Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our most ancient Archeology Texas stuff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Our most ancient Archeology Texas stuff

    Not sure if anyone ever mentioned the "Malakoff heads" but the Llanoman finds are worth the read.
    Also the Lewisville/Grapevine Tex finds are somewhat controversial.
    25,000/30,000 YBP. That's a stretch in anyones book.
    If anyone is interested they are on display in the Dallas museum of natural history.
    I sure love livin in Texas.
    B)
    Bone2stone

    Malakoff heads
    It is a "Rock" when it's on the ground.
    It is a "Specimen" when picked up and taken home.

    ​Jessy B.
    Circa:1982

  • #2
    That was an AWESOME article!!! TEXAN BORN AND BRED!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      I have heard of the Malakoff heads. As I recall, there are photos of only 2 of the 3 heads. Man made or natural would seem to be one basic question:
      http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/exhibits/g...off_heads.html
      Rhode Island

      Comment


      • #4
        Looks like rock to me.
        Jack

        Comment


        • #5
          ???
            ..........
          Searching the fields of Northwest Indiana and Southwestern Michigan

          Comment


          • #6
            Well I'll be d*#med they are rock!
            I just read they story on the "Prayer" stone and googled up the Malakoff stuff
            just to make things intresting.
            I have seen them first hand and they do appear to have hand of man involved.
            Bone2stone
            It is a "Rock" when it's on the ground.
            It is a "Specimen" when picked up and taken home.

            ​Jessy B.
            Circa:1982

            Comment


            • #7
              My understanding on the Malakoff Heads is as follows:

              Head #1 was allegedly found in 1929 by a commercial gravel quarry worker in basal gravels of the Trinity River. Glen Evans at the University of Texas heard about the find and tracked it down in the possession of the finder and in use as a doorstop. Evans dated the deposit where it was said to have been found at 30,000 – 50,000 years old. Geologist Elias H Sellards suggested the deposits were Eocene, dating from 50,000-100,000 years ago. More recent geological surveys suggest that the deposits are actually Late Pleistocene, putting the date in the same general period as conventional Palaeo-Indians. This would not present us with any mystery.

              Both were convinced that the weathering in the incisions matched the weathering of the rock’s surface. However, recent close examination indicates that although the item has undoubtedly been carved, this was performed with the assistance of modern metal tools. Since the rock itself is a sandstone concretion, it may have had some natural resemblance to a face which was enhanced in modern times. It would seem to be a joke or a hoax.

              Head #2 was also allegedly found by a gravel crew and reported in 1935, prompting Evans to go digging for more. It has not been closely examined in recent times as far as I know but it is less convincingly an artefact. It’s also a sandstone concretion. They’re common in the area.

              Head #3 was found in November 1939 while a University of Texas team led by Evans was searching. There is some ambiguity about whether Evans, one of his team or a gravel worker found it, but Evans records that he at least observed it in situ and undisturbed. It is therefore the only one of the three with what could be regarded as reliable provenience. Unfortunately, it’s also the least convincing of the three items as an artefact and these days is generally dismissed as a geofact. It’s not usually presented as part of the evidence for pre-Clovis population or “Malakoff Man” for that reason. Hence the lack of photographs, I suppose.

              Neither Evans, nor anyone else found any other associated artefacts or related items in the deposits (apart from the usual Pleistocene mammal bones) despite some intensive searching. Several “similar” finds have been reported from other parts of Texas and northern Mexico but, in general, these appear to be relatively recently carved.

              Heads #2 and #3 do not look stylistically like head #1 and don’t resemble each other. Edward B Jelks – archaeologist at the University of Illinois – has commented that “…had it not been for the first, clearly sculpted stone, I think it unlikely that anyone would have paid any attention to the second and third”.

              Painshill
              I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

              Comment


              • #8
                I would like to see some real pictures on these.
                Jack

                Comment


                • #9
                  greywolf22 wrote:

                  I would like to see some real pictures on these.
                  Jack
                    Jack
                  I believe this is head#1 (carved, but with modern tools):

                    I'm sure this is head#2 (judged to probably be a geofact):

                    I don't have a picture of head #3 (almost certainly a geofact). It's sometimes reported as being on display at the Navarro College Library but I don't think that's correct... that's where head#2 is on display, I believe.
                  Painshill
                  I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Finally, I get to get back in and reply.
                    Eveyone knows that Texans all have a tall tale to tell. :whistle:
                    We also know that the folks in Missouri have a saying that has become their state motto "Show Me".
                    Well Roger, I'm not from Missouri but, show me.
                    Send me a link that rebuffs the authenticity of these rather peculiar stones.
                    I myself have my doubts I have seen all three of them and I believe I once stated
                    toss a rock in the driveway and run over it a couple of time and you have an artifact.
                    The second one "scares" me it looks like something out of an alien movie I once saw. :S
                    The third one is the one that just looks like a rock to me. :huh:
                    They "Were" on display (Loaned) at the Dallas Museum of Natural History, all three of them.
                    They since have been returned from whince they were displayed.
                    Now to what I have to say about the first one "found".
                    It may be that the most recent evaluation on these stones have shown that it is
                    a relatively newly carved object. But, just a few "experts" rebuffing out of the hundreds
                    that have examined them, only these few are the ones that are right?
                    I have my opinions on them and I do have suspicions on all three. :dry:
                    Is it not true that some early man had a concept or perception of some things that dissappeared.
                    The culture that painted the cave walls of the Iberian peninsula. Wow now that is a good subject.
                    The (Cody Complex) Clovis culture, his tool making abilities gone. Reversed to making someimes crude barely usable tools. Also the cultures in East Africa and Madascar did they not seek out and value meteorites to make tools? I do believe most meteorites are metallic, (Nickle/Iron).
                    This list could go on and on.....
                    While we are bringing up the subject of fakery least we not forget one of the most famous
                    fakes in Archeological history came out of Britain. Let's see was that the Piltdown Man?
                    That was one of the best hoaxes and that took 40 years to bring that to the forefront and
                    realize they had been taken. (Bazinga)
                    I have seen other head carvings and pass most of them off as just something someone was messin with because they had time on their hands. You know what? Most of them look amazingly like that first Malakoff carving.
                    So back to my reqest from Painshill, I have read other opinions and pass off most as just someone who needs or wants attention. Proof of their micro examination and their skill in metaltological analysis.
                    What Roger has brought to light sounds a lot like the Crystal skull stuff. Now that is another story I will get to at another time. National Geographic had a good story on that subject.
                    Roger, send me or post some "rebuff" links.
                    I really get into controversy, I'm one head buttin fool.
                    Please, no "Pissin Contests"
                    Till next time. 
                    Jessy (Bone2stone)
                    PS: I still love livin in Texas!!!!!!!!!
                    It is a "Rock" when it's on the ground.
                    It is a "Specimen" when picked up and taken home.

                    ​Jessy B.
                    Circa:1982

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jesse, just one fairly inconsequential correction. The overwhelming majority of meteorites are stone, not nickle/iron. Irons are a distinct minority. The eskimos did uitilize the huge Cape York iron meteorites, one of which is now displayed at the AMNH in NYC, in the production of tools.
                      Rhode Island

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All those rocks tell me is quack, quack.
                        Jack

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jessy
                          Here’s an extract from Springs of Texas, Volume 1 By Gunnar Brune -and- Helen C. Besse, published in 2002:

                          Thomas H. Guderjan reported in detail on re-examination of heads #1 and #3 in the Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society in 1991 (Bulletin 62). I don’t have the original paper but there’s a short summary by Guderjan on the Texas State Historical Association website here:
                          http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/bcm01
                          Edward B Jelks summary is here:
                          http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/exhibits/g...eads_text.html
                          Not sure where crystal skulls and meteorites fit into all of this!
                          Painshill
                          I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            12,000 back sounds like it could be, 70,000 years back do not think so. 1 is modern made with metal tools, the other a geofact, and the third maybe the same as second. Much to do about nothing in my book, the Malakoff heads falls in with the Clay Tablets much to do about nothing.
                            Jack

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Crystal skulls and meteorite use by the ancients.
                              Just more fodder for future disscussion.
                              Bone2stone
                              It is a "Rock" when it's on the ground.
                              It is a "Specimen" when picked up and taken home.

                              ​Jessy B.
                              Circa:1982

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X