tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6057432722659257077.post8798004418454480053..comments2024-03-22T01:42:37.271-04:00Comments on Archaeology of Portable Rock Art: "Natural-looking" portable rock art precludes scientific examination despite earlier success at demonstrating human agency and deliberate incorporation of natural featuresKen Johnstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17626582215405908165noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6057432722659257077.post-29769348631180129122013-12-17T11:39:33.537-05:002013-12-17T11:39:33.537-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6057432722659257077.post-11676904633788433222013-12-17T10:55:51.244-05:002013-12-17T10:55:51.244-05:00Hi Alan and Ken and other readers,
This open discu...Hi Alan and Ken and other readers,<br />This open discussion could be worth full for the discussion on portable rock-art. Of course portable rock- art has been recognized, but even when it wasn't it remains interesting in asking questions about the technical possibilities of carving or modification of stone rocks ( especially transformation into more complex figures). In my opinion, there are limits to this, determined by the raw materials, such as quartz, flint and chert. Flint and chert is more tough than steel and modification of the surface is impossible, the only way to make modifications is through the well- known reduction strategy and afterwards, at the most a secondary retouch is possible. The same for quartz and most quartzites, this is also too hard to carve, So modifications always remain possible e.g. changing the form of sharpened edges ( with notches) or the shape of the rock by battering it ( écaillée). Where nature makes geofacts presenting well -identifiable objects like faces, mammoths, bisons etc they coudl have brought in camps as manuports. Modification of quartz , quartzite, sandstone, lydite etc. into a rock art object still is a possibility, but the technical limits should be should always be taken into consideration. The same for questions about the anthropogenic origins of a portable rock art stone object which always should be part of the attitude to look at these stones, which are not only often very difficult to understand ( interpretation) but also difficult to examine in the technical part. At least for several rock art artifacts presented here I think it is impossible to produce them , so they should be interpret as geofacts. Still the attention for these objects is a very good case. So maybe in the future there will hopefully be more attention for such objects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6057432722659257077.post-13226900006706991762013-12-17T02:40:53.116-05:002013-12-17T02:40:53.116-05:00Regarding replicative experimentation with flint, ...Regarding replicative experimentation with flint, several years ago Richard Wilson (Watford, England) quite successfully (documented with photos) deepened a natural shallow indentation in a smooth flint pebble using a pointed flint piece along with quartz sand and saliva. It can be done! And most assuredly our ancient predecessors, as full-time stone workers, could have done it when they wanted to. Indentations in at least one of the anthropormorphic flint manuports at 33GU218 have the appearance, under the 3D microscope, of possibly having been formed in the manner of Richard's experiment. (Again, I have not photographed this - must do.)<br /><br />Ken, you are quite right in calling for professional/scientific examination of this material, but expecting this of mainstream archaeologists in the current intellectual climate is wishful thinking. Aside from the lack of incentive (not to mention peer pressure), very few archaeologists have more than a very superficial understanding of geology and petrology. For a case in point, follow this link to my recent foray into a professional archaeologists' forum: http://archaeologyfieldwork.com/AFW/Message/Topic/30027/Discussion/artifact-or-geofact<br /><br /> Regards, Alan Day<br /><br />ADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09656187055895441038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6057432722659257077.post-23934365445910357362013-12-17T02:38:32.143-05:002013-12-17T02:38:32.143-05:00Hi Ken and Jimmy...
Ken, many thanks for unearthi...Hi Ken and Jimmy...<br /><br />Ken, many thanks for unearthing that 1970 Russian publication! When I first stumbled upon the Figure Stones at 33GU218 back in 2003, I quickly thereafter discovered to my amazement that Europeans had being seeing the same kind of stuff for some time. But those were avocationals, and it's fascinating that Russian professionals had even earlier recognized and documented the phenomenon in situ, right down to the combined zoomorphic and anthropomorphic imagery. Apparently this did not receive wide attention. (Incidentally, Kostenki is not in Siberia, but in eastern Europe near the city of Voronezh.) I'm still hypothesizing that the production of Figure Stones migrated from Europe to North America via Siberia, quite likely originating elsewhere. (As you know, the things do appear in Siberia.) I hope I might sometime have the opportunity to poke around for the stuff in Africa. (In 2006 I did bring back such artifacts from Australia - some professionally verified as artifactual - bearing the same distinctive motifs and iconographic subcomponents.)<br /><br />It's hard to tell from the photo, and I could be quite wrong, but I think the side of the Kostenki marl piece (highly malleable material) interpreted as a lion profile may be a bear (a very common motif) with a sharply delineated open mouth from which a stylized ("smiley"-like) human face emerges frontally. (This is a likewise common motif in which the small face more commonly appears in profile.) Mac Poole in North Carolina recently sent me a possibly metamorphosed sandstone bear head with this same frontal image in its mouth. And last year I found a volcanic scoria stone in Dominica with a quite distinct frontal face emerging from the mouth of a nondescript (quasi-human?) creature. (I haven't yet photographed these pieces yet - alas far behind in what I should be doing.) To see some stones exhibiting this theme take a look at http://www.daysknob.com/Creature_from_Mouth.htm .<br /><br />Jimmy brings up a very good point, one I discussed briefly with Robert Bednarik here in Ohio last spring. Presenting Figure Stones of material like flint (smooth-surfaced, anyway) and quartz as "carved" is bad for our credibility, given the extreme difficulty of producing small high-resolution imagery in such hard material. (Softer inclusions in flint is another matter - I've seen probable artificial modification in this. And there are many quartz Figure Stones in the southeastern US, I think produced by bipolar reduction and subsequent direct percussion.) Stones like the Oregon find in question are best presented as possible manuports, given its likely natural anthropomorphic appearance (depending largely on context with other "cultural" material). Quite a few of these have appeared at 33GU218, where flint is not part of the local geomorphology.<br /><br />(Oops - too many words for this dumb-ass blog software. Continued in following comment.)ADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09656187055895441038noreply@blogger.com