posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Allred5923
The second batch is as most posters hear had said already "More controversial than the first." But, in the Ba stet, I see more than just one or two
On the point above the image, I see a horses head in a downward position, and I see the entire shape of teh horse, though distorted, it does appear to
be what looks like leg's in the center part of the anomaly that does, in my book anyway, look as if there was a rider on this horse I see.
There you hit on another point that I didn't cover in my posts: composition.
They didn't just paint a panel of rock "any old way". For each piece of art there is a theme or composition. Here what's being seen is "oh,
there's a horse over there and an elephant over there and a sideways person there and an upside down hippo."
Rock art was always like a cartoon... with meaning and composition. Later artists might overpaint sections and change the composition but each
section has its own logic.
If there is a trace of art in the QC, it should be similar to other ancient art: the oldest will be pecked into stone (not likely here, because these
rocks were quarried and finished by pounding so any trace of inscribing will be gone on the inner facings.) If it was painted, then it would have
been painted once (and not over generations).
It would have been a scene.
Paint has certain qualities, and one of these qualities is that it stains rock very permanently. We should see something other than black -- we
should see red, which was popularly used.
Some of those marks may have been made from the lamps and candles of visitors from 1700-1900. The interior has had to have the soot cleaned away, if
I recall correctly.
So... I don't see smears of red and I don't see any sign of a composition (I think that they certainly might have drawn on the rock to indicate what
needs to be painted where... but the photos shown don't look like any pre-drawing.