Archaeologica.org

“The Rock Art of Eastern North America.”

I am writing a continuing book report on this over at Ishtar’s Gate.

By “Eastern North America” the authors are generally talking about east of the Mississippi.
But they do get into some near the river sites in Missouri, Iowa, and the flat lands of southern Minnesota, as well as far east Canada.

It is a compilation of a number of papers, pamphlets, books, and articles describing the rock art of the area.

I got my copy from at

http://www.hamiltonbook.com/hamiltonbook.storefront


The ISBN number is 0-8173-5096-9
The authors are Carol Diaz-Granados and James R. Duncan
I think I paid $6.95

I am about half way through the book and cannot be more pleased.

I am now to the point that by dating the rock art in south Alberta they are getting into a strong pre-Clovis and an early east to west peopling of NA argument.
This would tie in to the 13,000 plus YBP mammoth kill site in SE Wisconsin.
And be before the west to east of the Clovis people.

In short, don’t let the title put you off.
Some of the papers they have included reference rock art while concentrating on something else.
This makes the book further ranging than the title suggests.

If you want to see more of my opinions on it, go to

http://www.ishtarsgate.com/phpBB3/viewt ... 5215#p5215


And let me know what you think

Pica and geophagy - seems like a logical explanation.

I wonder if anyone’s tested it by analyzing the mineral content at several sites to see if they have a specific mineral in common that people require. If several sites share a significant amount of a common mineral, e.g. iron, it would strengthen the idea.

Kaolin and clay content - Do you think people might have collected powder to mix in ceramics?

I remember reading once about a society that routinely added ground stone powder to its food, but can’t remember now who they were or where. I’ve tried searching for something on it, with no luck. The article I read said that the ground rock they used had calcium and magnesium in it, which supplied them with more of those minerals than they'd normally get in their usual diet.

I am just about done with the book and post my final impression soon.

So far I think the bigest thing I have learned is that females played a much larger part in making of, and meaning behind, rock art than has been realized.
And thus in the cultures represented.

This is most likly do the the major editor/author being female.
She just sees things in a different light.
And, being pretty senior and thus confident, she isn't afraid to bring up a rather new concept.

Of course, most of the authors of the papers are male.
But with the good editing, they do a good job of getting that point across.

And I don't want to paint as a womens lib excerise.
I do not think that is why the book was written.
It is well done from a science point of view.

I think the view is "Lets look at all this evidance from a little different angle."