"The Guardian of the Cave at Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand"
Anthropomorphic stone found by rock collector Thath Chanuhacha of Bankok may also have been recognized and modified in prehistory. The find location at a cave entry, the anthropomorphic imagery detected by Thath and the possibility of an elephant head and trunk combined into the head of the human make this piece and the cave where it was found worth closer examination for art attributes.
A mimetolith collected by Thath.
Another mimetolith collected by Thath at Ha Long Bay, Vietnam
Image Copyright Anne Moss, the cartoon creator
The cartoon above addresses a significant idea in the archaeology of portable rock art. Today's finders and interpreters often have intuitive or common-sense based "feelings" and "sensibilities" about the iconic rocks they identify. This kind of "bond of spontaneous recognition" should not be so quickly dismissed as may be implied by the comedy of the cartoon.
There are several kinds of reasons humans may have an innate sense, in fact a biological and genetically encoded imperative, for recognition of rocks which have been gathered or modified by other humans. Examples include:
1) identification of other contemporaneous humans (threats or potential mates) in or near the same geographic space
2) identification of nearby suitable tool stone resources
3) identification of stone tools which are immediately available for reuse or repurpose
4) identification of areas which may good for exploitation of local resources (site habitation, paths of animal migration, seasonal plant foodstuffs, etc.)
5) in the case of examples of culturally originated visual forms, detection of specific information which may encoded in art objects as stone "exograms," or external information storage devices like books or CD ROMs. (R.G. Bednarik)
These intuitive observations which are experienced broadly by non-formally educated persons seem to be intellectually killed by the field of Archaeology because of its institutionalized and protected knowledge which has become seriously faulty. It is mostly all etic, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who does not participate in the culture being studied (R.G. Bednarik).
The biases of the discipline of Archaeology cannot prevail over the observations of astute laypersons in the long run, with more free association of images and ideas on the internet as opposed to the closed publication systems in anthropology and their thorough inability to process anomalous artifacts and information.
There is no other academic pursuit than archaeology which has had so many of its major twists and turns and developments and advancements assisted by amateur observers. Despite this, there is still an institutionalized disposition against the portable rock art concept. Without any changes and given enough time, the mast of the current archaeology discipline will grabbed away from it by those with more functional and open systems of knowledge generation.
The several hundred well intended and intelligent individuals who have contacted me over the years regarding visually significant objects found in concentrated areas have been treated by professional archaeologists as "misguided" or "cloud watchers" or "pareidoliacs" in every case. This kind of patrolling of ideas is seen in cults, not in academic disciplines. Archaeology may defer to the hard sciences when it is desperate but in no way yet adopts the Scientific Method for its own core functions and operations.
There are several kinds of reasons humans may have an innate sense, in fact a biological and genetically encoded imperative, for recognition of rocks which have been gathered or modified by other humans. Examples include:
1) identification of other contemporaneous humans (threats or potential mates) in or near the same geographic space
2) identification of nearby suitable tool stone resources
3) identification of stone tools which are immediately available for reuse or repurpose
4) identification of areas which may good for exploitation of local resources (site habitation, paths of animal migration, seasonal plant foodstuffs, etc.)
5) in the case of examples of culturally originated visual forms, detection of specific information which may encoded in art objects as stone "exograms," or external information storage devices like books or CD ROMs. (R.G. Bednarik)
These intuitive observations which are experienced broadly by non-formally educated persons seem to be intellectually killed by the field of Archaeology because of its institutionalized and protected knowledge which has become seriously faulty. It is mostly all etic, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who does not participate in the culture being studied (R.G. Bednarik).
The biases of the discipline of Archaeology cannot prevail over the observations of astute laypersons in the long run, with more free association of images and ideas on the internet as opposed to the closed publication systems in anthropology and their thorough inability to process anomalous artifacts and information.
There is no other academic pursuit than archaeology which has had so many of its major twists and turns and developments and advancements assisted by amateur observers. Despite this, there is still an institutionalized disposition against the portable rock art concept. Without any changes and given enough time, the mast of the current archaeology discipline will grabbed away from it by those with more functional and open systems of knowledge generation.
The several hundred well intended and intelligent individuals who have contacted me over the years regarding visually significant objects found in concentrated areas have been treated by professional archaeologists as "misguided" or "cloud watchers" or "pareidoliacs" in every case. This kind of patrolling of ideas is seen in cults, not in academic disciplines. Archaeology may defer to the hard sciences when it is desperate but in no way yet adopts the Scientific Method for its own core functions and operations.
"Some patterns and features in stone tools and art are easily detectable by laypersons but they are eschewed by archaeologists because they are not already in the books and papers they have read. It seems that simple and that dysfunctional. It is as if they know all there is to know and of course that is never the case." -Ken Johnston