Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

Hi Springhead ,
“ If an unknown culture creates art there may be absolutely no resemblance to the art of other cultures, past and present. “

Style and resemblance to other examples don’t matter , what does , is anthropic involvement ,which is obvious in all but a small number of contentious examples world wide . In your examples of the “art” the only anthropic involvement is your mistaken belief that the natural markings are representations created by others .

“Though the art assemblage and creators are without dating, the fact that associated and actual artifacts with art have been professionally analyzed as Pleistocene, “

The fact that you don’t have a problem accepting that analysis speaks volumes .

“ the assumption that the this art must adhere to later art standards is patently absurd. “

Apart from classic pareidolia your examples don’t adhere to any standards (see the equally mistaken portable rock art blog ,for more examples of the same problem ), including Pleistocene . What is absurd is believing that it is has been man made , the suggestion that they date from the Pleistocene is equally absurd . If you have had only one opinion on the “artefacts ,and their dating , it might be worth getting at least another one . If the original opinion also suggested that the “art” was prehistoric then you should definitely get other sober expert opinions .


“So the winds and rains of time, geologic transformations, and falls and collisions of rocks, etc. made these carvings and paintings on the rocks? “

No you created them in your imagination .
What paintings ? What paint ?

“I am interested in the odds associated with, for example, the many hundreds of human images on the rocks with similar compositional style and appearance (though clothed and manicured differently) being essentially geofacts. “

The odds against them being images from any period are immense . A dump of multiple examples of failed “artwork” on stones from some 19-20th C establishment is incredibly unlikely . Anything earlier even more so , prehistoric is just laughable and Pleistocene has stopped even being funny . They are not even man made , from any period .

[circumspice]

“I am interested in the odds associated with, for example, the many hundreds of human images on the rocks with similar compositional style and appearance (though clothed and manicured differently) being essentially geofacts. “

Hmmm... The imaginary people in the imaginary artwork on your rocks also sport manicures???

Tell me... did they get full acrylic nails or only nail tips??? How about the colors??? Are the manicures solid colors or did they get a French manicure???

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

"Groomed" would have been a better choice of words, but I'm glad you had fun.

[Springhead]

[img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]

Hello,

Here is what looks to be a spear point of some size. The top two images show the thickness and are opposite edges. The lower two images are opposite sides of the artifact. There are art components to this rock as well which will not be discussed at this time. As with many of these associated artifacts, the extreme age and wear from the acidic environment and water action obscures the patterns of chip removal when created. This was found in a spring on the mountain site. The dimensions are four and seven sixteenths inches by two and three sixteenths inches by nine sixteenths of an inch at the thickest part.

[circumspice]

[img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]

Hello,

Here is what looks to be a spear point of some size. The top two images show the thickness and are opposite edges. The lower two images are opposite sides of the artifact. There are art components to this rock as well which will not be discussed at this time. As with many of these associated artifacts, the extreme age and wear from the acidic environment and water action obscures the patterns of chip removal when created. This was found in a spring on the mountain site. The dimensions are four and seven sixteenths inches by two and three sixteenths inches by nine sixteenths of an inch at the thickest part.

So... The pattern of chip removal is obscured by "extreme age & wear"... but the 'artwork' is not equally obscured? SMH... Really?

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

Yes, often with these finds the chipping process by the creators is partially or largely obscured, as noted by Jack Hranicky. The visible art component of this example is defined by the perimeter shape of the artifact which retains its basic original shape. The art component of such examples may be the entire rock form, carving, relief carvings, micro imagery, larger and smaller painted subject matter, and clever multi vantage point changing compositions and subsequent subject matter. Generally, most pieces demonstrate different subject matter when rotated 180 degrees, though a large percentage will exhibit these properties when rotated every 90 degrees. There is still some chipping evidence on this artifact which may be seen on the upper right image of my post near the right side tip. Examples found in less erosive circumstances or manufactured from more resilient material will often show more evidence of creative techniques.

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

My apologies for this late reply to your comments. The repeated compositional and subject matter similarities in the art present on these artifacts defies the designation of geofact both from a statistical point of view and an artistic analysis. It is improbable that forces of nature create intaglio, bas relief, carving, sculpture, and multi color painting representing the many facets of ice age life, both human and animal, and their belief held relationships, however poorly understood as one would expect in an unknown assemblage. There are sufficient examples, widely available, of the markings and shapes created by natural forces upon rock. To think that a chronicle of cultural expressions that can be categorized in recognizable patterns is random defies strait line logic and common sense.

Why I should not accept the analysis of an experienced tool and material culture archaeologist is beyond me. Of course having corroboration, tight context, and further deep analysis would be nice, but as a layman I must acquiesce to the opinion of a professional as my personal skills of analysis are not professional. Until someone legitimately refutes this assemblage, i.e. takes the time to personally be involved rather than knee jerking reactions to what seems improbable to mainstream thought, I would be irresponsible to roll over on this matter.

I have better things to do with my time and imagination to dream up imaginary art creations other than in the creative process to produce my own art. The paint observed but not chemically analyzed appears to be various derivatives of iron oxides to produce ochre tones and perhaps magnesium for the black. I am unsure of the white source material or the blue source, but have recognized repeated uses of all these colors, often in conjunction with carving.

Your conviction that these examples are not man made from any period flies in the face of the lack of investigation on your part through the time and again handling and lens work necessary to have any idea what you are confronted with. What is laughable is your staunch stance from the armchair, and what is not funny now is your fossilized closed mindedness.

However, I do greatly appreciate your comments and their challenge to my ability to keep an open mind.

[circumspice]

@Springhead:

I still don't see any possible way that the marks left from manufacturing a stone tool can be worn off yet the 'artwork' on that same 'tool' can remain clearly recognizable... You state, many times, that your rocks were found in a spring. It would then seem reasonable to expect that any 'paint' would have washed off since water is the universal solvent. It would also be reasonable to expect that any carved 'artwork' would be worn away by the same processes that wore away the flake scars...

You can't have it all ways... I suspect that your spring is a convenient excuse to explain away the lack of flake scars, concoidal fractures & percussion bulb scars by using water wear as an explanation.

But then you haven't really exhibited any reasonable thought processes. You categorically refuse to even entertain the idea that only you are able to see your 'artwork'.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"]
“Why I should not accept the analysis of an experienced tool and material culture archaeologist is beyond me. “
Anyone that tells you that the pics you have shown here have art on them , from any period , knows nothing about man made markings on rocks . Why listen to the opinion you want to hear and avoid anything to the contrary ?


“I have better things to do with my time and imagination to dream up imaginary art creations other than in the creative process to produce my own art. “
That’s probably the same attitude as the people who come up with similar “finds” .
“The paint observed but not chemically analyzed appears to be various derivatives of iron oxides to produce ochre tones and perhaps magnesium for the black.”

The presence of the paint is almost certainly in your imagination , but without reputable professional analysis you will never accept that . I suggest you wait until the analysis before making any further suggestions .


“Your conviction that these examples are not man made from any period flies in the face of the lack of investigation on your part through the time and again handling and lens work necessary to have any idea what you are confronted with.”
You showed us the pics and told us that you could see the “art” in the pics .
In most cases it is clear where you imagine that there are markings , but like the nonsense on the “portable rock art blog “ , it is a case of wishful thinking and pareidolia .
Your conviction that what you see is “ancient art” flies in the face of what is obvious to the vast majority who know about the subject and could see the examples .



“What is laughable is your staunch stance from the armchair, “ . We have no option but to see the examples from our armchairs , you showed us the pics , the same pics that you claim to have “art “, that you can see , in the pics . That is what is laughable . Don’t you think it odd, from the same armchairs , genuine ancient man made markings are perfectly obvious .

“However, I do greatly appreciate your comments and their challenge to my ability to keep an open mind. “ . Don’t bother about having an open or closed mind ,or thinking out of the box and other platitudes , you only have “a” mind ,whether you agree or disagree with someone ,open or shut are useless metaphors .

[Springhead]

[img][/img][img][/img]

Circumspice,

The spring is not an excuse to elude artifact issues but rather a focal point for finding artifacts, which are to be found there and in other springs in great numbers. The above images are of a Pleistocene knife as personally analyzed by Jack Hranicky on site to be "provable Pleistocene." The images are of opposite sides of the artifact. The art components of the top image are worn and difficult to see for many viewers. The lower image is more obvious compositionally as the entire side shows a person looking left in a rather stylish truncated cone shaped hat. Other art compositions are visible in the stone's interior and portions of its perimeter. but the primary image is the man and hat.

This was surface found at the foot of the mountain (site) about thirty feet from the original bed of the creek that drains this area of the mountains. The artifact was found in a dry situation which has reduced the wear factor so that the creative stone removal techniques are more visible. There does not appear to be any paint on the knife at this time.

If you cannot digest any reasonable thought process from me, then perhaps Jack's forty years of experience in analyzing artifacts is more palpable to you. If not, maybe the proof you require is only served on the platter of mainstream agenda and within the confines of the "understood" under direction of the united effort for coordinated control.

P.S. Interior art composition on lower image, center right: Dog with perked ears, wide eyed looking strait out, neck area showing various very small people, each perked ear showing different faces with other folks represented trailing up toward the right tip of the knife at top.

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I am not avoiding the opinions of others, simply disagreeing with them.

Having no time for dreaming up imaginary creations simply alludes to the fact that this would be a waste of time, which, at my age, would be counter productive.

Yes, the paint component of the art needs chemical analysis to be understood, but it is on many of the artifacts as well as a thick black pitch, often on both sides of the rocks and often utilized in a subtractive removal technique to compose subject matter.

With this assemblage being poorly understood, would it not be pre mature to assume that one might know how the art should look or what subtleties were employed by the creators with respect to composition, realism (or lack thereof), and juxtopposition of subject matter?

I suppose "genuine" art must be accepted by the status quo, and no other art can exist. How sad and limited.

My mind, though perhaps not wired the way yours may be, is quite capable of forming reasonable opinion. No mind is capable of formulating fact, a fleeting and rare product of real world analysis understood only in the context of the presently "known" but soon enough to change reality we are confronted with.

[Tiompan]

[quote="Springhead"] “I am not avoiding the opinions of others, simply disagreeing with them.”
By your own admission you have no expertise ,and you have avoided any opinion other than the one you want to hear .

“Yes, the paint component of the art needs chemical analysis to be understood “
It’s only your belief that it is paint ,why not await the results before commenting ?

I suppose "genuine" art must be accepted by the status quo, and no other art can exist. “
Genuine man ,made ,markings are found all the time , here is a recent example http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/sit ... haidh.html
they can be seen quite clearly and recognised from an armchair .
Your pics and the “portable rock art blog “ stuff do not fit into this category ,they are simply not man made .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

I enjoyed your images of the rock art and the wonderful setting. What is the rough location, if you don't mind my asking? I think the problem with recognizing the rock art in my thread may be, in large part, the problem of scale, that is it being diminutive in nature. I will risk (ridicule) including an image of an approximately three ton carved boulder from my mountain site depicting a seated mammoth. I had viewed this boulder for many years as it is near my access road and amidst a terrace complex on the side of a knoll whose pinnacle aligns perfectly with the winter solstice sunset with the vector pointed through a visual cleft between two mountains adjacent to my place. I have checked this alignment mathematically as well as in situ at the solstice date.

There are many more carved boulders with art on the property, but I have only recently begun to investigate them. The subject seated mammoth boulder composition requires study as it does not immediately jump out to the awareness of the viewer, much like the small scale art. The boulder shows the mammoth in profile looking right with its posterior bottom left center in the image. The ear is located in the image center three quarters of the way up, the skull dome is top right center, and the trunk arcs down right center. The niche formed with another smaller boulder to the right is not understood but appears intentional.

There are numerous art compositions on the boulder depicting various animals and people, but the obvious primary image is the seated mammoth. This is not the only carved mammoth boulder on the mountain, but is the largest found to date. Perhaps this subject matter is discernible to you. It should be based on your fine example from the British Isles, I assume.

[circumspice]

@Springhead: You're deliberately ignoring the fact that no-one commenting on this thread is able to 'see' what you claim to see. You also chose to ignore the conflicting state of preservation of your rocks... Too old & worn to exhibit the diagnostic marks yet remarkably the 'artwork' is preserved for your viewing pleasure... Paint? Sure! Carvings? Absolutely! Alongside that is the lack of context. You cite the deus ex machina factor of water finds & scattered surface finds, no stinkin' actual, real archaeological work needs to be done... All that is needed is a belief that you are a credible person & could never be mistaken in your findings...

Why isn't the archaeological/paleoanthropological world camped out on your doorstep begging for permission to work on your amazing 'sites'?

p.s. You denigrate our armchair rejection of your rocks... yet that is the way the material is presented to us. If we had accepted the presentation of your rocks from our armchair vantage point you would be touting our acceptance/approval from the roof tops. I said it before & I'll say it again... You can't have it all ways...

[Minimalist]

Thanks for putting the pennies in for some scale. That helps.

Although I still can't see anything that looks like artwork.