Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I am just talking about dating right now....So you agree that the petroglyphs at Newspaper Rock are an Anasazi site as stated on the government website? So we can assume for a start that the petroglyphs belong to the same time period as the Anasazis?Some, not all.. the site you linked me to yourself even says that people have messed with these rocks and petroglyphs..
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I am just talking about dating right now....So you agree that the petroglyphs at Newspaper Rock are an Anasazi site as stated on the government website? So we can assume for a start that the petroglyphs belong to the same time period as the Anasazis?Hopefully there will be no more jesting in this thread and we can get a substantive answer.
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Some, not all.. the site you linked me to yourself even says that people have messed with these rocks and petroglyphs..Okay, so what would satisfy you for the dating of a particular petroglyph?
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I have not said anything about that as being evidence that it is true. What is lacking is that nobody but you thinks they are fake. You have only asserted it. Again, do you have a scientific study that claims they are fake?This is an easy one for you.I am not aware of any such studies that think they are fake. So, go ahead, find one for us. I bet you cannot.Our past, however, is being threatened by people who collect artifacts and dig sites as well as by those who vandalize rock art panels.So indeed, people have tampered with these petroglyphs... As a whole, I do not believe that the Pueblo people's petroglyphs are fake, but I do believe they have been tampered with and most likely added too..
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Okay, so what would satisfy you for the dating of a particular petroglyph?Date the actual horse petroglyph with the rider on its back... not the surrounding petroglyphs.. since that's the one in question..Edit: when i expand the image of that one, it looks like a pretty fresh petroglyph to me, but that could just be the picture.. so I can't say for certain, but people who have studied these cultures suggest they did not have horses, so it would make me believe it was an added petroglyph Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Some, not all.. the site you linked me to yourself even says that people have messed with these rocks and petroglyphs..Were in does that site claim that people have "messed" with the news paper rock site? I think you are putting words into peoples mouths.I know that some of the art has been vandalized, they specifically were smaller sites. I know of no one that claims that the news paper rock site has been vandalized. Please add some substance and stop asserting things here. You are basically asserting that "The vandalized sites, the vandals added the horses." Is that something you want to stick to?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 So indeed, people have tampered with these petroglyphs... As a whole, I do not believe that the Pueblo people's petroglyphs are fake, but I do believe they have been tampered with and most likely added too..Dude, this is not an admission that news paper rock has been tampered with. They wish to preserve this art (at news paper rock) because other sites have been "messed" with.
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Were in does that site claim that people have "messed" with the news paper rock site? I think you are putting words into peoples mouths.I know that some of the art has been vandalized, they specifically were smaller sites. I know of no one that claims that the news paper rock site has been vandalized. Please add some substance and stop asserting things here. You are basically asserting that "The vandalized sites, the vandals added the horses." Is that something you want to stick to?perhaps you should click "show me" when new texts are posted... read above
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Date the actual horse petroglyph with the rider on its back... not the surrounding petroglyphs.. since that's the one in question..But what would be required to be a date....a picture of it on a website that has citations in general showing that it is considered to included in the group of authentic glyphs or do you need a scientific article that dates that particular petrogylph specifically because they've tested that individual one? Or something else? Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Dude, this is not an admission that news paper rock has been tampered with. They wish to preserve this art (at news paper rock) because other sites have been "messed" with.It is a direction admission that it has been vandalized...
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 But what would be required to be a date....a picture of it on a website that has citations in general showing that it is considered to included in the group of authentic glyphs or do you need a scientific article that dates that particular petrogylph specifically because they've tested that individual one? Or something else?scientific article that dates that particular petroglyph... it's the one in question.. vandalism has occurred.. it looks fresh to my eyes..
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 It is a direction admission that it has been vandalized...Actually it just states that Utah rock art in general has been vandalized, it doesn't specifically identify what has been from what I read. If you have specifics, please quote them.Because rock art is one of the most visible and fragile cultural resources in Utah, it has also been subject to vandalism and destruction.
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I have noticed this in a few other areas as well. I think it quite an interesting thing when there seems to be a dogma when anything scientific is discussed. It is almost like a religion.E=mc2 Anyone?Everyone has their Sacred cows.
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Actually it just states that Utah rock art in general has been vandalized, it doesn't specifically identify what has been from what I read. If you have specifics, please quote them.post #154, direct quote from newspaper rock article as given by your BLM website...Edit: misunderstanding, It was about Utah rocks as a whole, not newspaper rock in general Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 This is what the site says specifically about Newspaper Rock:What To See And Do: Newspaper Rock is an impressive petroglyph site located along Indian Creek in Southeastern Utah. This panel displays multiple periods of rock art from cultures dating to 1500 years ago to this century. The older art is attributed to the ancient Puebloan people who inhabited this region for approximately two thousand years, from 100 B.C. to 1540 A.D.. The more recent art (lighter in color) is attributed to the Ute people who still live in the Four Corners area. This day-use site has toilet facilities and ample paved parking, including pull through sites for larger vehicles and RVs.It does state there is some rock art that is dated to this century (I am assuming they mean the past hundred years). However, since it also describes older and more recent art and their dates, it would appear that they believe they can date the petroglyphs by appearance (at least).
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Actually it just states that Utah rock art in general has been vandalized, it doesn't specifically identify what has been from what I read. If you have specifics, please quote them.But dontcha know Cal... since the rocks are is in Utah... it had to be Mormons who went over there and vandalized the rocks, added the horse so they could claim archeological evidence for the BOM. Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska
William Schryver Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 This is actually a perfect example of the blind adherence to dogma that I'm talking about.Incidentally, there are no fewer than four horse images on Newspaper Rock. There are also other images of horses at other Fremont and Anasazi petroglyph sites on the Colorado Plateau.We know that the Maya and Aztec and Inca did not have horses when the Spaniards arrived. I'm not persuaded that they were absent in North America. Indeed, I have seen some evidence suggesting that, in fact, equus had never become entirely extinct in North America.
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 post #154, direct quote from newspaper rock article as given by your BLM website...Edit: misunderstanding, It was about Utah rocks as a whole, not newspaper rock in generalExactly.
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) This is what the site says specifically about Newspaper Rock:What To See And Do: Newspaper Rock is an impressive petroglyph site located along Indian Creek in Southeastern Utah. This panel displays multiple periods of rock art from cultures dating to 1500 years ago to this century. The older art is attributed to the ancient Puebloan people who inhabited this region for approximately two thousand years, from 100 B.C. to 1540 A.D.. The more recent art (lighter in color) is attributed to the Ute people who still live in the Four Corners area. This day-use site has toilet facilities and ample paved parking, including pull through sites for larger vehicles and RVs.It does state there is some rock art that is dated to this century (I am assuming they mean the past hundred years). However, since it also describes older and more recent art and their dates, it would appear that they believe they can date the petroglyphs by appearance (at least).just as your quote says here there are lighter colored carvings, just as the horse one appears to me... Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Dating the Rock ArtAlthough it is difficult to establish an exact age of rock art, some dating clues are easily identified. For example, whenever a horse and rider is depicted, we know the date to be after AD 1540 when the Spaniards reintroduced the horse to the New World. The presence of bows and arrows is presumed to indicate a date after AD 500, the generally accepted time period for their appearance in this region. For purposes of this guide, time periods are broken into generalized categories relating to the people believed to have made them. http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/recreation/rock_art.htmlReminds me of some bible dating techniques......
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 This is actually a perfect example of the blind adherence to dogma that I'm talking about.I agree.Jester,I challenge you to find a website or article from a reputable source that claims that the Newspaper Rock site is fake or has been tampered with and that dates to after Columbus. I am unable to find it.The general consensus is that these are real and they are precolumbian. And the only person that thinks this is no so is you for no other reason that it supports the BoM. That is truly funny.
Jesterss Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 http://www.blm.gov/u...n/rock_art.htmlReminds me of some bible dating techniques......Which is why in earlier messages, I had said that it's hard to date rock carving petroglyphs, because you can only go off patina, which isn't a valid source either..
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I agree.Jester,I challenge you to find a website or article from a reputable source that claims that the Newspaper Rock site is fake or has been tampered with and that dates to after Columbus. I am unable to find it.See my quotes from the BLM site.....
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 http://www.blm.gov/u...n/rock_art.htmlReminds me of some bible dating techniques......Finally a source. However all we have here is simple dogma. "We all know horses were not here so these glyphs are obviously after Columbus. "
Zakuska Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Finally a source. However all we have here is simple dogma. "We all know horses were not here so these glyphs are obviously after Columbus. "Agreed... Ute AD 1200's to AD 1880 REPRESENTATIONAL (Human forms on foot and mounted on horseback, hunting and warfare scenes, horses, and bison)
Recommended Posts