Problematic Discoveries

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

Thanks. I believe Jarrod was accompanied on his archaeological investigations in Israel and elsewhere by an archaeologist familiar with rock art. A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work, and this person's technical training would be a good match for the person who has perspective on motivation and belief. I do not think Jarrod would have wasted his time out in the desert without archaeological guidance.

We can only speculate what value the finds have with brief descriptions and a few images as being there with the rocks in situ conveys a perspective and visual assessment based on specific site dynamics particular to the place. When I see someone talking prayer, I pay attention because it is a repeated motif with artifacts on the Blue Ridge mountain site in Virginia.

Jack Hranicky has published a 500 page book called "Prehistoric Stone Tools of Virginia." A large part of the text concerns Pleistocene era tools before clovis. He refrains from use of the term pre clovis as it implies a proto relationship. Pleistocene tools have no equivalence in the clovis tool kit. I have initially reviewed the Pleistocene section with great interest, especially relative to the relationship of tool axes (plural of axis) as a diagnostic tool to differentiate Pleistocene from later tool workings. He also calls for a revamping of tool related eras and notes that all arrowhead diagnostics are of no use in Pleistocene analysis, a characteristic that renders most North American archaeologists unable to see Pleistocene artifacts which they dismiss as debitage.

[circumspice]

There you go again Springhead... dismissing the qualifications of North American & Western hemisphere archaeologists & paleontologists...

A large number of the currently active archaeologists & paleontologists hail from the Americas. Just look at some of the more widely known of those professions...

You really seem to have an axe to grind. They are NOT Das Klub... They have made (& documented) many of the hugely important discoveries in their respective fields at sites worldwide. You can't egregiously dismiss them outright because it suits your paradigm.

You're beginning to ape Kalopin... Just because the entire archaeological community isn't groveling at your feet doesn't mean that they're either wrong, unqualified or trying to suppress your 'discoveries'. It means that your rocks are simply not recognizable as what YOU represent them to be. If you want to continue the pretense of being open minded about what you purport to have found then stop the sly passive aggressive dismissal of professionals who have the education & training that you lack. You seem to be claiming expertise that you haven't, by your own admission, "learned & earned".

[Tiompan]

" I believe Jarrod was accompanied on his archaeological investigations in Israel and elsewhere by an archaeologist familiar with rock art. "

It clearly didn't stop him making outrageous claims though .


" A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work, "
Who would be so crazily arrogant as to claim they might be versed in psyches behind prehistoric creative work ?

Jarrod's claims would not be supported by anyone who knows about the subject , and that is the one point of similarity with your own suggestions.

[Springhead]

Circumspice,

I am the first to admit my lack of expertise and training in archaeology, and the idea that I seek to have folks groveling at my feet is ludicrous. As to my "passive aggressive" dismissal of professionals, I was paraphrasing Jack Hranicy's opinions in a brief report on his new book. I suspect, with his forty year plus career in archaeology and authorship of forty or so books and innumerable papers concerning stone tool and material culture in pre history, he may be able to able to express his ideas about North American archaeology despite your objections.

I agree that there are many learned folks versed in these matters working world wide, and I am aware of many early sites being studied in the Americas as the chase is on to find and characterize sites before clovis. I do not have an axe to grind here, I am merely echoing what I hear and read from various reputable sources. "Sly" implies a surreptitious agenda, yet my opinions or paraphrasing have been expressed in a strait forward manner. You appear to think my thread is powered by an over inflated ego, but perhaps that could be bounced back.

I do appreciate your comments and thank you for them.


Tiompan,

I am curious to know why Jarrod's claims are "outrageous," a rather strong term. Also, his purported "arrogance" seems a strong statement as well. Jarrod is looking for answers to age old questions like many before him, and his analyses are hypothetical as are all ideas about pre history that lack absolute proof, if there is such a thing, with the limitations inherent in all understanding being relative to changing base lines of "facts." Thanks once again for your thoughts.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
Jarrod's claims for the presence of rock art on the examples you linked is outrageous because it is obvious that there is no rock art present .
The arrogance was directly related to the your comment
" A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work, " .
My response "Who would be so crazily arrogant as to claim they might be versed in psyches behind prehistoric creative work ? " was related to anyone who would make such a claim . I don't know if that Jarrod has done so as it is not clear from your original comment , and you didn't answer the question .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

In response to your "crazily arrogant" term, I never stated that anyone understood the psyche behind paleolithic creativity. Certainly Dr. Harrod should be allowed to speculate about this subject as his areas of expertise, assisted by archaeological guidance, are appropriate for his self admitted "very tentative" analysis of the prayer subject matter of the artifact. Should he be silenced because others may be doubtful of this line of reasoning?

Thanks again.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,

Jarrod can speculate all he likes ,but he can also be criticised for talking nonsense ,especially when it is not related to his area of expertise .

" A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work, " .
It would be crazily arrogant for anyone to suggest that they were .
So why make the comment , if you weren't suggesting otherwise ?

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

In reference to the statement "A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work"......this is a qualified statement that accounts for the fact that the specialist "may" not know (no one may know), but also allows for the possibility that he or she may have hypothetical ideas as to the nature of psyches behind the work.

Why make the comment? It allows Harrod his justified space to attempt to understand what may not be known.

Thanks.

[Tiompan]

Hi Tiompan,

In reference to the statement "A rock art specialist may not be versed in the psyches behind the creative work"......this is a qualified statement that accounts for the fact that the specialist "may" not know (no one may know), but also allows for the possibility that he or she may have hypothetical ideas as to the nature of psyches behind the work.

Why make the comment? It allows Harrod his justified space to attempt to understand what may not be known.

Thanks.

Springhead ,
That's more convoluted than a Rumsfeld .

It's not a case of "may", it's more like "cannot" .

" It allows Harrod his justified space to attempt to understand what may not be known."

And thus has the worth of any other commentator , i.e. zero .
To believe that one might have an insight into what cannot be known is crazily arrogant .
Btw ,
Jarrod is not a rock art specialist ,and even if he was ,it would still be crazily arrogant .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

Fortunately, we can agree to disagree. Present world trends may preclude even that. I see your point, but if one cannot speculate (even to oneself), how can we move forward? Technically, truth cannot be known, only approached. The only thing we can really count on is change.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
We can all speculate if we want , it doesn't mean that anyone should pay any heed to our speculations or that they may be of any worth .
If experts can't agree about the psyche of some one from their own period and culture ,speaking their own language and providing masses of data about themselves since their birth , including film , written testimonies and multiple daily updates on their thinking ,what hope is their for a non expert speculating on the psyche of someone from a culture and period far removed from themselves ,someone they don't even know the age and gender of , it is simply crazily arrogant ,whatever their credentials .
When it involves examples of imaginary rock art it is even worse .

[Springhead]

Hi Tiompan,

Speculation about the unknown is always a gamble. Orthodoxy tempts us to establish and protect our notions of reality. Many institutions have been created to quell our fears of the unknown. Uncertainty is part of the human condition, so we must remain steadfast in the midst of this dynamic to define what we think is going on while keeping a sharp eye to furthering these understandings. Risk is implied in this process. It has never been any different with humans.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
In this case it is not fear of the unknown , it's a case of accepting that some speculation is worthless or "crazily arrogant " .
That's what you get when anyone believes they might have an insight into the psyche of someone from many thousands of years ago when they know absolutely nothing about that person .
The madness and arrogance of such a belief is further compounded, in this case , when the only source of their understanding of the hypothetical person is predicated on something that doesn't exist .
No different from discussing the literary tastes of the tooth fairy .

[Minimalist]

I don't see anything wrong with speculation as long as you always keep firmly in mind that it is just that - speculation. At some point you have to gather evidence to move the needle. The danger is confirmation bias. The tendency to ignore evidence which tends to disprove the original idea. Our current president is an example of what happens when that rule is violated.

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

I am not so sure that it is a great stretch, no matter how unknown or old a human culture might be, to make a quite tentative speculation about a praying motif having some spiritual meaning to those unknown folks. Supplication in the form of praying hands and/or kneeling implies some awe or respect reflected in human mannerisms. If this is wrong, how would one know that? So I see this as an attempt to explain the past with present deductive reasoning, similar to the way we attempt to define all unknown things. Your terms of "arrogance" and "madness" demonize the flexibility that often allows a glimpse of antiquity to evolve into more understandings. "What if" is not an abomination.


Hello Minimalist,

I agree that speculation is OK and that evidence must come along to "move the needle." I also see the danger of confirmation bias, a trait I have been labeled with by some. Ignoring evidence that disproves one's idea/s is a big problem. Another problem is deciding whether the opinions of others actually constitute evidence, especially with alternative opinions offered outside direct experience and physical contact with the subject at hand. In the forum context, this presents a built in dilemma that can stretch member patience. An upstart like myself treads on weak footing but may decide to carry on in the vein of nothing ventured, nothing gained. Whether or not proven wrong, one can learn and benefit from the process.

Our president (accident) exhibits arrested development with a liberal dose of purposeful ignorance, though we can not be sure where the "purposeful" ends and pure ignorance begins. If greed and manipulation were good traits to possess, he would be the best guy in the world.