we have multiple finds of neanderthals , their distribution is relatively well known and far more limited than HS .The accuracy of the distribution can only improve i nthe future .
None have ever been found in the Americas ,that doesn't mean that they will never be found , but logic demands that we wait until they are ,before addressing something that looks very unlikley from todays perspective .

[Springhead]

Hello All,

I have computer problems requiring attention. I'll be back ASAP.

[Springhead]

Greetings,

I hope my computer issues have now been put to rest after a frustrating gap in usability.

A few things of interest related to this thread have surfaced. There have been vague rumblings on the internet that the peer reviewed work of Albert Goodyear at Topper concerning the 50,000 ybp dating of artifacts will pass review though skeptics will probably still go the geofact route. If true, this will go a long way toward a rethinking of what happened long ago in North America. This would include the possible presence of Neandertals and/or Neandertal hybrids on this continent and would potentially lead toward an investigation to determine new timelines for extinction (perhaps much later) of these people relative to the European timelines. Above all, maybe folks will start looking for evidence along with analyzing evidence that has been found to date.

An avocational "geo archaeologist" has discovered artifacts with art on both sides (of the stone) in Phoenix, Arizona, one of which has been professionally assessed and directly dated at 38,000 to 40,000 ybp. Though a long way from Topper, this suggests, along with many unsubstantiated finds and the tight work of Goodyear, that there are widespread remains of very ancient cultures on this continent which beg further attention. What all this could mean for Native Americans and their provenances is a big question that, when more ancient culture assessment is done, will have to be addressed.

Circumspice,

I suggested the possible use of lenses as a logical answer to how such small detailing is possible with some of the art I am seeing on finds. I would tend to attribute this to Neandertals or Neadnertal hybrids rather than Homo Erectus because the timelines would be more realistic, though I do think Homo Erectus was here as well. As to "who knows whatever tools" may have been used, I am unsure, but I do not exclude metal tools from the array of possibilities. I have a very worn rock that was painted on, some of the paint having worn off, which shows very fine incised lines within the composition that remind me of pencil sketching often utilized prior to a watercolor being painted. With the crystalline nature of the art stone, perhaps a hard gem tipped stylus was used or a very hard metal tipped stylus. Analysis of such for me is a tall mountain to climb. Thanks for your response, and please excuse my late answer.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"] There have been vague rumblings on the internet that the peer reviewed work of Albert Goodyear at Topper concerning the 50,000 ybp dating of artifacts will pass review though skeptics will probably still go the geofact route. If true, this will go a long way toward a rethinking of what happened long ago in North America. "

Springhead ,
I think I'll wait until publication before commenting . Vague rumblings on the web are best ignored .

"An avocational "geo archaeologist" has discovered artifacts with art on both sides (of the stone) in Phoenix, Arizona, one of which has been professionally assessed and directly dated at 38,000 to 40,000 ybp. "
Do you have a reference for who " professionally assessed " the dating and where we can see their assesment ?

[Minimalist]

I seem to recall this getting a brief mention on the local news..... in between the car crashes and assorted shootings.

http://portablerockart.blogspot.com/

The oldest directly dated artifact in America tested with U-series dating is ca. 38,000 to 40,000 years old and has human and animal images

[Tiompan]

"http://portablerockart.blogspot.com/"

Ahh , what we have is a date for the carbonate . Assuming that is correct it can only tell us the latest possible date for any rock art that is underneath the carbonate .
In a case where the rock art is alongside it can’t possibly date it , i.e. it could have been done yesterday .
In this case the real problem is the suggestion that natural markings are rock art . This web site is just full of junk and no expert in rock art or student with a basic understanding would take it seriously .

[Minimalist]

Of course, if the drawing extends beneath the carbonate that would be something else, wouldn't it?

[Swanz]

"Rock art"? I am sick and tired of this -- totally fed up! I wish people would get things straight in their terminology. The word "art" does not occur in most native languages, and certainly not in the American native languages.

"Art" with its current meaning is a fairly recent modern word, functional in the western world. The word derives from the Latin, and refers to works of man versus works of God. In fact it still has an occasional negative connotation in English, ie.: "artsy", "artifice". The native languages, all that I've studied, and that is over thirty, use the term "rock writing" -- big difference. Writing implies making graphic symbols that have recognized meanings to other people of the culture that did the writing. It may be representational or verbal. The "representational" symbols frequently depict gods or spirits, and are used to bring that god or spirit to the location of the symbol. The "verbal" symbols can tell stories or give geographic directions or descriptions, with great depth. Verbal and representational characters can be combined. The writing is not necessarily language-specific, and can frequently be read by different language speakers, much as with modern Chinese writing.

Anyone who presumes to make assumptions about any epigraphy had better do complete research before blathering about his assumptions. There is entirelytoo much "woo-woo" blather on archaeological and anthropological sites and in literature. Before you shoot your mouthoff about "rock art", you had better read and internalize the research done by true (and beleaguered) students of the subject. I consider works by La Von Martineau - "The Rocks Begin To Speak", and by Dr. Carol Patterson - any of her works with the Ute Indians, as basic, ultra-important knowledge. Read them, or remain a dolt.

I am an avocatonal linguist, speaking seven modern languages reasonably fluently (I've never been punched out because of it), and a trained archaeologist. I have been a student of anthropology for most of my eighty-one years, and count two major antrhopologists among my family; Clyde Kluckhohn, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark. I spent ten years working with Salish tribes, helping them document their cultural recovery efforts, and locating dig sites for them. I am currently searching for rock writing examples from other continents, looking for cognates. Rock writing goes back a long time in pre-history.

Please note that I am complete open to being proven wrong -- I welcome it. But it must be with evidence. Being proven wrong is important for any scientist, because it opens the way for better research.

Ed

[Tiompan]

Rock art as a term is hardly useful , but we are stuck with it . Stone circles are often far from circular but we retain the terminology .

I read the Martineau many years ago ago and was far from impressed .

[Tiompan]

Of course, if the drawing extends beneath the carbonate that would be something else, wouldn't it?

Yes .

If it was shown to do so , then the whatever was under the carbonate would predate the carbonate .

[Springhead]

Hello,

I believe the dating of the mentioned artifact was from the carbonate build up on top of an analyzed worked surface. As Tiompan mentioned, the hominid worked surface could show dating older than the 38,000 to 40,000 ybp date range for the carbonate.

Since I am from the US and speak English, communication via familiar English terms is how I express myself. Rock art is a term that is useful in conveying the nature of the finds I speak of and perhaps of some use in communicating with other English speakers. I have great respect for multi lingual folks and even speaking just two languages, I find the objectivity of the different take to be gratifying.

I also have respect for the study of Native American cultures, both historic and pre historic. Unfortunately, the subject artifact and the artifacts I have spoken of in this thread are very different from traditional Native American artifacts that a plethora of expert professionals search for and study. The difference is so great that most North American trained professionals discount the subject rocks as geofacts and follow their training which is often heavily weighted toward tool analysis to identify the assemblages. The art component of the subject rocks, along with levellois techniques in their shaping, is new to the study of ancient man in North America. There is much resistance to this newly discovered assemblage in NA, but the pesky artifacts are popping up all over the place. Verification is difficult due to the deep antiquity of the time frame, and in my case, the low ph environment many of these are being found in.

There seem to be many folks concerned that I have varying types of bias and paredolia. I would characterize bias as a universal human trait that requires all of us to be aware of that pitfall, but can we really be perfectly unbiased? I, for one, would aspire to that idea, but like the parabola approaching the axis, I do not expect to get there.

As for the rock art analysis, I do not know who performed the work. I as well would like to know simply from the perspective of how much the process cost. I have innumerable finds begging analysis but no funds to do so. Thanks for the feedback.