Stick figure with giant phallus could be oldest yet discovered in the Americas
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comCall this ancient rock carving 'little horny man'
Seeded on Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:22 PM EST (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
I have a different scientific take: Discovery of the first black man. :)
... and so, why does it have to be that man migrated to the Americas? Native American tradition from many tribes say that they have been here since the beginning.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ah, never mind. I don't feel like being sarcastic after all
My tradition can beat up your tradition.
Scientific fact states humans are not native to this continent. They may have been the first to colonize the Americas, but nobody is native to it. Same goes for Europe, Asia, Australia, and anywhere other than the African continent.
As for the rock "art", I'm having a difficult time seeing a "horny little man." What I did see was something that looked like it had a cowboy hat on. Maybe they should have outlined on the picture what we were supposed to be seeing so we could see it the way the scientists see it. I certainly don't doubt fertility was of major importance back then, but I don't see a fertility carving.
Is this the neolithic equivalent of Jesus on toast? I'm not seeing it....
Same here. It doesn't really look like a man OR a phallus. It would even be a stretch to say it resembles a really skinny gecko.
Looks like something my five year old would doodle. I don't see it.
Looks like natural deposits.
I don't see it, either, and I have a pretty good imagination. One of the "appendages" reminds me of Audrey, the man-eating plant in "Little Shop of Horrors"...is that the penis? I'm with "Richard" - It looks like one of the appendages has a little cowboy hat on...lol!
Looks more like a lizard than a man. The idea that it might be associated with some sort of fertility ritual -- lacking support from any other evidence this article may not have mentioned -- seems absurd.
I perceive something of a sexual nature in the rock carving - tourists getting f#!%&! by a huckster's peep show!
Can someone please point out the phallus to me... and the little man... It's nice that our highly trained professionals have such vivid imaginations.
I don't see it either.
But then I am not a dirty-minded archeologist anthropologist.
I have only recently become a Republican.
way to inject politics. Besides, Democrats are the perverts of the political community. We only need to look at Clinton and Kennedy. Both of them used the oval office as a shag pad. Then again, Republicans and Democrats are nothing but two sides of the same coin.
Prehistoric teenage graffiti. Honestly though, it doesn't look like anything resembling a man from Nantucket.
Glad I'm not alone... I see nothing resembling a phallus! Just a slight resemblance to a stick figure (lizard-like) with outstretched arms.... that's after looking really closely too!
Rorschach test for these guys?????
That's exactly what I thought! (And I am an archaeologist...)
I'm in good company then. :)
Scientists like to make a big deal about everything being a "fertility ritual" it's PORN plain and simple....it's been around forever :)
But how did they charge for it?
It was likely a barter system. You show me yours and I will show you mine.
So, did they call it "RedCave" or the "Red cave district"?
"Watch two people make whoopie, only 5 clams - or look at wall for 1 clam. For 2 clams I draw picture you want."
which goes to show that men exagerated back then! LOL....and can't measure!
The fish the got away was this big...
The girl I used to date was a lot prettier than you...
When archeologists aren't sure what an object is it gets labeled a "fertility object" or "religious object". What do you think future archeologists will think of all the TV sets they'll find?
Certainly religious. They will get all they need to know from the stack of TV Guides in the nearby altar.
Ever read Motel of the Mysteries? If not, google it. It was required reading in my anthropology theory course... The religious-explanation is a bias that the field is well aware of. That doesn't mean it is always wrong, however. From what we know of historical cultures in the distant past, religion was undeniably a huge factor (think ancient Egypt, for example), so it is not too absurd to think it might have been as big of an influence over cultures that had not yet developed writing, too. Such strong religious tendencies would not appear overnight with the advent of writing, so there have to be deeper roots in pre-history. Humans are humans, after all. Not all that different, once you get past the superficial trappings of group-specific expressions of culture. Of course, that doesn't mean that the religions interpretation is always right, either, of course. But that's the fun of archaeology -- postulating the best theories one can based on the existing evidence, changing theories when necessary due to new evidence, and debating the respective merits of conflicting theories. No one ever knows anything for sure! :-)
On a side note... in this specific case... I want to know what evidence they used to even determine that this was man made and not the result of natural processes of some kind -- mineral deposits or something like that. At least in the photo, this does not look man made to me.
"Little Horny Man? Little Horny Man?" "Anyone, anyone, anyone?"
Sorry- don't see it. Would love a geologist to look at this "carving" and see if it really is a carving or just some natural rock formation/inclusion that leads to the "little horny man" delusion....
Yeah, I don't see it either. Like you, I also have doubts that it was even man-made. It could easily be a natural rock feature of some kind. I understand that ancient artwork is generally crude, but this is practically unrecognizable.
I have an Anth minor, and am a Wiccan Priest, and despite having two really good reasons to want to see it, I don't see it either. It just looks like a mineral deposit, or a fossil starfish missing an arm. Apparently it *is* like Jesus on toast.
I agree with #13...... looks like a natural mineral deposit to me...... did this story come out of the Enquirer? Enquiring minds want to know!
Love the image, Father Guido.
I thought petroglyphs were carved or drawn on stone. These definitely look like mineral deposits to me. Also, the prehistoric drawings of animals on caves centuries ago looked much more realistic to me. Doesn't it seem odd that no portraits were done back in these days? If they were so narcissistic to draw exaggerated phalluses (phalli?), then why no portraits? Oh, sweet mystery of life....
Glad I'm not the only one not seeing it.
I don't see it either. And another question.
Why is it that any type of marking that looks like a sexual organ (even vaguely) gets labeled "used in fertility ritual"? That line is getting old. It rather looks like a tree to me, with that odd blob at the bottom looking like roots.
Do you mean to say that trees don't have sex? Why do you suppose they have roots?
I was glad to read the previous comments; I don't see it either. I absolutely do not see it at all. (and I really tried!)
I saw a phallus shaped cloud the other day too. Did some ancient sky painter draw it? What about the trillions of phallus shaped stalagmites and stalactites in caves the world over? All carved by cave artists?
Pure anthropomorphism seasoned with a bunch of horny but deprived geeks!
If you want to believe that the earth is flat you can find evidence to prove it!!
I have often wondered when man realized when copulation resulted in child birth -- nine months. Think about it.
I wonder if cave-kids scribbled like they do nowdays.
cant believe the words fertility ritual were expressed.
totally stupid
No, ancient cave kids were different than kids today. The didn't have access to the internet and their fingers were to fat to text.
I see it, low on the right side is a projection emanating from the stick mans torso with a swollen area at the end. As for why experts would think that this is an erect phallus is that prehistoric humanoids did only three things in life, eat, poop, and f reproduce.
A lonely scientist art critic, deprately searching for a topic for a paper and to make a name for himself, with his own psyco-sexual issues.
Or, the first discovery of modern abstract art... not as modern as we thought!
i see what could be construed as a penis, what i don't see is the stick man. looks like a mineral anomaly to me.
Looks more like a fossil of a miniature dinosaur.
It's very crude, but it's there. It isn't too difficult to determine whether a fracture was natural or artificial, so I can buy it's validity as human made. Given the highly ritualized nature of South American native life, a fertility ritual spot isn't too far a stretch, either. And believe it or not, whether you can separate yourself from your own self-centered perspective or not, the modern act of watching porn is very much a form of fertility ritual to an outside viewer. The same drives that had some schlub hammering on rocks ten millenia ago is the same drive that makes the internet's prime search topic a hot commodity today.
An alternative perspective, given the posture of the figure in questions, is that could have been a place designated for single guys to go to "get it out of their system", so to speak. The truth is probably too far gone to be absolutely sure anymore, but their deduction's good enough for an intelligent conversation.
Actually, when you are talking something 10,000+ years old that has been exposed to elements such as weathering, it can be quite difficult to determine if something is man made or not, depending on the techniques that may or may not have been used to create it. I'm not saying these guys are wrong -- there is not enough evidence presented in the article to know. I would like to know more about their evidence and how they came to their conclusions before deciding if I agree with them or not.