It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 40 000 year old Sphinx

page: 7
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
So we had people carving rock 40,000 years ago. What is so hard to believe about that. I mean, they might have even been another race like the neanderthals or any of the other races. Why do we need undeniable proof to say people liked to carve rocks long ago? Now proving who they were is a different thing all together, if you say who they were you should have proof.

Now mankind didn't just start making pyramids and carving rock five thousand years ago, the technique could have been passed down for thousands of generations. Just because they can not find definite proof that mankind was doing this long ago, doesn't mean they weren't. You can't carbondate rock.




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Thanks for taking the time to formulate those lengthy responses. I don't have anything to add, just wanted to acknowledge that I read them.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Great research and revival of work already done to string together concepts.

One note about your reference to the Annunaki (Marduk) relief showing the figure with wings: Wings are used as a tool of visual communication. They represent the ability to fly. The ancients needed to communicate the "so called divine" ability to fly that the ancient alien visitors possessed. Since the only other things on Earth with the ability to fly, and known to people, were birds, and wings gave birds the ability, wings are attached to important figures and flying discs to communicate their ability to fly.

This is not a literal implication of having wings sticking out of a human (or animal's) back, but rather a method of imparting the advanced knowledge and technology possessed by the "thing" to fly. We see this in every instance of flying discs carrying the Annunaki (Annuna) gods to Earth, and in representation of the same in Egypt. Wings=Technology and Ability To Fly.

We have to keep in mind that 99.9% of the people during these ancient times (3000 BC - 1000 AD) could not read or write. Religion, history and law had to be communicated orally or through visual representation of stories.

So, when we I see a "winged anything" I remind myself that the "thing" was either believed to be from the stars and flew down to Earth, or has the technology (and tools or crafts) necessary to fly. It didn't mean it was a literal hybrid creature.



More on the ability of Annunaki (Annuna) to fly here, straight from the original Sumerian Texts as translated by Oxford University research team:

The Annunaki - Technology for Flight



edit on 26-3-2014 by KanuTruth because: Added pictures of winged ancient alien "gods"



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Man conveniently explains,so we don’t have to acknowledge, anything potentially supernatural like, Serpents or say Lion men that are ingrained in the symbolic evolution of us Why?

A symbolic image that we find all over our world, is the lion men?

The four elements?
Male or Female or both the separation of one, the yearning to reconnect?

Ariel,Maahes, Bast or Sekhmet, Leontopolis, Muqdam, Apedemak, Narasimha, Lowenmensch, Sphinx?

Forgot to say excellent post OP
edit on 26-3-2014 by Fingle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Fingle
 


What is the lion man is Neanderthal man?

How could this be interpreted?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


SkyFloating: You rock! That thread about the sun wheel/flying discs is the best collection of historical art examples that support the theory. Well done. I would hand you an award if I could.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Could it just be a figurine of a man wearing a lion skin and the lion head is like a hood? Or even the depiction of a bear standing up-right? As in if they guy sculpting the figure didn't know what a bear looked like and some one told him that they stand up taller then a man, are covered in fur and have a head similar to a lion? It could be possible people are really just over thinking things, but who really knows?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I notice a lot of people quoting how long people took trying to make this with the tools of the time and crazy numbers of how long it would take. I wonder if these people ever considered that unlike them, the creators of this were not trying to make an exact replica and instead going for the original that was a close approximation of something and this is what they ended up with. I mean yeah if you take stone tools and try to make an exact copy of something it's going to take a crazy long time. These aren't precise instruments. But the chances that the original was done with that precision is unlikely as it's one of a kind. Just because it looks nice doesn't mean anything because there's nothing for it to be a copy of to compare it too. For all you know, it looks nothing like it was intended to, and the original artist could point out a whole bunch of flaws and things that are off because well stone tools suck and in the end they certainly weren't going to start over. There is no real way of knowing how good a job this actually is, or how much time it actually took. Heck we don't even know the original shape and size of the pre-carved object. A lot of times people look at something, notice in the shape it reminds them of something else or it's shape inspires creation, and they alter it to bring that imagination to life. It may not have even had that much about it to be altered in the first place. Could also be carved musings that eventually took shape as the carper absently whiddled letting his imagination take form.

It just seems to me there's a lot of assumption while trying to determine how long this would have taken that have no basis in how these projects often come about and make assumptions about the object that have no necessary basis in truth. Just my two-cents.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ArdenWolf
 


but it's not one of a kind and there is a smaller but extremely similar piece found in a cave not far from where this piece was discovered along with other carved animal figures and flutes. there IS a cultural context within which these pieces fit.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Cultural context yes, and similar figures, yes, but until you start getting near exact replicas, there's no way to accurately say how precise these things really are in work. if you ask 7 people to make a stone turtle, all of them will create a stone turtle, none will be identical. You ask all seven people to make the same stone turtle and suddenly it's going to take a very long time.

Is a lot easier to make something when all that's required is, should look something like a man lion. Means any approximation that's distinguishable as such will do. You work at it till it's close enough to what you're looking for. The problem is the assumption of precision over approximation. People keep looking at these things like there was very specific distinct and exact look they were going for as opposed to an approximation, which is far more likely when dealing with such tools. I mean really yeah they're impressive looking for what they are I guess, but really they aren't masterpieces unless you assume what you see was the exact plan from the get go, and not just an approximation. Like they drew diagrams, took measurements, and tediously planned every curve before they started and then ended up with that exact planned for model. I mean seriously? Do think they did that or said... hmmm I'd like to make a man lion, let's see what I can do. These aren't the best tools, they wouldn't go through all that planning and tedious bs for a little statue when they know they'll get something about as good by going for an approximation and accepting that it is the best their tools will reasonably allow for.

Does that mean things won't look good? Of course not, there was no specific design though, so it allows them to adapt to their mistakes til they get something that looks nice and close to what they were going for. Are there other similar works? Of course it was the art style of the time, it's the kind of approximations the culture was designing at the time.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

peter vlar


but it's not one of a kind and there is a smaller but extremely similar piece found in a cave not far from where this piece was discovered along with other carved animal figures and flutes. there IS a cultural context within which these pieces fit.


If you happen to find pictures of other statues, please post them. Its difficult to evaluate this based only on one piece.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Skyfloating

peter vlar


but it's not one of a kind and there is a smaller but extremely similar piece found in a cave not far from where this piece was discovered along with other carved animal figures and flutes. there IS a cultural context within which these pieces fit.


If you happen to find pictures of other statues, please post them. Its difficult to evaluate this based only on one piece.


I meant to post them earlier but one of my kids was home sick from school today so I didn't accomplish much of anything due to distraction. I know I've got better views of the smaller lion man somewhere so I'll keep digging around for them. Fig 9 from the 2nd photo I posted is it though.
Lest I digress further... ask and ye shall receive-







Obviously, the 3rd picture is a better frontal view of the "Lion-Man" and the 1st two are of various pieces found at similar sites nearby and from similar strata and time periods.
better detail of a couple of smaller pieces, one of them being a lion head-


comparison of larger and smaller "lion-men" really crappy picture of the smaller



some other pieces


and a map of where aurignacian culture has been found



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


And not a single one of those is so closely identical, nor so extremely intricately detailed to in any way cause any reason to assume anything more than being approximations of the subject matter.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ArdenWolf
 


I'm a tad confused by the focus on how closely a likeness is approximated. Are you tying it in with claims people have made regarding the time it took to carve? If so, I can see your point to an extent though I think that you may be marginalizing certain aspects such as level or degree of reconstruction, preservation and degradation, age, type of strata the deposits were removed from, the 2 dimensional nature of pictures etc. and additionally, about 1/3 of the piece is missing or the fragments are so minuscule they are useless in reconstruction.

Personally, I think any estimate of amount of time to carve this is just that, rough estimates. Normally I'd argue about things like margin if error or talk about how someone took the time to approximate the carving with known techniques and the same type of tools but unfortunately with this piece there are too many variables and unknowns for me to agree or disagree one way or another. And i admit it's not really a concern for me. I'm more interested in whether it was made by MH or HN.

One thing I will disagree greatly on is the level of intricacy with the other pieces. They are tiny. The pictures do nothing for them in terms of showing scale but I've seen Inuits carve walrus tusk so I can attest to how intricate and difficult it is to work with the material at that scale and the difficulty factor increases even further when considering the tools used. The lions head(top left,4th picture down) and figured 4,9 and 11 in the top photo all have some difficult intricate parts to them. It just seems like you're selling these people and their artistic skills a little short.

You said none of them are so closely identical but there are some hallmarks that many carry that indicate cultural or religious consistencies to them. I don't think the same people carved them all but certainly culturally related individuals did. As for whether or not they are approximations of a subject, I think that's a no brainer. Its anthropomorphic. There was no model to draw from and its kind if hard to draw or sketch it out if you've been drinking from the Shamans tea kettle if you know what I mean.
edit on 27-3-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Thanks for taking the time to do the work. I've noticed no other hybrid-beings in that collection, unless I`m mistaken.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The only other piece claimed to be anthropomorphic is fig. 9 in the 2nd picture/set but there are 2 issues, for me at least. 1 is the quality/clarity of the photo used and 2. Is the amount of damage involved. I'm not entirely convinced that its genuinely anthropomorphic but its so hard to tell from the photos. It's the down side of dealing with archaeological or anthropological finds and trying to make an accurate assessment from a photo of unknown providence. There's just a world of difference between viewing a photo and seeing or better yet holding a piece of history in person or in your own hand. As you pointed out, all the others are just depictions of local fauna, cave lions, mammoth etc.

I have to double check(it s almost 5:30 am here so let me get a little sleep and ill try to dig it up) but I believe the other pieces are of varying ages and the newest date on "LionMan" is 40,000 with ranges varying up to 30,000 BPE for the other pieces. It's also possible that over the next year we may see a more complete version of LionMan. More pieces of the ivory have been located and though the vast majority are tiny fragments there are a couple of pieces of a cm or 2 that may be able to fit into the puzzle like most of the face was recently. The face was only found last year during the first excavation since the original in 1939 which added a little excitement to LionMan since he had been mostly headless since he was originally pieced together in the early 50's.

ill keep digging around and see what else I can pull out of the Aether but there haven't been a lot of scholarly articles on the subject and most information seems to be reprinted and copied from the original source material or the German museum that houses the collection and anything prior to 2013 will be somewhat incomplete. There are a couple if interesting papers dealing with correlations to the influx of modern humans into Europe and their different way of thinking or perhaps differently wired brains and the jump start in European art.

Perhaps I'm way off and Neanderthal had nothing to do with the lion man but did make some of the other pieces of more traditional local fauna and MH made the leap to anthropomorphism. Perhaps it was a cooperation between the indigenous people and the new immigrants or a sharing and melding of religions or traditions combined with shamanic herbal or medicinal ceremonies that lead to the jump from representational motifs to the anthropomorphic. It's in that odd flux in time/history of the waning of the old and blossoming new people with so much overlap from France to Germany to the Levant that it becomes really hard to distinguish who's culture was really who's. To me though, that's what makes it exciting.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
never mind.
edit on 3146323631am2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Antigod

Noooo, schoch has been debunked many many times. Theres a site called 'the hall of Maat' that really shreds him using reputable geologists.
hallofmaat.com...


Thanks, didn't actually know that. There's so much to wade through, to read and double-check. Million eyeballs do it better. Much appreciated.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Unless time has made these pieces look better, which I highly doubt, these are some exceptionally well made carvings.

They also all seem to attempt to accurately portray actual animals.

Why wouldn't this also include a sculpture of one of the people in the artists community?

The head in the fourth picture, is that another depiction of the head on the human like form, or is that another carving? It looks lion like, but it also looks chimp like.

Why would be picture called the lion man not also be an accurate depiction of, possibly, what Neanderthals actually looked like.




top topics



 
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join