bcuzbcuz wrote:Tobin, I've gone through every picture I can find of the Anasazi wall paintings available on the internet. (There are more than 100 rock art sites) I can't do better than that since I live in Europe. I found one image of a horse at the birthing scene wall paintings that do not lie within any of the surrounding three National Parks. (Canyon Lands National Park, Arches National Park, Manti-La Sal National Park) Since that area does not lie within a protected (not that vandals don't scribble graffiti anyway) park area, there can be no guarantee to their dating or validity.
It is known from Anasazi skeletal finds that many of the Anasazi suffered (both male and female) arthritis and spinal degeneration due to carrying heavy loads. So if they had horses, they hadn't figured out how to get them to carry loads.
There are wall paintings at the Canyon de Chelly site that depicts horses but it also clearly has a priest wearing a cross. Oops.
At the Nine Mile Canyon site someone has painted on top of a rock painting "NO TRESSPASSING THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY." Knowledge of spelling is not a vandalism prerequisite." Here is the photo. http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/images ... raph_t.jpg It is followed by: "Contemporary site stewardship ethics prohibit altering or even touching the glyphs. Unlike pottery and basketry, rock art must remain in the wild, a unguarded outdoor museum susceptible to the elements and to the species that created it. Ironically humans represent the greatest danger to rock art sites. Pictographs in European caves have endured for 25,000 years. Today rock art destruction is occurring at a rate that makes natural attrition seem harmless. The destruction wrought in the 20th century has probably outpaced the most productive era of rock art creation. Only the utmost care and respect can preserve our wild museums for future millennia."
Many other rock art sites are vandalized by A**holes who write their names across the pictures. Or even shoot then full of bulletholes. There are pictographs of horses and riders but it is nigh on impossible to date them. The coloration compared to other pictographs on the same wall would seem to indicate much later dating.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Oh, Newspaper rock. I am familiar with that one. The rider on a horse is not an Anasazi petroglyph. It's most likely Navajoe. The Anasazi disappeared nearly a thousand years ago. The petroglyph in the image is fairly new. One can tell by the fact that there is no patina on the engravings. Older petroglyphs start looking a little darker after several hundred years.
Honestly, Tobin, this has no value as proof of horses in the Book of Mormon.
The section from your photo is close to the top. The rock contains two pictographs of riders on what appear to be horses. One is armed with a bow, the other is very clearly imprinted on top of another pictograph. Historically we know the bow and arrow were introduced in this area fairly late in time. The transition from dart tips to arrow tips seem very abrupt.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
The section from your photo is close to the top. The rock contains two pictographs of riders on what appear to be horses. One is armed with a bow, the other is very clearly imprinted on top of another pictograph. Historically we know the bow and arrow were introduced in this area fairly late in time. The transition from dart tips to arrow tips seem very abrupt.
LOL. We "know" no such thing. CFR. IT is "believed" is was added at a later date due to the fact it depicts a man on a horse and is not as discolored as other depictions on the rock.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Oh, Newspaper rock. I am familiar with that one. The rider on a horse is not an Anasazi petroglyph. It's most likely Navajoe. The Anasazi disappeared nearly a thousand years ago. The petroglyph in the image is fairly new. One can tell by the fact that there is no patina on the engravings. Older petroglyphs start looking a little darker after several hundred years. Honestly, Tobin, this has no value as proof of horses in the Book of Mormon.
Themis wrote:Bump :)
I'm still waiting on a CFR on the actual date it was placed there and by exactly who. Otherwise, this is just supposition. Why? Statment: It isn't as discolored as as other petroglyphs so it isn't as old. Counter: It isn't as discolored because it isn't as exposed to the elements and could be just as old. I would like to see the research that the discoloration of a petroglyph is a legitimate way to date a petroglyph and what methodology was used to determine that.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:I'm still waiting on a CFR on the actual date it was placed there and by exactly who. Otherwise, this is just supposition. Why? Statment: It isn't as discolored as as other petroglyphs so it isn't as old. Counter: It isn't as discolored because it isn't as exposed to the elements and could be just as old. I would like to see the research that the discoloration of a petroglyph is a legitimate way to date a petroglyph and what methodology was used to determine that.
He gave you more then enough to start with. I know you said you make no conclusion on it, but then you brought it up for a reason. The reason seems related to another asking for any evidence of per-columbian horses, so it seems reasonable you are bringing it up to show something that may show evdience for just that. What reasons should one consider it to be evidence of pre-columbian horses?
by the way what Quasimodo brought up is more then supposition, and was more then enough for a good start to learn more.
Tobin wrote:I'm still waiting on a CFR on the actual date it was placed there and by exactly who. Otherwise, this is just supposition. Why? Statment: It isn't as discolored as as other petroglyphs so it isn't as old. Counter: It isn't as discolored because it isn't as exposed to the elements and could be just as old. I would like to see the research that the discoloration of a petroglyph is a legitimate way to date a petroglyph and what methodology was used to determine that.
He gave you more then enough to start with. I know you said you make no conclusion on it, but then you brought it up for a reason. The reason seems related to another asking for any evidence of per-columbian horses, so it seems reasonable you are bringing it up to show something that may show evdience for just that. What reasons should one consider it to be evidence of pre-columbian horses?
by the way what Quasimodo brought up is more then supposition, and was more then enough for a good start to learn more.
HE BROUGHT UP A SUPPOSITION. He made a statement based on nothing more than his own opinion. There is no legitimate research on dating petroglyphs by its discoloration. If there is, CFR it.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:HE BROUGHT UP A SUPPOSITION. He made a statement based on nothing more than his own opinion. There is no legitimate research on dating petroglyphs by its discoloration. If there is, CFR it.
Actually he said more then that. Go back and read it. I guess though you have nothing to show it as evidence for pre-columbian horses. Not surprising.
Tobin wrote:LOL. We "know" no such thing. CFR. IT is "believed" is was added at a later date due to the fact it depicts a man on a horse and is not as discolored as other depictions on the rock.
No arrowheads discovered prior to 600 AD should suffice to verify what we "know".
The bow and arrow were not invented nor re-invented by the Anasazi. They adopted its use, along with pottery making, as picked up in trading with other people. Good archaeology follows the trail of evidence that can be verified and dated. Rock art cannot be accurately dated since it often is done by removal of deposits from rock.
I personally have a whole box full of rubbings and pictures I've made from various petroglyphs from the Tl'azt'en nation, from Tatla Lake, nation unknown, and from Coast Salish of the Snuneymuxw people. None of them can be dated. They are however extremely interesting and beautiful.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
