Archaeologica.org

Jonb , The main point about children's art was that the lozenge was a common feature the world over and not necessarily within a defined frame .
What is usually shown in books/web etc is only the most obviously ornate and skilled examples of upper paleolithic “art” , the majority are sketchy .
Some examples of similar triangles and lozenges from later periods .

http://www.stonestructures.org/html/manana_island.html
http://www.timelineauctions.com/lot/ind ... ssels/562/
http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/i ... temId=6363
scroll down http://www.odysseyadventures.ca/article ... rticle.htm
scroll down http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/era ... gdales.jsf
scroll down :http://www.carrowkeel.com/sites/boyne/knowth5.html
scroll down http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancients ... hwest.html
Ignore interpretation +scroll down http://www.bluhorizonlines.org/icon/icon4.html
scroll down to catal Hayuk wall
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremyglo ... 3/?view=lg
scroll down http://www.orkneyjar.com/archaeology/ne ... ug1810.htm
2nd pic http://quintessentialruminations.wordpr ... ten-times/

George

There is no commonality, between the ochre pattern and the examples you have shown, apart from there being diagonal lines. On the ochre the lines have no relationship to each other each diagonal is interdependent. The creator of the ochre has not bothered to worry about where it crosses another line. There is no build up of features, that one line is placed and then the next works from that.
Now if you look at the pottery you can see a grid is draw first and then the diagonals are placed within that grid, they are equally spaced very precisely. The pictographs which are the nearest to having a sketchy quality are all about lines crossing you can see they are meant to cross, but in the ochre the pronounced feature is the angle of the line all the lines are set at the same angle, but there is no attempt to space them in relationship to each other.
This is why what is marked on the ochre to me does not fit the category of an image, because to make an image the lines areas and so forth, are created to have a relationship to each other, one line affects the next, this is not evident on the ochre. Now I know there are those who may think well that's just because the people who made it are primitive and could do no better, but the lines around the edge of the ochre are placed perfectly around the edge of the pigment, so we know if the creator of the pattern had thought it important to place the diagonals in relationship to each other at set distances the maker could have done so, so the diagonals being randomly placed tells us something about the object.

The Blombos ochre motifs clearly consist of triangles /lozenges with horizontal lines and that is what is found in the examples . When used as a motif in pottery the likelihood is for a greater consistency in the pattern , that does not mean that the motifs have no commonality , the same would apply to other motifs like spirals , the fact that one medium demands a different level of uniformity should not blind us to the obvious similarity .
They are from different cultures with a huge spread spatially and temporally . Considering that they are not representational we should not expect simulcra .The sketchiness/randomness of the diagonals on the ochre are exactly what is found is found in similar examples from much later periods and from all over the world ,they are not to be found in coffee table books on “ primitive art” any more than the same sketchiness found in children's art , but they are the norm .

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/25/9381/F5.large.jpg

If you look at the above, you will see there are few triangles in the first example, but as I have been saying the diagonals are again at a remarkably similar angle, is this not telling us that the important feature is not the creation of triangles, but the incised lines themselves and the angle of those lines. With my experience of teaching children art, yes I am an artist, I can say your assertions of the way in which children draw falls a little short of the mark. It does not matter what the medium is, there are certain things about the craft of creation that can be read, and that the maker of the fragment was more interested in getting the angle of the lines on that pigment right than creating triangles is evident to this craftsman's eye.

The diagonals are at relatively consistent angles and in opposition to the horizontal and other diagonals produce triangles/lozenges which are typical of engravings found throughout the world and prehistory ,it doesn't matter how accurate or sketchy they may be , the end result is clearly similar , just as other motifs like spirals , zig zags ,concentric circles , are also found through world and prehistory they may differ in depth ,assuredness ,and other superficial qualities but the motifs are clearly recognisable and similar .

The majority of children's art is not created under supervision of an instructor , if you are teaching them then it is likely the results will be influenced by your input .The children's art I have been talking about , and had mentioned from the first post , is that found world wide and collected by likes of Rhoda Kellog who had over half a million drawings in her collection .

If when you look at a pattern and you think that as there is a diagonal in it then it must be an image of triangles, then triangles I take your word for it is what you see.
However when I see a diagonal, I do not assume it to be other than a diagonal, this is because I am trained as an artist to distinguish between what I want to impose on a thing and what is there.

I have to admit there are teachers who wish to teach a particular method of drawing, but for me that is not to understand what creativity is, and the first step is to understand what is there. Thus it would be silly to think there is not a great deal of study that has been undertaken by this practitioner, into human perception and human expression and its development.

So I would like to know how do you know when you see a number of diagonal lines that you know the Artist intended to draw triangles and what are the reasons why triangles were not drawn?

One doesn't have to be a graphic artist to have studied human perception , expression , and it's development .

In the case of rigid patterns like triangles /lozenges motifs found on pottery and in some cases passage grave art there is little doubt that the intention of the artist /engraver was the creation of triangles /lozenges . In many other cases of markings found in prehistory through to contemporary childrens and adult drawings and doodles the intention of creating triangles and lozenges is less obvious and they could equally be a result of a spectrum of mindfull to mindless drawing/engravings , ultimately there is a group of non representational markings found from the the earliest engravings to the present that are found in all cultures and are instantly recognisable as triangles /lozenges ,chevrons , zig zags ,circles , concentric circles , spirals ,crosses ,dots ,parallel lines ,serpentiforms ,arcs etc ,not all are expertly executed and the intention may never be known . The Blombos ochre markings is such an example .

Yes I agree with you you have a category that includes all zigzag patterns made by people and these have been expressed by children. So presumably a tire tread designed to distribute water evenly across the width of the tire fits into this category and is therefore by your definition a picture. As are the crossing patterns produced when weaving the intention of the basket maker, the basket is only a secondary effect of making a zigzag picture with straw.
The problem is the assumptions you insist on because you seem unable to refine your categories and definitions.

It is very simple , from my first post on this thread I have pointed out that the markings on the Blombos ochre are typical of those found in non utilitarian circumstances in prehistory ,from the earliest engravings up to the historic period , at no time did I refer to anything utilitarian as an example of the motif(s).
Not all zig zags , for instance , are utilised as solely a design ,when found in utilitarian circumstances on tyres , rubber extraction , drainage , wine rack etc the design is secondary and is an entirely different category from those found in engravings .

Typical, yes they have diagonal lines, untypical in that the lines are not used to define what is within, or used to decorate, an area that has been defined by other lines. In the second example I posted up in the top stone although there are a few triangles at one end the diagonals are repeated across the length of the surface, so we have to question if the intention is to produce a triangle motif, or that the incisions have another purpose. It seems to me a categorical insistence these marks can only be made for aesthetic reasons, misses the fact that if you wanted to use the object the marks on that pigment, and ochre is a pigment that is precisely the marks you would make.
Therefor I think we should be at least open to the possibility that the ochre marks were made for a use.
There might even be combined reasons for the marks.
Most old china with a handle that is decorated will have paint on the outside of the handle, this can be for aesthetic reasons, but also it is useful, In low light the contrast of the paint draws attention to the handle and aids its use. We might miss this feature because we now live in well lit environments, and there is an aesthetic value to the paint on the handle, but that pain is there for a reason not just that it looks nice..

We live in a design culture that avoids decoration, preferring generally smooth surfaces which are easy to clean, we tend to like our tools to have a 'mechanical' appearance where features have a strong and obvious purpose. So we separate decoration and utility into alternative camps. But that was not always the case, in fact it is a very recent development. Before factories objects had to be crafted, they were thus expensive, so if we had to pay for one we wanted it to be a good one and people would thus have a propensity to choose the decorated object over a purely utilitarian one. As the decoration was used to depict its worth. The ridges on a sword handle would be there to aid the grip, but could also serve an aesthetic.
As such It can be proposed that trying to see an object as either/or is a limitation created by the culture we are in, so we are imposing that view on the object rather than seeing what is there.

You can even turn the argument on its head that as the system of ridges often in a diamond or triangular pattern is so useful for making a griping area on an object and is used almost universally, that painters might use that as a motif on an object or surface that they want people to use or touch.

Engraved or incised , grooves /lines and use of natural cracks and fissures to delimit a group of motifs are also typical features of rock art .

I can't find a link on the web to a pic , but if you can get a book from an art library e.g. “Knowth and the passage tombs of Ireland “ by Geoge Eogan and look at orthostat 54 from the Irish neolithic passage grave at Knowth you will see among many other motifs , three horizontal lines defining a group of triangles and lozenges very similar to the Blombos ochre .

Some comments from earlier posts ,which I believe answer some of the points .
“When the same motif(s) is found on parietal art from the Upper Paleolithic to Bronze Age
and across the world it doesn't negate the possibility of a utilitarian function in this case
but does make it less likely .”

“The same motif(s) are found on other portable objects that would not have the same utilitarian purpose
and it is not a feature of finds of similar shaped ochre .The example had also been rubbed prior to being inscribed . “

“There is no evidence for either the Blombos ochre being used for the purpose Jonb suggests or even that is was used for tanning ,
both suggestions are simply possibilities .If the Blombos examples were tools used for tanning they would not be rubbed on to the animal
skins but prepared by extracting the powder by grinding onto or with a harder stone making any markings superfluous , although it needn't
exclude the ground pieces from being marked .
If it was used as was suggested by Jonb , then is it a worn out , half used or yet to be used example ?
Which ever it may have been as the use of ochre was ubiquitous we would expect to find more examples “

Is the above the example you mean? in which case the lines are carefully placed at equal distances around the diamonds to emphasize the diamonds. That is a difference from the ochre.

Tiompan wrote:If the Blombos examples were tools used for tanning they would not be rubbed on to the animal
skins but prepared by extracting the powder by grinding onto or with a harder stone making any markings superfluous , although it needn't
exclude the ground pieces from being marked .
If it was used as was suggested by Jonb , then is it a worn out , half used or yet to be used example ?
Which ever it may have been as the use of ochre was ubiquitous we would expect to find more examples “

Interesting I have found no reference to the consistency of the ochre in its original condition, if it is that hard that it has to be rubbed against a hard surface to get the grains to be used as a pigment then it has to be incised to get the pigment out just try rubbing two smooth surfaces together, a file is ridged for a reason.
Now I read a long time ago that the ochre was not only smoothed before it was incised, but that the ochre showed signs that old lines had been worn out and new incisions had been made in it. Which would mean that there is a strong possibility it was being used for some task.

What I am objecting to with my speculation is the way the ochre is constantly referred to as an image, there are other strong possibilities. I think it is important to be open to the possibility because in stating categorically it is a image it is in execution a poor example of a motif, and as such fits an agenda that stupid cave men did not know what they were doing. However the same object has the possibility of being used as a tool, and we can see the work on it is exactly the amount you would need to make it practical, as such we are not seeing the work of beings weak in mind, but humans who have the same minds as ourselves capable of manipulating an item so that they can then do another task. Not just people who cannot draw triangles very well.
Now I will say that the stone discarded at the back of a cave is more likely to be the work of somebody learning how to make a thing, rather than that of the finished caftsperson so we would expect to see inexpertly made examples in a cave than we would in a grave say. On the other hand I don't know of any means to divide what is made for an aesthetic or practical purpose, so I am not arguing for an interpretation of the ochre that it has to be as I have speculated, but I am arguing for an open interpretation, which I cannot find in the literature on the subject. It seems to me somebody picked the ochre up they may even have thought that resembles motifs done sixty thousand years later and presumed it is a picture, without ever speculating it could be anything other than that.

No ,the pic looks like a lintel from Fourknocks passage grave . Orthostat 54 at Knowth has three horizontal lines top , bottom and middle which cuts through lozenges to create triangles etc as in the Blombos example .

The motif is poorly executed compared with other more assured examples of engravings .This need not be seen as a criticism we find equally poorly executed examples of the same type of motif throughout prehistory and later . It is an engraving , which doesn't make it “art” any more than “rock art “ or doodles are “art “ and shouldn't necessarily be considered in the same category as the western medieval concept . I don't believe the discoverers view it in terms of a “picture “ either although they do accept that the markings may have had “symbolic intent “ .The ochre was in use and the markings potentially could have been utilitarian but I don't believe they were for reasons already given , ochre is soft , it only needs abrasion with something harder .

This?

Tiompan wrote: ochre is soft , it only needs abrasion with something harder .

No that is not how an abrasive works.
How does chalk leave a mark on a dark soft dress?
Natural ochre, is not universally consistent, some pieces will almost seem to dissolve in water, others can take a good deal of working.

No , that is the basin from the eastern chamber Knowth ,no triangles or lozenges defined by two lines with a central line cutting through the lozenges to form triangles there . I have had a look on the web and can't see any pics .It's an orthostat (no 54 ) i.e. a structural standing stone .

Ochre is soft and can be scraped , ground , pounded , engraved it doesn't need any markings to facilitate any of these .
Abrasion is an oft used term in the connection with ochre e.g. scroll down .http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1922.htm