Problematic Discoveries

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Springhead -

Did you ever ask yourself why an advanced civilization did not develop along the Chesapeake Bay,
when it had a massive food supply and an easy exchange of ideas through a large region by boat?

The easy answer is that impact mega-tsunami's wipe out any civilization on coastal margins.

Since the Mediterranean Sea is not open to the Atlantic Ocean, this process had minimal effects there.

[kbs2244]

Lily...
It appears you have been drinking the "human caused global warming" kool aid.
It is not a question of "if", it is a question of "why."
The climate has changed both locally and globally many times in the planets history.

All but the latest of these changes occurred before any possible human involment.
And the evidence of humans being involved in the current possible change has been pretty well shown to be a political power/tax scheme.

There simply is no creditable scientific basis for the claims.

To paraphrase someone "Any lie told loud and often will become believed."

But, I do not now how any of this relates to Springhead's discoveries.

[Springhead]

Thanks for your replies folks. I have been unable to log on to the board since last weekend, but Michelle has straitened me out now.

Lily,

Macro photography is certainly one potential answer to my imaging problems with the small stuff. Thanks for the links, they were helpful for perspective. I watched the truncated video you provided. Although I think Solutreans could possibly be the people I am concerned with, I am more inclined to think they were Neandertals or hybrids coming from a Homo Erectus source in the Americas. I have a hard time not believing that HE followed the fauna across Beringia, not just twenty or twenty five thousand years ago, but also perhaps in interglacial times, i.e. 125,000 ybp and before that. The subject people I see in artistic representations look like Neandertals, and a good number of the possible artifacts I am seeing have middle and late Pleistocene characteristics as seen in substantiated European finds of Neandertal artifacts.

Lily and kbs,

Although I may not wade into the question of climate change specifics, I think most people would agree that we are in a warming phase. Relative to this topic is the direct relationship between the history and pre history of hominids and climactic variations. The rhythm of past peoples has always been in sinc with the weather realities, and that will continue. An example might be that with the increased precipitation in Pleistocene times, and with stream and river flows perhaps twice what they are presently (in Virginia), waterways allowed free and relatively easy movement between the Blue Ridge and the coast via the Shenandoah River and James River watersheds which meet just west of the mountains within five miles of the mountain site, forming a large loop. These people were extremely boat savvy. In dryer periods their life ways would have to be altered. Understanding their experiences and reactions to these changes would certainly sharpen our present day perspective on climate changes.

Minimalist,

I have finally gotten the Photobucket site to take some of my images. Shortly I will post some of them and sorry for the delay. Thanks for the advice.

E.P.G.,

The Chesapeake Bay would have provided a perfect situation for living/trading/exchanging ideas for people that you would think would allow for advanced cultures to develop. Tsunamis would inhibit or curtail that possibility, as you say. In the southeast, namely from extreme northern Florida to Richmond, is topographical evidence of theorized tsunami debris. In northern Florida and Georgia there is an inland ridge in place (which continues northward) that is sixty to eighty feet above sea level. In the NC sand hills this formation continues and runs to Richmond. It is impressive that the sand hills are ca. 175 miles from the coast. With two impact events alone (ca.530 AD and 1200 AD) in the North Atlantic it is hard to know the frequency of these things, but there were apparently enough to move human activity to high ground. I do not pretend to understand how all this would have affected the Med, but I can see where they would be initially protected from large wave action, but would be subject to sea level change.

Lily,

I agree we are facing potentially dramatic changes that may be exacerbated by present human activity, and anything we can learn about what happened in the past will help us cope with our future.

[kbs2244]

Lily:
You are ignoring my second line...
"It is not a question if "if" but of "why."

[Springhead]

Lily,

I think the subject people represented at the mountain site were extremely boat savvy. Why? Repeated images of boats with people in them. At this time I will withhold details about this, but I will say that these possible artifacts show a large variety in the scale of the boats and multiple uses of the vessels. To show images of this will be difficult at this time due to clarity issues in the imagery.

It might be worth mentioning that the presence of HE was discovered in Crete with a conservative date of ca. 125,000 bp. This had to have been a deep water excursion regardless of the exact timing. The same may apply to folks who made it to Australia across the Wallace line, not to mention elephants who made the same journey, though they swam across.

Further indirect evidence of the subject people being boat savvy is the repeated artistic representation of fish, dolphin, crabs, sharks, and whales on the suspected artifacts, not to mention sea scenes of a coastal nature. Also evident are representations of specific foreign places of a coastal nature to include scenes with cone volcanoes.

The boats I am seeing are sophisticated plank built affairs, some with sails. Also, potential artifacts found on the NC coast with subject matter similarities to the mountain site finds, suggest people that had a dual existence of mountain and sea, or perhaps full time at one or the other. With the sand hills finds, it appears these folks were widespread, but it is difficult to know any specific movement patterns with so little really known.

[Springhead]

Hello,

I just tried to post images, but they were not scaled into their frames properly so I deleted everything. I'll work on this for a better presentation.

[Springhead]

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

I am going to do several posts of a few images each. I am having trouble with titles and sizing, so I have no idea how this will go. Lily, there's a thirty foot fishing boat with nets and many sea creatures swimming below. This demonstrates my clarity problems with some images.

[Springhead]

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

These should have titles. Possible hand axes and burin.

[Springhead]

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

Tool with art and possible dinosaur egg

[Springhead]

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

Mammoth three feet in length with lower right gorilla on three ton boulder.
Seated mammoth in profile looking right on five ton boulder.

[Springhead]

Lily,

I completely understand your difficulty in seeing these pieces with clarity.

The boat shown has no plank details, has no apparent sails, and seems to be a fishing boat with nets stretched over frames that could be deployed by dipping and which look stored in a relatively vertical attitude. The sea creatures below are very difficult to make out. I use a magnifying glass and an eight power loop to aid with seeing the subject matter.

Highlighting composition elements is very useful, and I will try to clarify some subject matter in that fashion. I have not mentioned the truly complex nature of these possible artifacts that I am confronted with. A typical stone will have a primary image which the stone shows as a whole. Then, as the stone is rotated in ninety degree increments, another animal or person will appear. Often there is differentiated subject matter every ninety degree change in vantage point, and this is true for both sides of a rock. On top of that these images can share forms, i.e. in one attitude a lion's ear may become the nose of a person in another attitude.

There are stones that have hundreds of images, perhaps story or family stones that have been carved and painted on over stretches of time. Animation is another technique seen in these stones. There is a disc shaped ordinary looking rock that, when a light is shown across it at a low angle, projects the shadow of a perfectly symmetrical raptor on the wing. When one twists the rock back and forth in this light, the wings flap in perfect unison. This requires off the chart creative genius and observational skills. Characterizing these people is difficult, but they certainly had a deeply spiritual intertwining with the natural world coupled with impressive cognitive abilities projected in their art.

With thousands of these rocks around, and with the great amount of time it takes to analyze one, not to mention trying to capture good images, the task is overwhelming in scale for me, especially with a non existent budget. Having worked with analyzing these rocks for years, I am tuned in to an extent, but trying to explain and characterize them to other folks is daunting at best with the necessary investment of time required. I hope I can figure out good methods to convey it all.

Thanks again for your comments. I will post a few more images soon, but I am having difficulty with formatting of images in their frames for some reason.

[Springhead]

Lily,

Yes, this may sound like ink blot analysis, however, a pecked out pair of eyes or a carved ear or paint applied to stone to produce a portrait are not figments of imagination. One of the inherent problems in conveyance is one's vantage point or mind set. With an art background, I may be using a part of the brain that is very different from the brain part utilized by a scientist. I am not making a value judgement on one or the other but rather noting the gulf in perspectives. I think both approaches are valid and can be integrated to gain understandings. Objectivity is always the way to go, but at some point one needs to state an opinion to move forward. In an extreme sense, any opinion could be construed as a subjective act. Perhaps I am missing the boat entirely by making any claims, but at some point I must make a leap of faith in my observational abilities. This task would be far easier by suspending the necessity of proof and simply telling the story of these people based on observation and analysis of their artifacts, but science needs evidence. The intense campaign against the idea of ancient hominids in America is well demonstrated by the discarding of 20,000 "geofacts" from the Calico site where Leakey claimed the presence of a 200,000 ybp occupation. The fact is IMHO that there are very few professionals in North America that have any training to observe or analyze Pleistocene tool and art assemblages. This puts the onus of the burden on folks who are self trained and lack paper credentials, folks that professionals often dismiss categorically. This may not be working for the overall understanding of the true nature of pre history in America.

[Springhead]

[img][/img][/img]

Rather than continuing to rant, I will take Lily's suggestion and highlight the tool with art image. The primary image with this tool in the presented attitude is the face of a baby or young child. The double arched red line in the upper part of the image defines the eyes below the line. The red line to the left of the image defines the ear which is to its right. Using a magnifying glass it is possible to see many human figures and or faces in the ear area itself. Continuing to use the magnifying glass one may move from the ear to the right across the nose area and under the eyes. Here can be seen a myriad of small images of men, women, and animals with several different small scenes of groups. Directly under the right eye pupil area is a somewhat larger face. The lowest red line in the image defines the mouth and is below it. The mouth itself is composed of a group of perhaps ten faces.

The black accent line in the lower right part of the image defines the "beard" area of the face. The whitish area to the left of the black line is a large cat facing left with its mouth agape and two faces of humans in the mouth, a common motif in these finds and similar European material. Below the whitish big cat and to the right, when using the magnifying glass, one can see several more human faces looking left. To the far right and closest to the black line is a silhouette of a crocodile or the like which is in a vertical position, nose down. Just to the lower left of the crocodile nose are the faces of bearded men looking left toward a larger white face in profile looking left. There are other images in this area, but they are difficult to characterize. To the left of the larger white face is a series of different figures in darker earth tones. Above those is a white male face. At the lower left part of the "beard" edge can be seen a partially hidden bearded man with a frontal view. Continuing up the left "beard" edge are several other faces in profile looking left. The area above the "beard" left edge has green imagery of some sort, and above that close to the left end of the red line defining the mouth are several more human images and possibly a dog.

Moving now to the forehead area above the red line eye accent and to the right you can see an earth tone area. Using the magnifying glass this earth tone area contains a jumble of human and animal figures. At the extreme upper left of the earth tone area of the forehead is a horse and rider with visible reins and bridal, facing and "moving" left. At the pinnacle of the forehead area is a human face profile looking up as if from a prone position which, when using the neck of this profile for a nose, is the profile of a wolf looking left, the lower portion being hidden. There are other faces to the right and immediately down from this. The large whitish area on the left of the forehead contains many faces and figures of varying sizes. The green and brown area below is a profile face looking left and possible profile face looking right.

There are, no doubt, many images on this greater face I have not seen or described. This analysis only pertains to the present attitude of the piece. Likely, when the image is rotated in ninety degree increments, there could be three more sets of subject matter associated with the three other attitudes. Then the process starts again for the other side of the proposed artifact. Perhaps this demonstrates a bit the time required and difficulty of analyses on these finds. The art does not leap at you, but once one gets the "feel" of the how the art is presented and how small it can be, with the grouping of small images forming larger ones, and shared components to complete compositions, the information of images starts to be more apparent.

This example is typically complex and detailed. The meanings imbedded in the art require great amounts of observation and research. I do not pretend to understand all this, but it does seem that the people who created these pieces were complex, sophisticated, and extremely talented technically. How the micro work was accomplished is beyond me.

[Springhead]

Hi Lily,

Yes, child with a beard. I saw that as possibly a cultural comment on aging, and the process all folks go through in maturation. Or, you may have a beard and be older, but we all started out as little babies, and that equalizer should not be forgotten. Or all men are children inside and at heart. My guess is that the stone's details would tell the central story, but it cold be the chronicle of someone's life from babe to old fart with the small details telling all the tales. Or it cold be some cautionary tale in stone. Or it could be a handed down story in the culture. With many of these finds coming from spring branch beds (with water), these could be memorials to lost group members committed to the sacred waters.

I have not yet found a possible artifact that did not exhibit art, and I would guess that 10% - 20% of the finds are tools with art. All other pieces seem to be pure art, but I may be misinterpreting pure art stones and they may be tools or stones with specific uses I do not understand.

[Springhead]

Lily,

There is a lot of work to do with this project. The way this story goes is that I started finding interesting rocks, mostly crystal and mineral, when I first purchased the property. These were haphazardly collected on the surface as I came upon them. These were basically piled up in different locations not far from where they were found. I have revisited these piles and they are loaded with no to low context possible artifacts.

The first recognized find with tight location context was probably fifteen years ago with the discovery of the possible dinosaur egg, gastroliths with extreme use wear (digit indentations), and other tools and possible tanning stones. These were found at the exact pinnacle of a knoll feature on the mountainside that demonstrates dramatic alignments with the solstices and equinoxes. It has been opined by an archaeologist that these may have been sacred stones. A geologist was unable to identify the type stone in the gastroliths. Since then many discoveries have been made, but not all were documented, though there are concentrated areas where finds are numerous. Certainly going forward documentation will be a big priority. I have barely scratched the surface of what could be found. If I went up there now and drove up the road to a productive area, I could locate a possible artifact in fifteen seconds. There are that many on the surface.

I have contacted a geomorphologist from NC State who was on the interdisciplinary team that discovered HE on Crete. He is interested but has healthy skepticism. His expertise would be invaluable in establishing soil horizon ages that could offer time context to the possible artifacts. My priority now is to simply get the time to be on site, especially prior to everything greening up. Thanks again for your interest and comments.