Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"] As Tiompan mentioned, the hominid worked surface could show dating older than the 38,000 to 40,000 ybp date range for the carbonate."

Sprinhead what I said was "In a case where the rock art is alongside it can’t possibly date it , i.e. it could have been done yesterday ." i.e. the carbonate does not date the rock art and could only do so if the rock art was under the carbonate . That is assuming engravings were genuine ,but if they are not ,which is almost certainly the case with this example , it doesn't really matter .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I think it is premature to discount the rock's artifact status as the professional analysis noted carbonate on top of a human worked surface. I, for now, will go with the professional analysis as those folks saw, handled, studied, and tested the rock. Who would I be to refute such work unless I had professionals who performed the analysis on the same rock and came up with other ideas? Just saying the work is wrong is not enough.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"]Hi Tiompan,

I think it is premature to discount the rock's artifact status as the professional analysis noted carbonate on top of a human worked surface. "

Springhead,

Who was the professional analyst ,and what are their credentials ?


As mentioned earlier I doubt there is any rock art expert or even knoweldegable student who would take the contents of that web site seriously

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I do not know who did the analytic work on the rock, but I will try to find out. The site you so discount was really just the messenger in this case.

[Tiompan]

Hi Tiompan,

I do not know who did the analytic work on the rock, but I will try to find out. The site you so discount was really just the messenger in this case.

Springhead ,

That's the problem , the messages i.e content of that web site are nonsense .

[Swanz]

Sir,

Startling discovery? If you can't give examples of evidence, you shoul keep your onpinions to
yourself until you can publish evidence. If you are tecnknicdally limited, then that is a
problem for you alone. Don't inundate us with B.S. Your unsupported opinions are worthless
and time-wasting.

"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 entirely too much "woo-woo" blather on
archaeological and anthropological sites and in literature. Before you shoot your mouth off
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 Van 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 helping 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.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Swanz"]

"Rock art"? I am sick and tired of this -- totally fed up! I wish people would get things
straight in their terminology."

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 .
Rock writing , is no better than rock art and has it it’s own problems . Art is a modern concept imposed on prehistoric engravings /paintings but it does at least have some common ground with what we find in Lascaux and in other representational and abstract engravings found throughout the world , the same cannot said for writing .



" I consider works by La Van Martineau - "The Rocks Begin
To Speak", and by Dr. Carol Patterson - any of her works with the Ute Indians, as basic,
ultra-important knowledge. "

I read the Martineau many years ago ago and was far from impressed .
He says ,
“ If artistic expression had been the intent ,smooth and accessible surfaces would surely have been used “ . Shouldn’t it be the other way around . If writing was the intent wouldn’t a smooth surface be used ? . This also ignores a general finding in rock art throughout the world ,the surface very often dictates the content of the engravings .That practice is not consistent with writing a specific message but it is for demonstrating the relationship between the surface and the markings of the engraver .

His background in cryptanalysis led him into thinking in terms of there being a meaning to the engravings that could be uncovered by treating the markings as text , hardly a novel approach and one that had failed in the past but would always appear to produce results , everything was predicated on this misconception .

[Minimalist]

The word "art" does not occur in most native languages, and
certainly not in the American native languages.

Okay, but it does occur in English and we are the ones writing about this stuff. One has to call it something.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi schanz -

"Being proven wrong is important for any scientist,
because it opens the way for better research."

In the case of NEO astrometry, the scientists have to be extremely accurate.
I try to hold myself to the same standards for accuracy.
Since my stroke this is extremely difficult.

I now find myself interested in Mixtec hieroglyphic, in particular Mixtec toponyms,
which I believe may be cracked through excavation at Cholula.

I believe that that may provide keys into Huastecan hieroglyphic, related northern scripts,
and some south western petroglyphs.

[Springhead]

[img][/img]

Hello,

Here is an image that is an example of the rock art I am finding. This image, which I will refrain from describing in relation to the subject matter, is from an artifact found on a coastal site in NC. The rock this art is found on is a large (5"x3"x1.5") piece of hiddenite crystal that was surface collected. The artwork (carving) is perhaps a quarter inch in size from a 5"x3" facet of the crystal. There are numerous other images carved into the two major facets of the artifact which are identifiable.

Swanz,

Although your rigid stance on my ideas is obvious, "B.S.,time wasting, and worthless" are strong words to someone you do not know and perhaps would like in another context. No one forced you to read this thread. If I can respect you and your work, then a mannerly response would be welcomed. With no one having seen, handled, and studied these pieces other than a very experienced archaeologist who has written forty books on tools and material culture from the mid Atlantic area, outright rejection is perhaps a pre mature response. Thank you for most of your comments.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
It makes no difference how many books someone has written , if they believe that the examples you have shown are rock art they are as mistaken as yourself .
Again , how many examples of genuine prehistoric rock art can you show us that look anything like your examples ?
Some examples on crystal would be nice too .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

As I have previously stated, Jack Hranicky examined many finds I made and has stated that twenty pieces were provable Pleistocene artifacts. The last two images I have posted are not from that group of twenty. Some of the other images posted have been from the group of twenty.

Many of these finds are comparable to European and Asian artifacts. These artifacts are typified by the combination of tool and art. Am I able to find examples akin to my last two images? The answer is no, I have not had personal access to overseas finds to examine them closely enough to see micro art. I did reference you to a ca. 20,000 ybp piece out of the Archaeologica news that demonstrated micro carving not long ago that is similar to some of what I work with. The detailed photographs were of a figurine with micro carvings on the rear upper thigh area.

In general, mountain site finds have included perforators, scrapers, thumbnail scrapers, gravers, axes, choppers, abraders, celts, and hammerstones, to mention a few. Excluding art considerations, these tools are directly comparable to existing verified artifacts from Europe and Asia. Indications are that the overseas artifacts of this nature do include art.

The Portable Rock Art site online you have commented on is continually referencing the similarities between North American and European, Asian, and African artifacts of the subject nature. Perhaps you should review some of that work rather than dismissing it altogether. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"]Hi Tiompan,

As I have previously stated, Jack Hranicky examined many finds I made and has stated that twenty pieces were provable Pleistocene artifacts. The last two images I have posted are not from that group of twenty. Some of the other images posted have been from the group of twenty. "

Springhead none of the examples you have shown are either rock art or " provable artefacts " .

" Many of these finds are comparable to European and Asian artifacts. "
No , they are not .

" I did reference you to a ca. 20,000 ybp piece out of the Archaeologica news that demonstrated micro carving not long ago that is similar to some of what I work with. "
The examples you provided were nothing like yuur examples . Micro detail from a much larger larger motif /engraving/figurine is not the same as what you have shown .

"The Portable Rock Art site online you have commented on is continually referencing the similarities between North American and European, Asian, and African artifacts of the subject nature.
Perhaps you should review some of that work rather than dismissing it altogether. "

It's not a problem when they reference genuine examples , which I wouldn't dismiss , it's the American non genuine stuff that is the problem .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

Yet another Pleistocene site has emerged recently. There should be a press release this fall. Until then the site will remain undefined. All I can say now is that it is a limestone site in the southeast where artifacts are being found thirty to forty feet below grade. Perhaps this can yield dating if the stratigraphy is tight.

Also, there has been interest by a university in jasper artifacts where the institution has agreed to do a laser analysis of the jasper to date the pieces. I am hoping to have jasper from the mountain site analyzed in this collaboration. I do not yet know the exact type of analysis this entails, only that a laser is part of the process.

Maybe some provenance will be forthcoming.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"]Hi Tiompan,

Yet another Pleistocene site has emerged recently. "

Hi Springhead ,
sounds like yet anpother putative Pleistocene site

"Maybe some provenance will be forthcoming."

Or not , maybe we should wait and see.