Page 26 of 35

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:06 pm
by Springhead

The top image shows three Mayan artifacts. On the right is a serpent head not unlike the heads visible at the stair bottoms on the Castillo at Chichen Itza. On the bottom a face and on the left a tigre. Above in the image is a Peruvian artifact, a lizard on a jar lip.

The lower two images are the "doble yo" from San Agustin, Colombia. The artifact, according to local archaeologists, represents a kind of ego/alter ego subject matter common to that area.

I came across these and other artifacts about thirty five years ago while traveling. One interesting aspect of the "doble yo" is the juxtopposition of faces, not unlike the compositions I am finding in Virginia which have facial profiles and sculptural faces opposed on the pieces that are human and human/animal combinations as well as purely animal combinations. Speculation might lead one to think that this compositional technique from San Agustin could have been influenced by artists in very deep time as the Va/NC artifacts types appear to be very wide spread geographically.

It would be nice if the physical qualities of the Virginia and NC artifacts of this thread were so clearly presented as those in the images above. They are not, however, and one is challenged to properly characterize them.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:17 pm
by Tiompan
"It would be nice if the physical qualities of the Virginia and NC artifacts of this thread were so clearly presented as those in the images above.
They are not, however, and one is challenged to properly characterize them. "

Quite ,but is not the presentation Springhead , there is a reason that they are so clearly presented that has nothing to do with technology ,
The motifs are there , a cheap camera used by a complete amateur could convince anyone of the presence of motifs .

Non Problematic Discoveries .

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:59 am
by Tiompan

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:14 am
by Springhead
Thanks Tiompan!

This looks interesting and I will read it as soon as I can.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:33 pm
by Springhead

This is an image of an artifact from the Virginia mountain site typical of many found. It exhibits the basic motif described in the "doble yo" piece from San Agustin, Colombia (previous post of a ceramic jar with three legs), that is the juxtopposition of human faces (in this case profiles). The left facing human profile has a basically level line of site while the opposing human profile looks upward. This worked rock is about two and a half inches across.

Of note is the similarity of this artifact with examples found at Calico in California. I expect to find many more of these type art pieces as work continues at the mountain site. Also, this is comparable to middle paleolithic artifacts identified in the course of work by Dr. Harrod in Israel.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:01 pm
by Tiompan
Springhead ,
The double yo is obvious , we can see it . That is not the case with your image .
The Calico artefacts are problematic enough , are you suggesting that some may have worked motifs too ?
There is a comparison with Harrod's "finds and yours ,in that the claims for any worked images are outrageous .

Re: Non Problematic Discoveries .

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:39 pm
by circumspice
Tiompan wrote:This might be of interest . ... ne.0173037

Thanks for the link Tiompan.

This article more or less confirms my contention that the ancient artists were acute observers of the natural world around them & that they were accomplished artists. In looking at the array of artifacts, there was NEVER a need to write a detailed field guide on how to find & recognize the images on the pictured artifacts. You take one brief glance & you actually SEE a cow, a horse... :lol:

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:37 am
by Springhead

Jasper Tools

The first image is a hammer stone of very high quality jasper. The right end shows use wear, and there is an art component in now faint compositions created via outer surface removals. Next is a jasper knife with art showing the common turtle motif facing right. The lower image is a jasper crescent knife with the sharp edge to the right. Here also is an art component with a bearded face looking left and the faint suggestion of a juxtopposed face looking right. These are all from the Virginia mountain site.


The linked article was very interesting and I thank you. The featured artifacts are impressive, but show different characteristics from those that I am finding. The Virginia and NC finds appear to be of much more age and show an art of much greater sophistication than the art shown in the article.

Yes, it is my opinion that some of the Calico artifacts have worked in art that is similar to the Virginia and NC finds. This also applies to some of the Topper artifacts purported to be 50,000 YBP. I am not alone in the opinion about some of the Topper artifacts having art incorporated into them.


I certainly agree with you about the ancient artists' acute observations of the natural world and their being accomplished artists. As to there never being a need for a field guide to find and recognize artistic creations, how about the plaques of the horse art where the raw plaques are shown next to the horse tracings in the article? If those images of the raw plaques had been posted on my thread without tracings, everyone would be raising holy hell about there being no art on the subject stones. The analysis required to illuminate the art presence on those plaques is well beyond what can be seen via an internet exchanged image.

As to seeing the horse or cow in a brief glance, I'll give you the cow but not the horses mentioned from the raw plaques. Your apparent criteria for discerning art subject matter reminds me of the uproar by realists over impressionistic and abstract expressionist art creators. I have found the artists involved with the Virginia and NC artifacts demonstrate the highest artistic skills that I have witnessed. These skills in realism, impressionism, abstract expressionism, and opportunistic use of rock forms combined with mineral and crystal natures and colors are superlative. Combined with their ability to compose images that clearly change into other subject matters with 90 degree rotations of the pieces and their ability to do this in stone form, painting, intaglio, bas relief, and sculpture is the reactive humor, horror, wonder, spirituality, and countless other human emotions which celebrate their representational genius.

As with the slowly gained respect for artists of various modern schools of art, maybe it will take time and learned respect for folks to appreciate, see, and try to understand unfamiliar expressive creations from the deep past.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:52 pm
by circumspice

You haven't got a leg to stand on. Everything you spew is nothing more than your speculation and/or interpretation of what you desperately want to have your rocks identified as.

Just look at the oldest KNOWN cave art & portable art objects... They range in age from 41,800bp to 30,000bp +\-... At no time is it necessary to have a guide point out what the subject matter is on either portable or parietal art.

And guess what? There is NO micro art. There is no artwork that changes with rotations of the portable item. The artwork is what it is, it is what it represents. The deep age of the artwork doesn't affect the ability of anyone to recognize it. Look at the oldest known cave painting in the world... it's a pig & it's recognizable as a pig. Look at the carved ivory Lowenmensch... It's obvious that it is a mythical creature that's half man/half lion...

Nothing you have posted is comparable. NOTHING. Your excuse that the rocks come from a deep past as an explanation for why nobody else sees what you see is specious. From what I can gather, you're the only person who sees what you insist is there.

You can post your crappy, out of focus pics forever & nobody else will ever see what you see. You're wasting the bandwidth on this forum by posting pics of ordinary rocks.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:45 am
by Springhead

Thanks again for your comments, acrid as they are.

I say yes, you say no.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:33 am
by circumspice
These examples speak for themselves, without requiring interpretation: ... hotos.html ... venus.html

They are all upper paleolithic in age, 40,000-25,000 years old, something can be interpreted as 'deep age'.

Is there any doubt as to what the subject matter is? Do you need a field guide along with outlines to explain what you're seeing?

So, we're to believe that your rocks are special & need special interpretation? Really?

Oh, one other thing... note that I don't waste this forum's bandwitdth with data hogging pics...


Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:05 am
by Springhead

Thank you for the links of the paleo art examples of 25,000-40,000 YBP. They were clear and easy to see, a luxury I do not have with the assemblage I am dealing with. Because of the unknown age of these artifacts, it is difficult to make direct comparison to the kindly furnished material, though I have mentioned and do see motif similarities with rock art in often widely geographically spaced locations with those I find in VA and NC. The creative style of these pieces is different from your examples and show greater impressionistic and more sophisticated works. In addition, they record more cultural material in the portraiture of people, animals, families, localities, events, dwellings, and human animal relationships. Though this cultural data is not interpreted, it affords an opportunity to experts willing to take the time.

I do not need a field guide to see these artifact subject matters, but folks used to other expressed modes of rock art might benefit from such initially.

Regarding my "data hogging pictures," might I refer to the tasteless images you posted on this thread earlier in your debate with Tiompan. At least my images are an attempt to communicate within the subject of archaeology and not push some personal agenda totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I also resize most every image to minimize band width use.

Thanks again for the links.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:12 pm
by circumspice
One of the questions I've had about this thread from the very beginning is "why must it be HE or HN that made a putative journey to the Americas?" Anatomically modern humans date back to approximately 195 thousand years ago. If there was a paleolithic journey to the Americas, why not AMH? I have always thought it was possible that there could have been many waves of migration into & back out of the Americas. It seems awfully contrary that humans would have missed two great big huge continents in their explorations... That doesn't necessarily mean that any of the possible early migrations were successful in colonization though. The theorized migrations could have been made by groups that were simply too small to have been successful breeding populations.

There's also been contentious theories that there was a northernmost & westernmost range for HN simply because there is no evidence for their habitation beyond those specified limits. That contention can easily be qualified by adding one little word: 'yet'. Since new discoveries are being made with ever increasing frequency, that statement could easily be modified at any time by a new archaeological site.

Ok... so then we have the hypothesis of the probability that HE & HN made voyages to various isolated islands, notably Crete, for example. I looked it up & found that the distances are easily sailed or rafted by island hopping. 3 island hops from mainland Greece or Turkey to Crete involves distances of a mere 12-24 miles per segment. Hell, physically fit individuals could swim those distances. (however, it's 125 miles to Crete from the closest point of departure in North Africa)

For the hell of it all I got curious & checked the longest distance segment of island hopping to get to Australia... 44 miles. Hmmm...

I still say "show me". Why only HE and/or HN?

Another question looms large: "Why the HELL do you insist that HE & HN had to be technically superior & far advanced versus AMH? You've never addressed that claim, other than stating it...

One last burning question: When are you going to incorporate Atlantis, Ancient Aliens & giants into your theory? Inquiring minds want to know... ... anean-sea/

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:34 am
by Springhead

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I speculate about HE, HN, or hybrids of HN being in the Americas early on for two reasons. The first is the appearance of the portraiture in stone, both painted and carved, of people with the apparent appearance of HE and HN. Because there is no current dating of the artifacts, I also assume the possibility of hybridization between HN and perhaps Cromagnon. I suppose the Dennisovians should be thrown into that mix although little is known about them. The second speculation about the nature of the hominids and/or hybrids comes from the dating of artifacts from such localities as Valsequillo, Calico, and the less controversial Diring Yuriakh site in central Siberia.

I agree with the idea that it (in my words) defies logic that ancient man went just about everywhere except the Americas. It also makes sense to me that there were multiple to very many migrations of early man to and from these two continents. With the glacial/interglacial cycles and changing ocean depths, it seems that there were ample opportunities for back and forth travels, especially across Beringia. I think the movement of megafauna back and forth across Beringia is well accepted, so perhaps it's not such a stretch to speculate that man followed them. With this generalized supposition one can look at the dating of Valsequillo, Calico, and Diring Yuriakh (270,000+ YBP) and at least take note. As you stated, new sites are being found at a rapid rate, and supporting evidence for the very early presence of folks in the Americas could come to light at any time.

The voyaging aspect of migration by HE and HN seems fairly well accepted. 50,000-60,000 YBP across the Wallace line is also well accepted, though what folks may have done that I do not think is known. Elephants also swam that route. Then there is the idea that people voyaged from Bali to Flores 800,000 YBP. These were all apparently purposeful movements of human groups. I have no idea why the elephants took their swim. The discovery of ancient tools in Crete was fascinating and a big surprise to experts in that area. The tools found there are, I think, attributed to HN and dated to 130,000 YBP. I was fortunate to discuss this discovery with one of the team members of the discovery, Karl Wegman. He is a geomorphologist based at NC State University. As an aside, he has expressed interest in visiting the mountain site in the Virginia Blue Ridge to do a stratigraphic analysis of the site when I am ready and he has time. Luckily he is only four hours by car from there. Voyaging to the Americas across vast stretches of ocean seems less likely than shoreline/iceline hopping and camping on both northern oceans by HE and/or HN. Whoever was at the Diring site in Siberia had figured out how to survive minus 50 degrees f. As to interglacial voyaging, it may have been the same people, though land travel could also have been their mode.

Why only HE or HN? My thinking is that HE or HN were the best candidates for the initial migrations before possible hybridization with Dennisovians or Cromagnon, but perhaps they hybridized out of the Americas and then migrated or even along the way, pure speculation on my part.

I do not think I have categorically stated that HE or HN were more advanced than AMH. I have said that in the assemblage apparent in VA and NC the people look like HE and HN and that in my opinion their art is more sophisticated than, for example, the art from your links dated 25,000-40,000 YBP. This could imply superior technology and advancement or simply advanced emotional and spiritual countenance expressed artistically.

I do have ideas about the "A" word, but I don't go there in a forum setting. Giants? Large skeletons have been found in Virginia and elsewhere. Pigmys have been found in Tennessee. I know no more than I read about and leave those speculations to others. Ancient aliens? Won't go there either. Image at the top is just for fun. Came up with the piece in Peru.

Re: Problematic Discoveries

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:15 pm
by Minimalist
One of the questions I've had about this thread from the very beginning is "why must it be HE or HN that made a putative journey to the Americas?

Deep down I suspect that we are HE or rather we evolved from HE into what we are now. Without an amazingly lucky break that gives us an opportunity to examine the HE genome we may never know but I did see a documentary a couple of years ago which demonstrated that HE evolved extensively and became more and more "modern" as it did so.
If I ever see that documentary again, I'll post a link.