Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

It’s simply the convention , you didn’t know that . Pointing it out is not a fixation .

Your defensiveness meant that you a missed the other points , i.e. inappropriate impairment and therefore inappropriate choice , it was bad taste joke , but your chip got in the way . Williams making a habit of “borrowing” , it’s the norm ,some might describe it as homage .
The LZ case was great example ,despite a brave attempt by the losing sides musicologist , of the necessity of having a good case ,which they didn’t ,and partly why .
Your’e not roadkill , you just tripped on the pavement and pretended that it was part of a dance and got upset because it was noticed .
I’m not the forum police , although your constant use of caps and lingo suggests that you think you are the forum sergeant major .
I merely pointed out the crack in the pavement as well as some street art .

[circumspice]

I'm not interested in flogging this nonsensical subject.

[Tiompan]

Once you realised that you missed the points due to a chip , and attempted to cover up the problems with the convention , you have avoided the "subject" .
The usual beligerent personalised shouting and images then replaced content .

[circumspice]

I realize that people with your personality type require having the last word. I hereby cede to you the last word. Prattle to your heart's delight Tiompan.

[Tiompan]

I realise that people with your personality type resort to shouting and name calling when they can no longer reasonably respond to problems .

Info and content is not prattle . Prattlling is content free wafflling , just what you are doing .

[Springhead]

[img][/img]

Subject: Mammoth carving on large hiddenite crystal. I was unable to edit this image on photobucket, so it is a bit larger than desirable. The large hiddenite crystal artifact is from a NC coastal site adjacent to an inlet into the Atlantic. Ravages of time not withstanding, the primary subject matter is discernible in the lower two thirds of the image. The Mammoth looks right and the head, right ear, eye location, and trunk are visible.

This is one artifact of many of the nature discussed on this thread, though unique to the coastal site. The use of hiddenite suggests the material source is from a fairly specific area of the NC Blue Ridge. Further linking this to other sites yielding similar subject matter is the use of minerals and crystals as a working material. Collection of minerals and crystals initially led to the discovery that many were artifacts on the mountain site in Virginia. This has played out at numerous other sites.][/img]

The next image is a bit large as well due to editor issues on PB. This image appears earlier on this thread, and the subject matter is interpreted as a praying person in the shown attitude of the artifact. This praying motif has been seen in other pieces found on the mountain site in Virginia, as was this featured find. The crystal is thought to be jasper, and a number of other finds are as well. This and other jasper are candidates for laser analysis for age determination. Interestingly, this praying motif and in particular the hand and arm composition is similar to a middle paleolithic artifact found in Israel.

A good number of the finds from the Virginia mountain site are similar to artifacts found at Calico in California. The artifacts from Calico are dated at 200,000 plus YBP. The Diring site in eastern Siberia worked by Michael Waters of Texas A and M in 1993 yielded artifacts that were dated 250,000 plus YBP. Maybe more answers to who was around and when will surface now that the pre clovis race is on.

[circumspice]

Look what the cat dragged in...

Lovely.

[Minimalist]

All I see are some smudges on a rock.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
There is no recognised "art" from the middle Paleolithic that looks anything like your what is seen on your images .
If you believe that there is , link to an image .
Mentioning the names of putative early sites is not a means of dating any other site .

[Springhead]

Hello Min,

I regret you are unable to see this mammoth. Please only look in the lower half of the frame. The mammoth's head is left center at the top (of the lower frame half), and the end of the trunk is about centered in the bottom of the frame with the animal looking right. The head and trunk extend almost fully down the lower half of the image. As I mentioned, I was unable to crop the image down in Photo Bucket.

Hi Tiompam,

I do understand that site dating is an individual endeavor. The praying motif may be referenced in the OriginsNet.org site of Dr. James Harrod. I am unable to link, so I'll direct you. In the middle paleolithic gallery 3, N and NE sector, c.100,000 to 24,000 BP, Har Karkom, Isreal, #17 artifact, flint. Harrod describes his analysis as "very tentative," but I was struck with the similarity of the arms composition with the subject artifact in my image. My analysis of the praying subject matter was independent of Harrod's, and I was pleased to see tentative support for my interpretation.

There are multitudes of similarities between many other artifacts I have and those shown by Harrod.

[shawomet]

Hello Min,

I regret you are unable to see this mammoth. Please only look in the lower half of the frame. The mammoth's head is left center at the top (of the lower frame half), and the end of the trunk is about centered in the bottom of the frame with the animal looking right. The head and trunk extend almost fully down the lower half of the image. As I mentioned, I was unable to crop the image down in Photo Bucket.

Hi Tiompam,

I do understand that site dating is an individual endeavor. The praying motif may be referenced in the OriginsNet.org site of Dr. James Harrod. I am unable to link, so I'll direct you. In the middle paleolithic gallery 3, N and NE sector, c.100,000 to 24,000 BP, Har Karkom, Isreal, #17 artifact, flint. Harrod describes his analysis as "very tentative," but I was struck with the similarity of the arms composition with the subject artifact in my image. My analysis of the praying subject matter was independent of Harrod's, and I was pleased to see tentative support for my interpretation.

There are multitudes of similarities between many other artifacts I have and those shown by Harrod.

I've been involved with rock art research, to one degree or another, for nearly 40 years. And I've seen many examples of people thinking they see man made images on rock where, in fact, there are no man made images at all. What you are showing is another example of someone making that very same mistake. The image we are seeing is perfectly natural, not rendered by humans at all. Of course, you will dismiss my opinion, and will simply carry on with your insistence that there is indeed a human rendered image of a mammoth on that rock. There is no such thing on that rock. But, you can't help yourself, and will completely ignore an experienced opinion or observation. You're incapable of being mistaken. Which, of course, is an asinine position to take, but we have seen it both here,and on other forums where artifacts and images on stone are presented and discussed. Sad!

And the rock? It's just that. A rock, not an artifact. It's not even a geofact, which is a rock that loosely resembles an artifact. Nope, not an artifact at all. It shows absolutely no sign of having been worked by man. Some artifacts are flaked into shape. Some assume their shape via pecking and grinding. You have absolutely no experience whatsoever recognizing actual human artifacts. And it sure shows! Unfortunately, I have seen this syndrome many, many times on Internet forums. Wherever it appears, the original poster simply prattles on with his/ her delusions, oblivious to the fact that they are delusional. Every. Single. Time.

Here is a genuine image of a mammoth, rendered on bone, and discovered in Florida:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131334.htm

[circumspice]

There's something else to point out about paleolithic artwork... When they depict animals, the rendering is totally naturalistic. It doesn't require a tour guide to point out what you are looking at... The rendering is recognizable even when worn or damaged... The artists were talented observers of the natural world around them & were able to depict the animals accurately.

[Tiompan]

Hi Springhead ,

I didn't see the mention of "very tentative " , but even incredibly tentative would be very optimistic .

[Springhead]

[img][/img]

Hello,

I am sure many would like to see me get the boot (see artifact micro image above), but in my very limited time I will continue to post despite resistance to this line of reasoning.

Shawomet,

I respect the depth and longevity of your rock art studies. In no way am I challenging your perceptions of what is art. Perhaps, however, the rock art I describe is poorly known or understood. I as well have spent a life observing objects of antiquity. One learns with experience to trust their intuition and practical experiences. Your abrupt dismissal of the mammoth composition on the hiddenite crystal belies the openmindedness I am sure you exercise when confronting unusual or new material. The idea that I cannot help myself and am delusional in my interpretations may be out of your realm of expertise and better left to professionals in the study of psychology.

The Florida found mammoth art incised into bone is truly an amazing artifact. The mammoth artifact on hiddenite is a differently constructed artistic piece which has experienced the ravages of time in an ocean surf environment which could easily render creative techniques less than obvious. Your doubt of any ability on my part to identify or understand human worked rock makes assumptions on your part that are possibly premature. Among other endeavors, I was a rock mason before I became too aged to carry that on.

I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt from you despite your disagreement with my analyses. I feel sure that if we met outside the context of this forum we would enjoy conversing, if not on this subject then Rhode Island and the wonderfully induced hues of local hydrangeas.

Circumspice,

I agree with your statements concerning paleolithic art. The age, acid environment, and weathering effects on the artifacts I am finding may preclude being able to clearly identify subject matter and artistic achievement to those unable to handle and manipulate rocks in varying light and moisture conditions. Thanks for your comment.

Tiompan,

The "very tentative" remark by Dr. Harrod is, I think, in narrative seen when you click on the image. I'll stick with "very" rather than "incredibly" as Harrod had first hand experience with the artifact. His including this description on his site shows his disposition to that possibility. Thanks as always.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,

I certainly wouldn't wish for you to get the boot , and for entirely different reasons from that of Kalopin's .

Having first hand experience of an artefact is not quite enough to upgrade the "very" from the "incredibly" .After all it is exactly the same problem that you have with your finds .

The good doctor's credentials are in religion /philosophical theology /depth psychology , not rock art .
There is no shortage of rock art specialists who could pass judgement on the examples , if any one of them agreed with his conclusions I would be shocked .