Problematic Discoveries

[Tiompan]

Very well thanks .Yourself ?
I did see a mention of the exhibition recently but can't find the source .
Didn't see anything on the essay and I don't think Wynn has an Academia page .
Jared Diamond did the foreword ??? , why not ?

[Springhead]

Tiompan,

I am fine as well, thanks. To read the essay it may be necessary to purchase the museum brochure, though over a little time it may be accessible gratis. I suppose Jared Diamond's involvement will not bring ruin to the exhibition.

[Tiompan]

[shawomet]

I think, with the "figure stones" content of the exhibit, most archaeologists would have a problem. Such objects might fall in the category of manuports, if found in direct association with actual man made artifacts in a context suggesting they were actually transported as such. If there is no alteration by human hands, it's not hard to envision recognition of an image, but unless found in a context associated with human activity, then obviously archaeologists will have a problem accepting them. In the right context, the concept itself is not hard to envision.

Nonetheless:

http://artsandculturetx.com/first-sculp ... he-nasher/

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts/visual- ... -years-old

We should just keep in mind that without any evidence of tool marks, a manuport is basically the only status a figure stone could occupy as a class of rock handled by hominids or modern humans. Which is why context will be everything from the perspective of archaeology. I'd be interested in hearing from archaeologists on the particulars here, but would expect some snickering on their part. Not sure if that's fair or not, Just what I would expect after looking at the objects and 60 years experience handling rocks altered by prehistoric peoples.....

[Tiompan]

We have the same problem associated with "rock art " i.e. applying a term that would not have used or considered by the original engraver/ knapper in their cultural context .

As the exhibition is called "first sculpture " and sculpture also includes found objects , then manuports , that have not been worked , also fit into the description .
"I doubt that most archaeologists would have a problem with the concept and most if not all of the content of the exhibition ."

[Springhead]

Shawomet,

Thanks for the two links. I would be interested in Dr. Wynn's take on pareidolia, a human condition often used to automatically refute any idea that a stone has ancient human involvement based on the "misled" machinations and wishes of the unfortunate novice who might come across suspected artifacts with aesthetic components, namely figure stones. If pareidolia is an inherited trait from ancient ancestors, should it not be shrugged off as inconsequential to understanding the aesthetics of earlier hominids who may have created the subject pieces? Perhaps this is part of the key to the works of art shown in the Nasher exhibition. The great amount of archaeological work done in Europe, to include excavations, has given figure stones a context and therefore legitimacy that similar finds in North America lack with the search for Pleistocene era folks and their material culture in its infancy.

I hope this exhibition will open minds and hearts about the apparent enigma of the figure stone.

[Tiompan]

Springhead ,
Pareidolia is one of many explanations for the misattribution of anthropic involvement to natural markings on rocks .
It is likely to have been present in the Paleolithic but cultural conditioning is all important in how it is manifested .
Pre moderns are also likely to have made the same mistake as moderns ,i.e. believing natural markings to have been purposefully engraved by earlier peoples or gods etc .
There is always the possibility that a modern could mistakenly imagine a pattern that would also resonate with someone from a much earlier culture , e.g. eyes ,faces , phosphenes etc
But I do sympathise with your point .
The main thrust of the exhibition seems to me about the possibility of appreciating earlier aesthetics .

[shawomet]

I have been a surface hunter of Native American artifacts for roughly 60 years. One of the Rhode Island fields I hunt is a multi component site with evidence of occupation spanning the Late Paleo through the Contact Era of the 1600's. The site, a corn field, is very unusual in having very, very few rocks, most unlike most rocky New England fields that represented once glaciated land, after all.

At any rate, the dearth of rocks means most of the rocks I come across are flakes, artifacts, and fire stones, or hearth stones. Of course, there are some naturally occurring rocks as well. But, the overall dearth allows me the luxury of checking out most rocks that I come across. Thus permitting the discovery of crude artifacts I might otherwise have missed, principly crude notched weights, and hammerstones.

And three probable manuports. Two highly polished and stunningly beautiful pebbles, and an elongated chunk of shale of the Upper Carboniferous Rhode Island Formation, split open to reveal a fossil fern. Because these were surface finds, I really can only save them as possible manuports, but my experience and knowledge of the site lead me to feel they are probable. The pretty polished stones are usually interpreted as a part of a shaman's kit. As for fossils, we know the natives collected these. A friend found a shale slab, fashioned into a pendant, and showing a fossil fern centered on the piece. Since I collect both fossils and artifacts, I always thought it to be one of the neatest artifacts found locally.

If one simply gathers up rocks that resemble things, one could eventually amass a sizable collection of rocks, I would imagine. The problem will always be whether one can be certain they were actually collected by man, and represent true manuports. It's no stretch to imagine it happening. The problem will be knowing with certainty. I have reason to believe the three rocks I described are genuine manuports, but, since they were surface finds, I don't believe I would ever be able to say with 100% certainty.

[Tiompan]

" usually interpreted as a part of a shaman's kit." .
Do you buy that ?

[shawomet]

[shawomet]

[Tiompan]

Shiny rocks are attractive to non shamans .

What is the ethnography associating the rocks with shamans ?
Whilst appreciating that the shiny rocks are not rock art , there is a tendency to attribute rock art to shamans , with little or no evidence , and I wondering if this is a similar approach .

If north American, wouldn't they much more likely have been described by the informant(s) as something different from "shaman ",
which is no more appropriate than witch doctor , ( medicine people might be better bet ) .

[shawomet]

[Tiompan]

[


There is no shortage of archaeologists who buy into the shamanic hypothesis of rock art production,and no shortage of them mentioning quartz being associated with shamans but what is usually missing are the shamen .
Quartz is found in association with many ancient monuments and and arguably directly associated with the belief systems /cosmology of the people who built and used the monuments but that doesn't mean they were shamen , or there were any shamen in their culture . This is particularly evident in Africa ,America and Australia where ethnography demonstrates time and again that indigenes not only don't use the word but the description does not fit their type of medicine man , spiritual specialist etc .
Exactly , manuports are one thing , and it might be possible to provide a good argument in their favour , or suggesting quartz jammed into the fissures of a rock art site being related to the engravers , but shamen's kit is easy to say , much to easily accepted by an uncritical audience , impossible to prove and untestable .

Yep , fossils ,ammonites and oddly shaped /visually striking stones are chosen for their character and often found at thresholds /entrances , enhanced or used in association with later engravings etc .

[Springhead]

[img][/img]


Hello,

The above image is a gastrolith with a well worn thumb location to the right and a lesser but well worn finger location to the left. This was a surface find that included three other gastroliths, a mano, possible dinosaur egg, white quartz small rounded stone, and a oval rounded jasper hammer stone. These objects were all found under leaf mold in extremely close proximity to one another and were located at the exact high point on a knob protruding from a NW facing mountain spine. From the find spot one observes that the sun sets perfectly in a mountain cleft on the winter solstice. Other artifacts have been recovered from the general area within 50' of the gastroliths, etc. There is a terrace complex near and associated to the knob (called "the central knoll").

Also, many suspected artifacts are coming from specific surface contexts such as springheads and specific spring branch locations. Though without context in a stratigraphic setting, they have group and locational context. There are large numbers of interesting stones coming from these locations. I have noticed that in these finds are many crystals and crystals in rock martrix. My guess is that they were interesting and collected by folks much in the same manner as my finding them, but certainly in part for different reasons.

A geologist/archaeologist identified the gastroliths and opined that the entire group could be sacred stones. This may have been the pat answer or maybe he had more substantial reasons for thinking so. I found that there is a very small amount of exposed Jurrasic ground in the county to the east of the mountain site. This could be a source of dinosaur material or it could have been traded or carried from afar.