Thylacoleo Gal
Administrator
Thylacoleo Gal
The Singularity is near.
Posts: 3,689
|
Post by Thylacoleo Gal on Jun 12, 2014 8:12:53 GMT 10
... Yes, there are times when it is quite apparent that certain artworks have been intentionally 'vandalised' (and even this has occurred many 1000s of yrs ago by what appears to be still very early humans), but this tends to occur most frequently with the Bradshaw/ Gwion Gwion art. .. Curious, that. Did you get any impression there had been selective preference towards which particular works had been vandalised/partly erased in times long past? ie Was it mainly images of carnivores such as Thylacines, Thylacoleo or Tassie Devils * that tended to be erased, more than represenations of, say, macropods? *: Speaking of Devils, would you say some of those images could in fact be Tassie Devils? Or perhaps modern Devils' larger Pleistocene forebear?
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Jun 12, 2014 12:51:14 GMT 10
Here is a devil for comparison:
|
|
|
Post by youcantry on Jun 13, 2014 12:39:29 GMT 10
I've never seen anything like it (the devil art). Note the thickness of the tail - a healthy specimen (notwithstanding we cannot know the intent or accuracy of the artist!!)
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Jun 15, 2014 10:50:03 GMT 10
Related to this discussion: www.smh.com.au/national/archaeological-cave-dig-unearths-artefacts-from-45000-years-ago-20140614-zs7wd.htmlSorry the link didn't work. Don'y know why. It will be interesting to learn of what the article means by older sites in the Kimberley. Regarding Debbie's qn regarding damage to rock art works: as I said earlier: Bradshaw/Gwion art was definitely damaged thru what appears to be deliberate intent. Otherwise, there is art work painted over existing artwork. And with respect to the art work of the T. Devil: quite likely...but we will never know whether if that was the actual animal being depicted. With the arrangement of the fur on the tail: somewhat similar to that of the Numbat, but the snout is too robust. Did I see any work similar to a Devil? Not that I can make out. I have alot of animal art work...many of them are quite vague. However, I have a couple that leaves me curious as to what they represent. I will probably share them later, but they will certainly be open to individual interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Jun 16, 2014 20:31:48 GMT 10
|
|
Thylacoleo Gal
Administrator
Thylacoleo Gal
The Singularity is near.
Posts: 3,689
|
Post by Thylacoleo Gal on Jul 13, 2014 6:19:08 GMT 10
If I get some time - a big ask, that! - I'll collate and compare some of Josephine Flood's material with my own photographs of Outback rockart. They were taken a long time ago but one of these days I hope to make it back "out there". One of these days .. Rock engravings from Pleistocene times are a resource that palaeontologists don't pay much attention to, for reasons I've never been able to fathom. Which is a pity because I'm sure that many of them can validate late-surviving megafauna and some of them may depict Hobbit-type hominids. If it's reasonable to posit that such carvings were made in the same localities that such homininds lived, then they obviously give us a lead as to where their fossil traces are to be found. That would be a very significant discovery in Australia, I'm sure we'd all agree?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jul 27, 2014 8:27:29 GMT 10
Thylacoid #3: There are multiple layers of animal pics superimposed .... As I was watching tv this evening, I thought of this comment, when the researchers in this program found superimposed images. Fortunately, their website made that portion of the video available online. I can't extract the video url, so it can be found on this page. The comments regarding superimposition start at two minutes and thirty-seven seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 5, 2014 1:30:12 GMT 10
Rock engravings from Pleistocene times are a resource that palaeontologists don't pay much attention to, for reasons I've never been able to fathom. Which is a pity because I'm sure that many of them can validate late-surviving megafauna and some of them may depict Hobbit-type hominids. Recently I got my hands on this paper: Bednarik, Robert G. 2013. "Megafauna depictions in Australian rock art." Rock Art Research 30(2):197-215. The author is firmly of the view that trying to identify extinct animals from rock art is folly because we can't know the artist's intention and there is a huge gulf between our modern way of seeing things, and how they may have been perceived and conceptualised by ancient cultures. He makes a lot of valid points, including the dubious dating (some of which is unsubstantiated guesswork) used for much rock art, but in my mind the article is dragged down a bit by his snarky pessimism. I don't really agree with his dismissal of all efforts at identifying megafauna in rock art, but I do agree that we can rarely know for sure what is depicted. Regarding small hominids, we must also bear in mind that some such artistic depictions may be related to spirit beings encountered in a shamanic visionary state, rather than physical beings from a modern materialist point of view, and also that aboriginal people of the past may not conceive a difference between dreaming spirits and 'real' beings.
|
|
|
Post by Surroundx on Sept 27, 2014 17:40:27 GMT 10
Recently I got my hands on this paper: Bednarik, Robert G. 2013. "Megafauna depictions in Australian rock art." Rock Art Research 30(2):197-215. The author is firmly of the view that trying to identify extinct animals from rock art is folly because we can't know the artist's intention and there is a huge gulf between our modern way of seeing things, and how they may have been perceived and conceptualised by ancient cultures. He makes a lot of valid points, including the dubious dating (some of which is unsubstantiated guesswork) used for much rock art, but in my mind the article is dragged down a bit by his snarky pessimism. I don't really agree with his dismissal of all efforts at identifying megafauna in rock art, but I do agree that we can rarely know for sure what is depicted. Bednarik is President of the International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), and has written several papers criticizing megafaunal interpretations of rock art. At least one is available free online: Bednarik, Robert G. (2013). Myths About Rock Art. Journal of Literature and Art Studies 3(8): 482-500.
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Oct 3, 2014 16:14:35 GMT 10
Couldn't agree more, Chris M. I have had several conversations with a variety of people who are familiar with Kimberley rock art. There are those who seem to consider that almost every form of art representing animals are true in every detail, including scale of size, anatomy and interpretation. It all becomes rather subjective, almost to the point where people desire for their interpretations to be correct. We know nothing of the artist: some art may be little more than doodling, perhaps a child is 'scribbling' on the walls out of boredom (kids still do that today), the artist may be just fantasising, perhaps even the artist's skills at drawing may be very poor. These are just a few considerations. And yet some people believe they can come up with firm conclusions regarding their meaning. Grahame Walsh got a bit of a trashing for having done so. I have seen some work where it is quite possible to assume it could represent megafauna but this is based mainly by what I already have seen in texts on the subject. I would love to assume I am correct but that's where the problem may lie. I have spoken to one person regarding the following artwork (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-Rock-art-appears-to-show-a-hunter-fending-off-a-Thylacoleo-carnifex-43993713.html)where a hunter appears to be attempting to spear (barbed) or fend off a quite large striped quadruped and he is adamant that it is Thylacoleo and his view has creditable support. I have been to this site and while I can certainly understand this interpretation that art work itself is surprisingly small and it is uncertain whether the scale of hunter to animal is correct. I'm not saying that this point of view is wrong but I do believe we need to exercise a great deal of caution when interpretation and to remain objective. There is another panel in the Kimberley (known to some as deer rock: www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/introduction.php) showing 20 or more of the same animals all in line. These animals appear to be possess antlers. I have also been to this site and yes they do appear to look like deer and there is every possibility the artist may be aware of the presence of deer in nearby Indonesia. But are the structures actually antlers and therefore are they deer? I have seen several rock art sites showing what appear to be lizards and these possess forked structures attached to their heads. Am I allowed a little licence to assume they are dragons (which I don't actually believe, but this is the point I'm making). Out of the many 100s of different art sites I have personally seen in a variety of locations in the northern Kimberley, there is significant diversity regarding their quality: some art work is outstanding, some is very poor, some borders on potentially juvenile, many affected by age and very vague; sometimes it appears to be quite fanciful and is virtually impossible to make any sense of it. I'm looking forward to reading Bednarik's work you provided Grand Master. One last word: As some of you may have done so already, I would much prefer the opportunity of visiting these sites and trying to make sense of these remarkable pieces of work than not. I also enjoy discussing realistic interpretations and speculations of the works. However, I would exercise a little caution regarding making firm conclusions no matter how familiar one may be. Anyhow, my 2 bob's worth.
|
|
|
Post by molloch on Oct 4, 2014 10:27:14 GMT 10
Couldn't agree more Anubis. One of Benarik's points is also that the style of drawing showing "megafauna" species is not known from that time period. This could be drawings of late surviving megafauna, but the simpler explanation is that we just can't be sure that these creatures *are* megafauna at all. After all, we are trying to identify animals we have never seen in primitive drawings. We can compare them to artists reconstructions of megafauna, but these change over time as more evidence becomes available. We should be cautious with such subjective evidence.
Also, I agree that you have to take these pictures in the context of their surroundings. Identifying animals from an isolated photo of a picture can remove much of the context.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Oct 9, 2014 12:50:51 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Oct 9, 2014 12:52:46 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Oct 11, 2014 20:20:19 GMT 10
The so-called pig-deer/babirusa is similar (but I am not saying the same as and not suggesting it does bear any relationship to...but of a similar age) to what is called the animal irregular infill art of the Kimberley, some of the oldest art within this region and some of the oldest art in the world. www.kimberleyfoundation.org.au/uploads/41632/ufiles/figure-guide/kfa-style-guide-irregular-infill-animal.pdfI certainly will not attempt to hypothesise.....but....it may appear that I am....not....but the similarity regarding age, region and appearance is intriguing.... This is one of those things that makes the existence of this material so absolutely captivating! Bring it on!
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Oct 11, 2014 21:26:17 GMT 10
Bednarik's article provided by Grand Master was a great read. He (Bednarik) is certainly articulate and his use of some terms had me racing to a dictionary! I was particularly drawn to his use of the terms 'apophenia and pareidolia'. While I have come across the latter of the two terms, these words are so significant in so many areas associated with the posts elsewhere on this site and many other wed sites, texts etc involving anything crypto. Without elaborating excessively on this topic, I have always been intrigued how the possible existence of certain 'hidden' animals can be possible when they make very little sense, whether it be scientific or logical or otherwise.
As humans, as soon as a word exists to describe something, it often opens doors to assist us to justify or explain reasons for something that support our perspective, especially when individuals are partial to arguing something in their favour when, to the rest of us, we are left scratching our heads. These two terms, apophenia and pareidolia (and are there others?) allow me to consider that the existence of some/most/all cryptos (and believe me, I may have spent too much of my own time undertaking vain searches hoping to encounter one or more) may be better explained otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Oct 11, 2014 22:56:41 GMT 10
... his use of some terms had me racing to a dictionary! I was particularly drawn to his use of the terms 'apophenia and pareidolia'. And so you've sent me waddling to the dictionary!
|
|
|
Post by Surroundx on Jun 23, 2015 21:40:25 GMT 10
Thy 'Thylacoleo' is a thylacineAbstract In 2009 two Kimberley rock art paintings were reported as representing Australia's extinct marsupial lion, Thylacoleo carnifex (Akerman 2009; Akerman and Willing 2009). The first painting was re-examined and confirmed as a representation of Thylacoleo (Woodhouse 2012). Some researchers now refer to the presence of Thylacoleo in Kimberley rock art to support further theories about northern Australian rock art and prehistoric events. This paper argues the case that both paintings represent the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus, Tasmanian tiger) and not Thylacoleo. Distinctive attributes of the thylacine, present in both paintings, are described. Thylacine paintings are common in the Kimberley and appear in a variety of shapes, sizes, postures and artistic styles. Neither painting is from the Pleistocene; the first is superimposed over earlier human figures, and, stylistically, neither belongs to the Archaic Period in the Kimberley rock art sequence. Thylacines became extinct on mainland Australia following the arrival of the dingo approximately 3500 years ago (Paddle 2000:20), while Thylacoleo is argued to have become extinct approximately 46,000 years ago (Roberts et al. 2001). Source: Welch, David M. (2015). Thy 'Thylacoleo' is a thylacine. Australian Archaeology 80: 40-47. [ Abstract]
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on Jun 23, 2015 23:18:27 GMT 10
The black panther like animal regularly reported is definitely arboreal, has this behaviour been observed in thylacines?
|
|