“There is a huge number of such faces in swiss mountains. If you see a face it normaly indicates a cave or a shelter of stone age people is beyond. Or one can say safely, where there is an stone age cave there is one or more faces above them.”
OK, that’s the gut feeling dispensed with. Can we now move on to the science please, like having at least a rough idea where each of your habitable caves are in relation to a “face”, whether in Bulgaria or Switzerland, in order to be convinced of a cause-and-effect relationship?
There are other issues to be addressed too, like how do you hew a mountainside when you are still waiting for the Bronze or Iron Age to be invented? Have you tried chipping at rock with soft copper or a brittle flint?
Then there’s the question as to why anyone living in a remote cave in a wild and lawless mountain region would choose to advertise their presence with a giant face (a man-made one especially) that was visible from afar?
There is a huge number of such faces in swiss mountains.
If you see a face it normaly indicates a cave or a shelter of stone age people is beyond.
Or one can say safely, where there is an stone age cave there is one or more faces above them.
There is absolutely no way this stems from natural causes!
On the contrary natural erosion has sometimes made them less visible.
But I can assure you there are still plenty of them!
I am intrested in conversation about hte subject, reach me at [email protected]
Yes, each of the 3 hares seems to have two ears, when it’s really only one each. But the artistic cleverness does not stop there. The three ears form a triangle at the centre of the picture, almost as if that had been the original artist’s aim in the first instance – to create a central focus from 3 identical but unlikely subjects.
Religious symbolism of some kind? Maybe. But note how the whole thing, when mounted in the circle as shown, creates a kind of eye, with the central triangle of ears being its pupil.
Maybe it had religious symbolism, maybe not, possibly having some kind of significance to pre-Christian pagans.
Evil eye? Or simply an up-market wagon wheel, one in which each hare serves as a load-bearing spoke?
Regardless of deeper explanation, all highly tendentious , it’s exceedingly clever – pure artistic genius one might say.
Stumbled acros this site and have been hooked for a while now. Name is Neil, from Ireland.Folklore from western europe is my main interest and relating it to Irish folklore. But there is some fascinating reading here on this site.
I can't agree with your statement. Yes, I've seen reports of giants but there are no skeletons in any museum. Dinosaurs were real. There's a lot of things people report but I'll wait for actual proof.
The source of the article is given as "Archaeology in Bulgaria" with a link. where we read:
"It is possible that the shrine had an entire gallery of human faces carved out of the rocks but not all of them have been preserved.
The facts that they are located high up on the rocks, and that at least one of them is visible only from a certain angle, are the reasons they, and, respectively, the entire Chalcolithic shrine, have remained unnoticed in modern times, until now"
That ol' eye of faith was certainly working overtime....
If they are carved faces, let's see a view from the front showing a face with two eyes, a nose and a mouth.
Otherwise, this falls in the same category of seeing faces in clouds.
Pleased to see that at least one other reader shares my jaundiced view of this so-called "archaeology". It's nothing of the sort, of course, It's an egregious instance of blinkered confirmation bias - seeing only what one wants to see.
Great article, and fascinating information about poor little floresiensis.
However, I can't help but to cringe every time they are referred to as "Hobbits." Sure, it is great for attracting web traffic and interest in sharing the article. But, pop culture is totally unstable, and can easily misconstrue any scientific information into a persistent misunderstanding that can take on an irrevocable life of its own in the wild world web.
I've seen several articles questioning the reason for the "cupmarks" at various petroglyph sites. The cupmarks are not meant as any sort of symbolism, but rather are the mortar portion of a mortar/pestle. (The pestle typically is missing.) There are hundreds of similar stones around the North American plains where natives sat for centuries at various camps grinding maize (and other materials) on similar large stones.
Typically, a group of women would congregate with their pestles and grain at the grindstone in the morning, and gossip while they processed the grain. Notice that most of the cups have a small ledge where one would kneel or sit sideways while grinding away. More mortars mean more women can grind, and of course not all pestles are made the same, which results in slight variations in the cupmarks.
Grain is not the only thing ground in prehistory, of course. Even the neanderthals used oak bark to tan hides, and tree nut hulls are rich sources of tannin, which may account for the black stains. Perhaps the tannin bearing material was charred and later fragmented to facilitate easier grinding. Tannin stains can last seemingly forever. Of course, someone could have come along give or take a 1000 years, and burned pine resin in the cups as well for whatever reason.
I agree, Colin. Both of the photos used in this article look natural to me. Go walking in the mountains of Pennsylvania and you'll see rock "faces" all over.
How do professional archaeologists set about establishing rigorously that features alleged to be face-like have been carved by ancient folk, as distinct from natural processes? There isn't the possibility in this instance of finding cast-off tools, given these are said to have been stone, not metal, and one would have thought a stone used to chip away rock would look much like any other bit of rock. Proof positive, or nearly so, would come from finding a face that had TWO very similar size eyes that were symmetrically located either side of a nose, and thus unlikely to be an accident of nature, but we're told the 'faces' are all profiles, needing only one "eye", with greater risk one is dealing with pareidolia, read fanciful interpretation. Maybe I'm missing something...
You're actually comparing Islam to the Christianism, there are many things related between these two but some of them are different. Their way of praying, that you think is against the will of God. First of all, this is a different religion, so it's pretty normal that some practics( sorry for the bad english) has nothing to do about the christianism. Maybe you think that your religion is the best there is, that's your opinion, but I don't think that the best religion exists. There are some good and bad things in every religion so... And I don't know about you but your way of talking makes me think that you're some kind of a fanatic or something like that. What i'm trying to say is that if you open your mind, you may understand some interesting stuff about them... And seriously? Props up their ego? You're a funny guy, that's a good joke
it’s been a really long time since i’ve posted anything and i’m really sorry about that. I used to be on here all the time, reading and commenting and sharing with everyone, but between having a baby and a promotion at work, my time to do the things i enjoy doing really went by the wayside. I do try and stop in as often as possible to the site and poke around a little bit, but i’m lucky if i can read half an article. I know this busy-ness will pass eventually and i really do cherish the time with my little one. i just wanted you guys to know i’m still around and alive and still loving ancient-origins, just not able to show it the same way i used too! Welcome to all the new members and hello to all you old members. Keep reading and sharing! Much love.
A future for a date? A date with a future? The growers should be able to 'palm' these off as 2000 year old 'resurrected' dates. Mummified dates? Pharoah 'nuff?
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
“There is a huge number of such faces in swiss mountains. If you see a face it normaly indicates a cave or a shelter of stone age people is beyond. Or one can say safely, where there is an stone age cave there is one or more faces above them.”
OK, that’s the gut feeling dispensed with. Can we now move on to the science please, like having at least a rough idea where each of your habitable caves are in relation to a “face”, whether in Bulgaria or Switzerland, in order to be convinced of a cause-and-effect relationship?
There are other issues to be addressed too, like how do you hew a mountainside when you are still waiting for the Bronze or Iron Age to be invented? Have you tried chipping at rock with soft copper or a brittle flint?
Then there’s the question as to why anyone living in a remote cave in a wild and lawless mountain region would choose to advertise their presence with a giant face (a man-made one especially) that was visible from afar?
There is a huge number of such faces in swiss mountains.
If you see a face it normaly indicates a cave or a shelter of stone age people is beyond.
Or one can say safely, where there is an stone age cave there is one or more faces above them.
There is absolutely no way this stems from natural causes!
On the contrary natural erosion has sometimes made them less visible.
But I can assure you there are still plenty of them!
I am intrested in conversation about hte subject, reach me at [email protected]
Yes, each of the 3 hares seems to have two ears, when it’s really only one each. But the artistic cleverness does not stop there. The three ears form a triangle at the centre of the picture, almost as if that had been the original artist’s aim in the first instance – to create a central focus from 3 identical but unlikely subjects.
Religious symbolism of some kind? Maybe. But note how the whole thing, when mounted in the circle as shown, creates a kind of eye, with the central triangle of ears being its pupil.
Maybe it had religious symbolism, maybe not, possibly having some kind of significance to pre-Christian pagans.
Evil eye? Or simply an up-market wagon wheel, one in which each hare serves as a load-bearing spoke?
Regardless of deeper explanation, all highly tendentious , it’s exceedingly clever – pure artistic genius one might say.
Great insight!
Stumbled acros this site and have been hooked for a while now. Name is Neil, from Ireland.Folklore from western europe is my main interest and relating it to Irish folklore. But there is some fascinating reading here on this site.
I can't agree with your statement. Yes, I've seen reports of giants but there are no skeletons in any museum. Dinosaurs were real. There's a lot of things people report but I'll wait for actual proof.
The source of the article is given as "Archaeology in Bulgaria" with a link. where we read:
"It is possible that the shrine had an entire gallery of human faces carved out of the rocks but not all of them have been preserved.
The facts that they are located high up on the rocks, and that at least one of them is visible only from a certain angle, are the reasons they, and, respectively, the entire Chalcolithic shrine, have remained unnoticed in modern times, until now"
That ol' eye of faith was certainly working overtime....
If they are carved faces, let's see a view from the front showing a face with two eyes, a nose and a mouth.
Otherwise, this falls in the same category of seeing faces in clouds.
Thanks STKOS
Pleased to see that at least one other reader shares my jaundiced view of this so-called "archaeology". It's nothing of the sort, of course, It's an egregious instance of blinkered confirmation bias - seeing only what one wants to see.
Great article, and fascinating information about poor little floresiensis.
However, I can't help but to cringe every time they are referred to as "Hobbits." Sure, it is great for attracting web traffic and interest in sharing the article. But, pop culture is totally unstable, and can easily misconstrue any scientific information into a persistent misunderstanding that can take on an irrevocable life of its own in the wild world web.
I've seen several articles questioning the reason for the "cupmarks" at various petroglyph sites. The cupmarks are not meant as any sort of symbolism, but rather are the mortar portion of a mortar/pestle. (The pestle typically is missing.) There are hundreds of similar stones around the North American plains where natives sat for centuries at various camps grinding maize (and other materials) on similar large stones.
Typically, a group of women would congregate with their pestles and grain at the grindstone in the morning, and gossip while they processed the grain. Notice that most of the cups have a small ledge where one would kneel or sit sideways while grinding away. More mortars mean more women can grind, and of course not all pestles are made the same, which results in slight variations in the cupmarks.
Grain is not the only thing ground in prehistory, of course. Even the neanderthals used oak bark to tan hides, and tree nut hulls are rich sources of tannin, which may account for the black stains. Perhaps the tannin bearing material was charred and later fragmented to facilitate easier grinding. Tannin stains can last seemingly forever. Of course, someone could have come along give or take a 1000 years, and burned pine resin in the cups as well for whatever reason.
I agree, Colin. Both of the photos used in this article look natural to me. Go walking in the mountains of Pennsylvania and you'll see rock "faces" all over.
How do professional archaeologists set about establishing rigorously that features alleged to be face-like have been carved by ancient folk, as distinct from natural processes? There isn't the possibility in this instance of finding cast-off tools, given these are said to have been stone, not metal, and one would have thought a stone used to chip away rock would look much like any other bit of rock. Proof positive, or nearly so, would come from finding a face that had TWO very similar size eyes that were symmetrically located either side of a nose, and thus unlikely to be an accident of nature, but we're told the 'faces' are all profiles, needing only one "eye", with greater risk one is dealing with pareidolia, read fanciful interpretation. Maybe I'm missing something...
Marcahuasi of Bulgaria...
beware (or caution) vampire
You're actually comparing Islam to the Christianism, there are many things related between these two but some of them are different. Their way of praying, that you think is against the will of God. First of all, this is a different religion, so it's pretty normal that some practics( sorry for the bad english) has nothing to do about the christianism. Maybe you think that your religion is the best there is, that's your opinion, but I don't think that the best religion exists. There are some good and bad things in every religion so... And I don't know about you but your way of talking makes me think that you're some kind of a fanatic or something like that. What i'm trying to say is that if you open your mind, you may understand some interesting stuff about them... And seriously? Props up their ego? You're a funny guy, that's a good joke
Congratulations and welcome back. All the best to you both.
We missed you! Congratulations for your baby.
Welcome back Angie :-)
it’s been a really long time since i’ve posted anything and i’m really sorry about that. I used to be on here all the time, reading and commenting and sharing with everyone, but between having a baby and a promotion at work, my time to do the things i enjoy doing really went by the wayside. I do try and stop in as often as possible to the site and poke around a little bit, but i’m lucky if i can read half an article. I know this busy-ness will pass eventually and i really do cherish the time with my little one. i just wanted you guys to know i’m still around and alive and still loving ancient-origins, just not able to show it the same way i used too! Welcome to all the new members and hello to all you old members. Keep reading and sharing! Much love.
A future for a date? A date with a future? The growers should be able to 'palm' these off as 2000 year old 'resurrected' dates. Mummified dates? Pharoah 'nuff?
Pages