Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:11 am**

Mike Collin's updated interpretation of engraved stones found at The Gault Site, in central Texas, USA:

Clovis Engraved Stones: Possibly the earliest "art' in the New World, engraved stones are known to have repeated motifs and show careful attention to detail. Dozens have been found at the Gault site near Georgetown. The specimen on the left shows feathered spear shafts imbedded in something. Others have grid patterns, spirals, possible animal representations, and other symbols.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:07 am**

Charlie, that stone on the right ain't art ... it's obviously tic tac toe on steroids!

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:22 am**

Charlie, that stone on the right ain't art ... it's obviously tic tac toe on steroids!

Lol! Right. Not sure what they were trying to do...maybe just doodling?

I suspect the first piece is a bird, and the incisions are feathers:

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:43 am**

I suspect the first piece is a bird, and the incisions are feathers:

Good call, Charlie... No doubt you're familiar with the discussion of this at http://www.daysknob.com/Gault_A.htm

Dr. Collins seems to reject this idea, but who knows? As you well know, he does not communicate meaningfully or straightforwardly with amateurs.

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:08 am**

Looking at bird effigies in pre-clovis frame of mind, if you turn them over they could be effigies of wooly mammoths. Of course they would have to be way pre-clovis but mammoths seem to make more sense as this was what the pre-clovis people were living on. Just a thought, has anybody seen effigies of mammoths to compare to?

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:57 pm**

Hi Bruce...

Some of the imagery in European "portable rock art" strongly suggests a proboscid. From my own site, I can think of only one piece - a small petroglyph - that really gives this impression (I haven't yet photographed this - must do so). There are other possibilities - haven't thought about it much at this point. It's my understanding that really large grazing animals didn't much like my neighborhood - too hilly. But then if a person encountered a mammoth while visiting a flatter area, he probably would remember it rather well.

I wouldn't bet on "pre-Clovis" people in North America eating a lot of mammoth relative to other things, although I'm sure they would have scavenged these if already dead. So far, it seems that lithic implements capable of felling a mammoth (with a lot of teamwork) first appear here in the "Clovis" time frame.

Incidentally, I better mention that the large photo of the Gault "Wheatstone" that Charlie posted from my website is by Peter A. Bostrom. When I first presented the idea of a feathered bird figure a few years ago, I asked Pete for permission to use some of his superb photos, with the understanding that they would be shown with credit to him and his fantastic website http://www.lithiccastinglab.com - and if you haven't seen this, you should take a look.

Regards, Alan

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:39 pm**

Good call, Charlie... No doubt you're familiar with the discussion of this at http://www.daysknob.com/Gault_A.htm

Dr. Collins seems to reject this idea, but who knows? As you well know, he does not communicate meaningfully or straightforwardly with amateurs.

Hey Alan.

I know you mentioned to Mike, about 2 years ago, that you thought it was a bird with feathers. At the time, he thought they were stalks of wheat.

Apparently he's drifting, though, ever so slowly, towards your interpretation.

Once you've seen a number of these bird effigies, it's a no brainer.

Hat's off Bro!

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:59 pm**

...effigies of wooly mammoths...

This one's tough to make out over the net, because it has a 3D element to it, and it's all brown (rusted iron):

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%201a.jpg

Imagine a whole mammoth, standing on all fours, looking out towards you, angled slightly to your left.

Then the piece has a 4D element to it. When you turn the piece 90 degrees, clockwise, it has a man (or woman?) effigy, with a bird head dress on:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%202a.jpg

"squawk...Private Hatchett, don antiflak gear immediately...squawk...incoming...squawk...incoming..."

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:17 pm**

On the mammoth note here's some illustrations from Archeologische Berichten.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... phants.JPG

And a quick photo of a one from close to my site..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... mmoth1.jpg

The problem - as I see it - is that objects like the Tan-Tan figure and the Berekhat Ram are portrayed as "exceptional" whereas they are only exceptionally mediocre and with this insight a quick scan of most site material reveals that the practice was widespread and consistent throughout pre-history.

We _can_ build on and learn from the substantial research by Boucher de Perthes in the 1800's later Leakey, Walther Matthes, more recently Jan Evert Musch, Max Herder and many others (some previously mentioned in this thread) in this field. The profile of animal types will vary depending on site location, use, etc.

Charlie, on your own site have you tried sorting them into animal types to determine the ratios? I'd be interested in what it might reveal about the activity there. You will undoubtedly have many face images too - often self portraits.

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:50 pm**

Hat's off Bro!

Thanks, Charlie! I appreciate it.

Apparently he's drifting, though, ever so slowly, towards your interpretation.

Maybe so... One thing I figured out in the engineering/corporate rat race was that when I thought I had a good idea and was trying to convince an obstinate boss of this, it was best to present my case articulately and then shut up for a while. Typically he would think about the idea long enough that he would come to perceive it as his own, then present it as such and, of course, get the credit for it. Since he was paying me well to keep him looking good, I just grumbled all the way to the bank. I suspect the matter of this heretofore officially unrecognized/rejected iconography will eventually work itself out in a similar manner, both here and in Europe - the body of evidence is just so huge. Don't bet on our "intellectual property" being respected - the professionals/academics will grab all the credit they can. One thing in our favor, though, is that these days e-mail and internet postings provide a sort of "audit trail".

Incidentally, digging into my pile of unread books, I've found excellent material supporting some of our observations in the late Dr. Marija Gimbutas' "The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe". If time permits, maybe I'll post some stuff from this. It's a shame she has passed from the scene; likewise Dr. Alexander Marshack.

Alan

Posted: **Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:07 pm**

Hello there, Charlie. Just an observation here but one thing that might cast doubt on that mammoth stone is that the image, if it does indeed depict a mammoth, seems to depict one in perspective. I'm no expert but (that's my catchphrase there by the way) as I understand it perspective is a relatively recent development in art and there's precious few examples of it prior to (I'm guessing here) 10th century-ish. I can't think of any ancient art I've seen (aside from the fully sculptural) which shows its subject in anything other than profile. Not that that necessarily rules out the possibility (there's always exceptions I guess) but it's something to consider perhaps?

Posted: **Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:19 pm**

Hello there, Charlie. Just an observation here but one thing that might cast doubt on that mammoth stone is that the image, if it does indeed depict a mammoth, seems to depict one in perspective. I'm no expert but (that's my catchphrase there by the way) as I understand it perspective is a relatively recent development in art and there's precious few examples of it prior to (I'm guessing here) 10th century-ish. I can't think of any ancient art I've seen (aside from the fully sculptural) which shows its subject in anything other than profile. Not that that necessarily rules out the possibility (there's always exceptions I guess) but it's something to consider perhaps?

Believe me, I know it's an outrageous hypothesis. What's weird about this is I was pointing out the human profile to my sister, and she said, " Cool! Look at the elephant!". I never even saw it until she pointed it out. I had just noticed the possibility of a person's profile, with a bird riding on its head...like a headdress. She kept trying to show me what she was seeing, but I couldn't grasp what she was talking about...then it leapt out at me...in 3D...tripped me out big time!! Haven't been able to shed the affliction to date...

...3D and in perspective...O.K., walk me to my padded cell...

Posted: **Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:21 pm**

Bruce wrote:The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)

At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)

I don't want to get very involved with this, but the Martis Complex people disappeared only 1500 years ago. Their suggested ability to make a map in rock art doesn't mean HE was doing it hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.

Posted: **Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:28 pm**

Hmmm... yes, I saw the face myself, but this forum has that effect on you (especially with bird heads

). I guess once again it's down to 'has this rock been worked by human hand' and I'd bet some of the stuff we're seeing around here has.
I don't know about America, but I think the UK mental health act requires a lot more than mammoths-seen-in-stones before they bin you up. I wouldn't worry too much. though if you start seeing animal heads in clouds, wallpaper, food, innocent bystanders bending down to tie a shoelace, I'd take a holiday. You must be getting to the point where you see hand axes as soon as you close your eyes at night!

Posted: **Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:16 pm**

from pg 6

Bruce wrote:The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)

At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)

Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.

and from pg 7..

Doug Weller wrote:
Bruce wrote: Bruce wrote:
The ability to superimpose the tracing of a prehistoric gylph accurately oriented onto a topographic map of the area, and to have the tracing closely follow trails indentified by thirty or more rock art sites, including some seventyseven individual bedrock outcroppings with petrogylphs, strongly supports the likelihood of map making capalities by the early occupants of the region, the Martis Complex people.
(Gortner 1988:147-152)

At Picacho Point, the single most distinctive petroglyph at the site is a very large abstrct form clearly pecked on the largest panel on the back or eastern side of Clustr A... it was clearly an outline of a map of the ridge upon which the site was situated, allowing for slight distortion based on the viewers ground perception. After carefully evaluating this hypothesis we believe it to be warranted and offer figures for comparision of the mapped design with the topography of the ridge.
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986:147-148)

I don't want to get very involved with this, but the Martis Complex people disappeared only 1500 years ago. Their suggested ability to make a map in rock art doesn't mean HE was doing it hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Again from A field guide to rock art symbols of the greater southwest. I believe that map making out of rocks was very common. I'm always picking up a rock and alingning it with the horizon to see if it fits.

Am I missing something here??

Archaeologica.org

Lower Palaeolithic Art in Britain?

Engraved stones

Re: maps