Problematic Discoveries

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:17 pm

Springhead wrote:
Tiompan,

Thanks. I am not here to thump chests, I would rather gain perspective. Sorry about the confusion with the rock art examples. My idea about pareidolia is that maybe the ancient folks responsible for the suspected artifacts were subject to the same thing, perhaps even more than current populations with the predominant dream related parts of their brains being so large. This could make pareidolia an asset for the researcher as it could be key to the folks' artistic process. Just a thought.


Springhead ,
I'm used to most people discussing points rationally , however it is noticeable that some don't behave like when you disagree with them . There is a common sequence of events with the believers in alt arcaheology , new age stuff etc , failure to provide evidence , then get personal .

I thought I 'd clarify the rock art thing as the modern example was quite recent but attypical , good enough to fool the archaeos though .

Seeing portents, simulacra etc in nature etc would likely be more common in prehistory than among us western moderns . Having similar responses does not mean that the portents or what you believe to be rock art etc are any more real , although it may help in appreciating how others may have experienced their environment .
If the art is real then it can be recognised , you wouldn't need a pareidoliaic response .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:42 pm

Tiompan,

The perceived realness of these purported artifacts is an intellectual dilemma because, as with Clovis, there is an academic barrier that precludes establishment professionals from being able to digest this assemblage. In the Clovis heyday it was supposed that one need not dig below the Clovis level because there was nothing there. Goodyear at Topper kept digging and made important finds possibly related to 50,000 ybp. There is still resistance to this, but not universal. Folks now routinely dig below the Clovis horizons. The academic resistance to the type suspected artifacts in this thread stems from the same kind of mindset, namely that there's no need to look for early hominids in North America because they were never here. Institutions in North America do not train for understandings and recognition of artifacts of this sort based on the same reasoning that was used with Clovis.....there's simply nothing to find. I think this is an odd way to think, and I think it will fall eventually, maybe not over my stuff, but it will. This academic resistance is, respectfully, purposeful ignorance.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Tiompan » Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 pm

Springhead ,

Every case must be judged on it's merits .
I always precede any comment on the likelihood of rock art with the caveat that it is unfair to judge from pics . However with that caveat and accepting that the pics are not very good ,it was still possible to see the "volcano " ,the reason I believe these markings are natural and not made by anyone , at any time , has nothing to do with what I or others or I think about Clovis .
It is perfectly possible that the a volcano could have been painted or engraved in the last few years , but I don't believe that either .
The suggestion that the markings /paintings are Paleolithic only exacerbates the problem about their reality .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Tiompan,

I agree that each case must be decided on its merits. I realize the imagery is lacking and not of a quality to demonstrate much more than basic information. I used clovis simply to characterize certain trends in present day archaeology. I would expect nothing short of rigorous examination and analysis in any authentication process with these proposed artifacts, and at this time the images are not able to convey enough to aid in that process.

Lily,

Well put! I would not want to be categorized in that department. I have two images that are giving me problems that might be more appropriate as they may not require as much suspension of belief. These are larger, one a cave bear and the other a metate shaped like a turtle. I have tried to post them and am unable. I'll try later to get them out. Thanks for the warning.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:27 am

[imgImage][/img][img][IMG]http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp185/springhead7/a18b9442-538a-499b-9af2-26d64b5366c0_zps1vssljd1.jpg[/img][/img][imgImage][/img][img][IMG]http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp185/springhead7/0a114ef6-c55d-4540-9ed7-7229996004a0_zpstgydfjp7.jpg[/img][/img][imgImage][/img]

The top image is a Turtle shaped metate found in a spring branch. It is approximately 14.75" x 6.5." The turtle's head is to the left. The next image down is the same metate taken from an angle to better show the concavity of the tool. The lower image is a cave bear in profile facing left. The bear was found very close to the turtle metate in the same spring branch. It is suspected that both pieces are made of volcanic greenstone, a common material in the vicinity with the presence of ancient lava flows, now called the Catoctin Formation.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:36 am

[imgImage][/img][imgImage][/img][img][IMG]http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp185/springhead7/4ae86457-fb8f-4395-add4-567d2d1c4141_zpsby0hhhp1.jpg[/img][/img][imgImage][/img]

These are all very small images. The top image is a Viking type design sailing vessel with the bow to the left. The hull is at an angle in this image (sorry). A high prow and stern are visible along with mast and sail. The image is a detail from the suspected dinosaur egg shown in a former post. The image is discernible but lacks good clarity, but interestingly, the head of some beast can be seen at the high point of the prow, not unlike Hollywood Viking ships. There are possibly a few folks on board forward of the mast.

The bottom image is a .25 square inch shell carving from the NC coast. The middle image has been crudely highlighted to show some features. The circled area is some craft pointing left. The odd shaped highlight surrounds the image of a wolf facing right. The dark area in the wolf's neck is a person's head in an image that can be seen when the larger image is turned upside down The lower three arrows show incised lines representative of mountains or a volcano. The upper arrow points down to a person who looks seated and possibly operating the craft or perhaps just sitting behind it with a brimmed hat on his/her head.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:50 am

Lily,

Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:47 pm

[imgImage][/img]

Lily,

Here are some crude highlights to define the sailing vessel. The longest line defines the hull with bow to the left and shows the high bow and stern. The chevron at the top is the masthead. The dotted line defines the square sail. The diagonal non highlighted line (runs north/south relative to the image) within the dotted lines is a line the sail is pressed on and defines two billowed parts of the sail. The two small arcs are above the heads of two possible crew members. I hope this helps.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Minimalist » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:09 pm

Pet peeve.

I don't know if you've ever watched any of those Ghost Hunter type shows but at some point in all of them they leave a microphone open to pick up ghost "sounds." When they play the tape it always sounds like static. Invariably, one of them will say "Ah ha! that sounds like it said 'Timmy.' " After that, thanks to the power of suggestion, all you can hear is "Timmy."

I have the same feeling with those enhancements.

Pet peeve, over!

:lol:
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15526
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:18 am

Lily,

Well, it seems my posting of at least the micro images has produced nothing but skepticism. Personally, I am faced with hundreds of these images in repetition on different types of stones from different sites. I will continue to figure out how to convey this in some palatable and more clear way, but maybe for now I will forgo posting more micro images.

Minimalist,

I get what you are saying, but the highlighting was done on request. Is your point that the image should stand on its own merits without guidelines? Even verbal descriptions could be construed to suggest as much as highlights. Do you think an image should stand totally alone for review? I am not sure how to give any context to the material without spilling the beans. I appreciate your comments and will keep them in mind. I really don't need the snake oil salesman label that could be earned by someone like myself moving non mainstream ideas through critical gauntlets. On the other hand, I have a lot of similar material from different locations with a lot of subject matter staring me in the face.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Minimalist » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:09 am

Do you think an image should stand totally alone for review?



It's much easier with tools where you can count the flakes removed and say "okay, I'll give you the first five but SIX flakes is evidence of human activity." ( I would be inclined to go even lower since gravity is not likely to get five bites at the apple, either.) You'll still encounter skepticism but it will be more along the lines of dating methods.

But art is like a Rorschach test. And we must always be wary of the brain's penchant for seeing patterns even when none are there. I'd be inclined to answer your question "yes" but I know that it is impractical.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15526
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:13 pm

Lily,

The heat is not too much yet, but rather than generate complete controversy, I need to figure out what images will do the best job at characterizing the suspected artifacts. My claims about the nature of the subject matter are my own, but perhaps focusing on form and form detail would be more helpful. To do this I need to re shoot the pieces one at a time with better parameters in place that jive more with accepted traditional standards of analysis. The problem is that there is nothing particularly standard about them and they all contain art. Another element of difficulty follows in my reply to Minimalist. I do not necessarily think swaying opinions is my ultimate goal, but I am interested in establishing enough credence for these stones to be seriously considered by folks rather than summarily dismissed.

Minimalist,

One difficulty with the analysis of the stone knapping with these tools is their age and the environment they are found in. The ph at the mountain site varies between 4.5 and 6 which, over a lot of time, deteriorates even the hardest of stones. Many pieces are found in flowing water combined with the acid effect. With this being the case, even with durable crystal rock, the evidence of knapping is lost or vague. Limestone ground is more neutral in ph and perhaps will yield better examples for analysis. The two caves with art and iron oxide hammer stones are basically unexplored artifact wise, and are in limestone formations near the mountain site. Further investigation at those locations could bear better examples of tools for analysis. However, the archaeologist I am working with has identified about twenty artifacts as "provable" Pleistocene" from the mountain site. His basic rule of thumb is six flakes. Other stones he has reviewed were simply not as provable and must remain suspected. He cautioned me to keep all finds. He saw no Holocene artifacts in the hundreds of stones he reviewed. Dating is going to require a geomorphologist and finding stones in dated horizons without contamination.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:58 am

Lily,

Thanks for your comment, dismal as it might be. Yes, the rocks have been there a long time, perhaps much longer than your stated chronology, but my window for elucidation is very limited due to my age and circumstance. With the subtlety and semi abstract nature of the art assemblage, folks who view archaeologically related art as needing to be realistic or ordered in some western logical way may be disappointed or skeptical.

One interesting element of this this discussion has been the lack of comment on the images of the larger finds, i.e. the hand axes, cave bear, and turtle metate. The micro images seem to infuriate some people, others showing extreme skepticism at best. It will be difficult to progress in this area without systems investment as you have noted. What saddens me is that what has been shown and discussed is barely the tip of the iceberg, and many important aspects of the assemblage remain unknown to you all. Based on present reactions I see, the most important elements of this body of discoveries must for now remain unsaid and unseen. IMHO these elements may redefine pre history in North America in many ways.

Thanks for a ray of light with the use of "yet" at the end of your second sentence. This spring I will be on the hunt for finds that may be more palpable to everyone. I will also work to review what is already in hand.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Tiompan » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:44 am

Springhead wrote:
With the subtlety and semi abstract nature of the art assemblage, folks who view archaeologically related art as needing to be realistic or dered in some western logical way may be disappointed or skeptical.
or


Springhead ,
anyone who knows about rock art does not necessarily expect realism or it to be "ordered in some western logical way " , i.e. there are styles that are entirely abstract .
That is not certainly not the reason for the scepticism here .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Postby Springhead » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:09 am

Thank you Tiompan,

I stand corrected for a poorly crafted statement meant to imply that certain folks may view the art assemblage as such.
Springhead
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests