>GM>The scoria pebble which has the form of a human female WAS a piece
>>of rock that Homo erectus picked up. But he then modified it.
>>Scoria, the material this figurine was made of is not common at the
>>Berekhat Ram site. In fact, the only scoria pebble found was the
>>one that was modified by human hands to create part of the figurine.
>
>Glenn needs to re-read his own source! :-) The whole point of Marshack's
>argument is that the Golan Venus is not "scoria" but "pyroclastic rock":
>
Why do I bother? Stephen, scoria IS pyroclastic rock! The Dictionary of
Geological Terms C.M. Rice 1963, says,
Scoria. 1. An irregular, rough, clinker-like more or less vesicular fragment
of lava, thrown out in an explosive eruption or formed by the breaking up of
the first cooled crust of a lava flow." p. 363-364
Pyroclastic: Fragmental volcanic rock p. 329
It would be appreciated if you would take the time to understand what it is
that others are saying before coming up with this silly stuff. I really don't
want to sound harsh but the above is illustrative of much of what you do.
>"In his note on the Berekhat Ram figurine, excavated from a late
>Acheulian level and dated at ca. 230,000 B.P. CA 3 5: 674-75),
>Pelcin argues that the figurine is scoria, as it was generically
>described in the initial publication. He documents the fact that scoria
>can acquire odd shapes and natural grooving and therefore
>recommends that the Berekhat Ram figurine be subjected to
>microscopic analysis. I performed such microscopic analysis in the
>summer of 1994 and am preparing the results for publication. When I
>presented the results to Sergio Peltz of the Geological Survey of
>Israel Jerusalem, a specialist in scoria and the pyroclastic materials of
>Israel, he examined the figurine and reported (personal
>communication, October 23, 1994) that "the material of the figurine
>was part of the matrix of a welded scoria deposit, but specifically the
>figurine is not a scoria." (Marshack A., "On the `Geological'
>Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology,
>36:3, June, 1995, p495)
>
[sigh] Stephen, The article that Marshack is referring to is one by Andrew
Pelcin, "A Geological Explanation for the Berekhat Ram Figurine" Current
Anthropology Dec. 1994, pp674-675
Pelcin had not examined the object personally, but made the suggestion that
since it was scoria, the figurine might be the chance-formed shape of a
volcanic eruption. Marshack examined the actual object and discovered that
there was evidence that the shape of the scoria had been altered by digging
part of the scoria away to enhance the female form. This is the reason he
says that the figurine is not a scoria. Marshack is distinguishing between
the actual figure and the process which formed it.
Stephen wrote:
>I would urge Reflectorites to look at the photo of this claimed work
>of art and judge for themselves. I have no problem if this is a work
>of art, but Glenn should have! :-) It is *very* crude and if it is
>an example of the art that early man was capable of producting 330
>kya, it is a complete refutation of Glenn's view that early man was
>capable of building a 3-decker Ark 5,500 kya.
>
I have admitted on numerous occasions that this is a crude piece of art. So
what? Chimpanzees do not engage in any form of art.
[snip]
>GM>So big deal. So what if the object is "EXTREMELY CRUDE". Have
>>you ever seen the scupture and art made by my middle son? I would
>>use a similar description for what he makes, and he is fully human.
>
>No doubt, but presumably this "small stone figurine of a woman" was
>the best that an *adult* could do, 330 kya.
>
And who said it was made by an adult? And who said it was the best that they
could do? Do you have knowledge of this that other people don't have? I know
lots of modern ADULTS who are ashamed of how poorly they sculpt and draw.
Their art, while extremely crude is not the best that humans can produce, but
theirs, some day might be the only examples PRESERVED. Does this make them
sub-human? Get real Stephen.
[snip]
>GM>Last year Marshack wrote:
>>
>> "Peltz reported that it was clear that 'human hands had worked a
>>fragment of pyroclastic rock, namely an indurated tuff.' The illustrations
> and
>>arguments presented by Pelcin therefore do not apply. To complement my
>>microscopic analysis, Peltz and N. Goren-Inbar are preparing an analytical
>>paper on the geology of the site and the pyroclastic nature of the
> figurine.
>>Until publication of these analyses, the debate on possible pre-Upper
>>Paleolithic symboling may perhaps best be addressed not by suppositions at
>a
>>distance but through the microscopic analysis of a late Middle Paleolithic
>>incised composition from the site of Quneitra, Israel."~Alexander
> Marshack,
>>"On the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
>>Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495.
>
>Actually Marshack wrote this in *1994*. The article is headed:
>
>"ALEXANDER MARSHACK Peabody Museum, Harvard
>University, Cambridge, Mass. 02I38, U.S.A. 19 XII 94"
>
>His Discovery remark was in *1996*, and must (in the absence of any
>corrections) be regarded as his most recent thought on the subject.
>
I do not have the Discover that you speak of but from what you write, Marshack
didn't even mention the Berekhat Ram figurine. How can a lack of mention be
considered his most recent thought on the issue?
[snip]
>But in any event Glenn has (perhaps unconsciously) seized on my
>mention of "brain size" as a red-herring, to distract attention from
>his major difficulty. According to him, if "archaic Homo Sapiens
>actually built ocean going boats" it "would be a major discovery".
>But the point is that Glenn's 5.5 mya H. habilis/erectus Adam theory
>requires that the *ancestor* of "archaic Homo Sapiens', namely "Homo
>habilis" (or erectus) "built a three-decker ark, not "176 thousand
>years" ago, but 5500 thousand years ago". I repeat *5500 THOUSAND
>years ago*. That is more than THIRTY TIMES as long ago!
Well, the earliest documented ocean crossing of early man occurred PRIOR to
730,000 years ago (I know stephen, you will say "that is a far cry from 5.5
MYR). The ocean between the Indonesian island of Flores and the rest of
Flores is much deeper than 600 feet. At no time during the past 800,000 years
was the ocean that low. Yet Homo erectus is found, dating at 800,000 years on
that island. Somehow, he crossed the ocean. (Let me save you the calculation:
5.5 myr is 6.8 times older than 800,000) (for reference see ~P.Y.
Sondaar, et al., "Middle Pleistocene faunal turnover and Colonization of
Flores(Indonesia) by Homo erectus," Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences.
Paris 319:1255-1262, p. 1261)
The interesting thing is that H. erectus had to cross TWO stretches of ocean
to reach Flores. The deep sea separates Bali from Lombok and then another
separates Sumbawa from Flores. Did H. erectus have a boat? We KNOW he worked
with wood.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm