Tobin wrote:Actually, you are misreading what I said. I was referring to stone flint arrowheads (which you can dig up almost anywhere). This is generally referred to as Clovis point technology because of how they are made. This type of technology was widely used through-out NA and some of earliest examples can be found near Clovis, New Mexico. But there are caches all over the country from Washington State to North Carolina to as far south as Venezuela. You are also incorrect in stating that these are very valuable and you can buy these types of things at a garage sale. In fact, they are very common and that means you really don't understand what you are talking about. Only verified early examples of Clovis points are valuable.
Total BS! As usual.
Once again, I'm tired of the crap. You know absolutely nothing about the subject. Play silly buggers with the others if you find it amusing, but I really don't want to spend the time arguing with someone that has no respect for the truth.
Also, your statement that there are NOT examples of early arrowheads found mixed with other Clovis points is false: http://www.texasarrowheads.com/featured-artifacts/crain-clovis/ Isn't it interesting that those arrowheads (of undetermined age) bear a striking similarity to the other Clovis points that they were found with? But I must have just made up those pictures (and even made up the captions)! In fact, even the common arrowheads that I have (or that are listed on EBay) are similiar. Now that is some really dissimilar technology isn't it?
I wonder which of us has no regard for the truth?
"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:LOL What are you talking about? The Clovis people (13,000 years ago) made arrowheads. Actually, they are very common. I have a few.
Please include a Clovis arrowhead. I'd love to see it. Please include something to give a size reference. The Clovis had spears and therefore spearheads but I didn't know they had arrowheads. I am aware that Clovis spear tips have a certain form that does not necessarily mean a date but merely a shape or form which was repeated for many centuries. I hope your "clovis arrowhead" has been dated accurately and not just picked up from lying on the ground, which does nothing to verify its date.
Tobin wrote:The arrowhead and bow was NOT invented in 600 AD. And even if you were right, 600 AD is before Columbus arrived here making it a depiction of a pre-Columbian horse - proving my point.
I am well aware the bow and arrow were not invented in 600 AD. I made no such statement, merely that it first appeared around that time with the Anasazi. The bow and arrow seems to have been introduced in North America some 100 or 200 years earlier. I could not find a single Anasazi pottery that depicts either a horse or a bow and arrow.
Arrowheads have been found from this period (600 AD) of the Anasazi culture, both used and discarded arrowheads. However, not a single horse bone or tooth has been recovered from any period of the Anasazi who basically disappeared as a culture sometime in the 1200's or 1300's....long before Columbus. Let me know when you find a horse skeletal remain from the Anasazi.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
Tobin wrote:LOL What are you talking about? The Clovis people (13,000 years ago) made arrowheads. Actually, they are very common. I have a few. The arrowhead and bow was NOT invented in 600 AD. And even if you were right, 600 AD is before Columbus arrived here making it a depiction of a pre-Columbian horse - proving my point.
The only point being proven is that you indeed did present it as evidence of a pre-columbian horse, but I cannot see how the bow and arrow being used well before Columbus makes it a depiction of a pre-Columbian horse. Could you back that up?
Tobin wrote:LOL What are you talking about? The Clovis people (13,000 years ago) made arrowheads. Actually, they are very common. I have a few. The arrowhead and bow was NOT invented in 600 AD. And even if you were right, 600 AD is before Columbus arrived here making it a depiction of a pre-Columbian horse - proving my point.
The only point being proven is that you indeed did present it as evidence of a pre-columbian horse, but I cannot see how the bow and arrow being used well before Columbus makes it a depiction of a pre-Columbian horse. Could you back that up?
Let's suppose that the depiction of the man riding a horse using a bow and arrow was made anywhere from 600 to 1400AD. That demonstrates a pre-Columbian horse.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
bcuzbcuz wrote:Please include a Clovis arrowhead. I'd love to see it. Please include something to give a size reference. The Clovis had spears and therefore spearheads but I didn't know they had arrowheads. I am aware that Clovis spear tips have a certain form that does not necessarily mean a date but merely a shape or form which was repeated for many centuries. I hope your "clovis arrowhead" has been dated accurately and not just picked up from lying on the ground, which does nothing to verify its date.
bcuzbcuz wrote:I am well aware the bow and arrow were not invented in 600 AD. I made no such statement, merely that it first appeared around that time with the Anasazi. The bow and arrow seems to have been introduced in North America some 100 or 200 years earlier.
bcuzbcuz wrote:I could not find a single Anasazi pottery that depicts either a horse or a bow and arrow.
Arrowheads have been found from this period (600 AD) of the Anasazi culture, both used and discarded arrowheads. However, not a single horse bone or tooth has been recovered from any period of the Anasazi who basically disappeared as a culture sometime in the 1200's or 1300's....long before Columbus. Let me know when you find a horse skeletal remain from the Anasazi.
We aren't discussing Anasazi pottery or horse bone finds. Only a depiction on a 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
Tobin wrote:Let's suppose that the depiction of the man riding a horse using a bow and arrow was made anywhere from 600 to 1400AD. That demonstrates a pre-Columbian horse.
That's all it is though, and others have given reasons why it probably is not pre-columbian. This discussion has been about providing evidence for pre-columbian horses, not depictions that are most likely post-columbian.
Tobin wrote:Let's suppose that the depiction of the man riding a horse using a bow and arrow was made anywhere from 600 to 1400AD. That demonstrates a pre-Columbian horse.
Your statement claimed it was. I was asking you to back that up.
I already have. I've linked the petroglyph of man riding a horse using a bow and arrow to shoot an animal. If this depiction is earlier than 1492AD, it is pre-Columbian and shows there were horses here already. If the depiction is Anasazi in origin, then it obviously is that old and all the proof you need.
"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 already have. I've linked the petroglyph of man riding a horse using a bow and arrow to shoot an animal. If this depiction is earlier than 1492AD, it is pre-Columbian and shows there were horses here already. If the depiction is Anasazi in origin, then it obviously is that old and all the proof you need.
You have provided no evidence or proof. What is your evidence that it was the Anasazi that put in on the rock since it has been used by other groups. What evidence I see suggests a later date.
Tobin wrote:I already have. I've linked the petroglyph of man riding a horse using a bow and arrow to shoot an animal. If this depiction is earlier than 1492AD, it is pre-Columbian and shows there were horses here already. If the depiction is Anasazi in origin, then it obviously is that old and all the proof you need.
You have provided no evidence or proof. What is your evidence that it was the Anasazi that put in on the rock since it has been used by other groups. What evidence I see suggests a later date.
Why? Are you disputing there are Anasazi petroglyphs on the rock? And which ones are and are not Anasazi and how do you know? We clearly have a depiction of a man riding a horse. My suspicion is that this shows a pre-Columbian horse. Now prove me wrong without resorting to supposition.
"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
You have been given reason why it is thought to be later. You just don't like them. :)
Are you disputing there are Anasazi petroglyphs on the rock?
No.
And which ones are and are not Anasazi and how do you know?
Again you have been reasons. Weathering, patina, placement, culture, etc are ways they can try to help determine these things.
We clearly have a depiction of a man riding a horse. My suspicion is that this shows a pre-Columbian horse. Now prove me wrong without resorting to supposition.
Why would you suspect this other then your belief the Book of Mormon is true, which is not based on any physical evidence, but an experience you believe came from God. This is what is driving your suspicions. We see no horse remains, no depictions that are confirmed to be pre-columbian, and others have given reasons why it is probably of a later date. The rock has depictions on it that cover a long time period and as I understand probably go from older to younger. The horse depiction looks to be right where it should be, but since it cannot be proven conclusively with this depiction alone you will hold desperately to it. If we look at what evidence we have here and over all throughout the Americas it becomes more obvious it is not pre-columbian.