BIRKELAND CURRENTS IN PLASMA DISCHARGES AND ROCK ART – PART 2:

OR, INSECTS IN ROCK ART - THE EARWIG (REVISITED).

 

Birkeland currents created in a laboratory. Public domain.

 

Now, to resume the discussion of whether the petroglyphs in question are insects (more specifically the arthropod known as an earwig), or whether they are representations of the plasma phenomenon known as a Birkeland current. Last week I ended with this quote from http://gravity.wikia.com – “Birkeland currents are also one of a class of plasma phenomena called a z-pinch, so named because the azimuthal magnetic fields produced by the current pinches the current into a filamentary cable. This can also twist, producing a helical pinch that spirals like a twisted or braided rope, and this most closely corresponds to a Birkeland current. Pairs of parallel Birkeland currents can also interact; parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart (Note that the electromagnetic force between the individual particles is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, just like the gravitational force); parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart. There is also a short-range circular component to the force between two Birkeland currents that is opposite to the longer-range parallel forces.

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field will spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that includes radio, optical (ie. light), x-rays, and gamma rays.” (http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current)

 

 

The penumbra of a dense plasma focus, from a discharge current

 of 174,000 amperes.The rotational structure of the penumbra has

 a periodicity of 56, as shown by the 56-dot overlay pattern. In this

 photo the Birkeland current is manifested in  a multiple of 56.

Credit A. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

 

These effects were originally “predicted in 1908 by  Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions beyond the Arctic Circle to study the aurora.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current) Subsequent scientific debate and laboratory and field experimentation provided explanation of the theory and began to accumulate data.

 

Birkeland current diagram. Public domain.

“In 1966 Alfred Zmuda, J.H. Martin, and F.T. Heuring reported their findings of magnetic disturbance in the aurora, using a satellite magnetometer, but did not mention . . . .field-aligned currents, even after it was brought to their attention by editor of the space physics section of the journal, Alex Dressler.

In 1967 Alex Dessler and one of his graduates students, David Cummings, wrote an article arguing that Zmuda et. al. had indeed detected field align-currents. Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler "discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted" and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents.

In 1969 Milo Schield, Alex Dessler and John Freeman, used the name "Birkeland currents" for the first time. In 1970, Zmuda, Armstrong and Heuring wrote another paper agreeing that their observations were compatible with field-aligned currents as suggested by Cummings and Dessler, and by Bostrom, but again made no mention of Alfvén and Birkeland.

In 1970, a group from Rice University also suggested that the results of an earlier rocket experiment was consistent with field-aligned currents, and credited the idea to Boström, and Dessler and his colleagues, rather than Alfvén and Birkeland. In the same year, Zmudu and Amstrong did credit Alfvén and Birkeland, but felt that they "...cannot definitely identify the particles constituting the field-aligned currents." (http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current)

Finally, in 1973, satellite evidence was collected that seems to have proven the existence of the effects originally predicted by Birkeland.

“It wasn't until 1973 that the navy satellite Triad, carrying equipment from Zmuda and James Armstrong, detected the magnetic signatures of two large sheets of electric current. Their papers (1973, 1974) reported "more conclusive evidence" of field-aligned currents, citing Cummings and Dessler . . .” (http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current)

 

Now we are in familiar territory; this seems to be the old “Lost Knowledge of the Ancients argument.” If it took modern science from 1908 to 1973, and the use of a satellite in earth orbit to prove the possibility of Birkeland currents, which satellite did the prehistoric Native Americans of the American southwest use to discover this phenomenon?

 

 

Village of the Great Kivas, Zuni, photo Teresa Weedin.

Earwig.

And while we are at it, let us just look at the images. Which do the petroglyphs look more like, the earwig, or the Birkeland current diagrams? On second thought we don’t need Occam’s razor to evaluate this – the Birkeland current argument is obviously a fallacy - sorry Anonymous.

Oh, and by the way, if you search the internet you can find out that Birkeland currents are also involved in the human aura, as well as in UFO sightings which makes them even more exciting - but not any more correct as an explanation.

REFERENCES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://rockartblog.blogspot.com

BIRKLAND CURRENTS IN PLASMA DISCHARGES AND ROCK ART – PART 1:

OR, INSECTS IN ROCK ART - EARWIGS (REVISITED).

Village of the Great Kivas, Zuni, photo Teresa Weedin.

On June 18, 2010, I published a posting on some insectiform petroglyphs that I suggested represent the insect commonly known as earwigs. Now, (March 20, 2013) I have received a thirteen word comment on that posting from "Anonymous" stating that “these are images of Birkeland currents occurring in a plasma discharge, not bugs.” While it is difficult to hold much of a conversation or debate with "Anonymous" I have heard these arguments in the past and it may be time for me to attempt to address the subject.

Insect, Canyon de Chelley, AZ, Photo-Peter Faris, 1997.

 

Although I have received a certain amount of criticism for it, I am a firm believer in the efficacy of Occam’s razor in such arguments. While I understand that it is by no means the final arbiter in any debate, it is useful as a guiding principle in evaluating opposing theories. In this case the debate is between the two possible explanations of a particular figure in rock art.

Earwig, Wikipedia.

 

In my June 18, 2010, posting I stated that “In a patch of growing corn the earwig finds ideal hiding places between the leaves and cornstalk, as well as within the leaves that make up the husks of the ears of the corn plant. Anyone who has ever experienced husking fresh picked corn from the garden has found earwigs in the process and would definitely accept an association between the corn and the insect.

Ancestral pueblo people of the Southwest depended upon their corn crop for the survival of their families. They would be expected to have an intimate knowledge of the life and development of the plants and would have been fully aware of insects associated with their corn crop. While the earwig might have damaged some of the corn crop by eating the silk on developing ears of corn, they also ate insects that may have damaged the corn such as aphids and plant lice. This knowledge may well have inspired the sort of approach-avoidance relationship that would lead to granting the insect a special place in agriculturally related belief complexes.” (http://rockartblog.blogspot.com)

Simply stated, I postulate that the agricultural cultures of the American southwest, which created the rock art I am discussing, would have been aware of the association between the insect we call earwigs and their main food crop maize. As a lifelong backyard gardener I have noticed this association so I believe that they inevitably would have as well. It makes sense to me that this relationship could well have been commemorated in their rock art. In terms of Occam’s razor this is, I submit, the simple explanation. I could be wrong in this, but it seems the simplest and most obvious explanation.

Now, as to the other side of the argument, the Birkeland currents. Remember the statement from Anonymous that I quoted above“these are images of Birkeland currents occurring in a plasma discharge, not bugs.” The web site http://gravity.wikia.com gives the following definition of the phenomena known as Birkeland currents: “Birkeland currents are also one of a class of plasma phenonena called a z-pinch, so named because the azimuthal magnetic fields produced by the current pinches the current into a filamentary cable. This can also twist, producing a helical pinch that spirals like a twisted or braided rope, and this most closely corresponds to a Birkeland current. Pairs of parallel Birkeland currents can also interact; parallel Birkeland currents moving in the same direction will attract with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart (Note that the electromagnetic force between the individual particles is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, just like the gravitational force); parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart. There is also a short-range circular component to the force between two Birkeland currents that is opposite to the longer-range parallel forces.

Birkeland Currents in a laboratory.

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field will spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that includes radio, optical (ie. light), x-rays, and gamma rays.” (http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current)

Proponents of this theory suggest that rock art like the figures from the Village of the Great Kivas at Zuni, and the petroglyph from Canyon de Chelley represent the plasma discharges created by one of these Birkeland currents.

This has gotten to be long enough for one week so I will revisit it with the second half of this exploration in next week's posting.

REFERENCES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://rockartblog.blogspot.com

THE OLDEST ROCK ART PHOTOGRAPH:

On June 3, 2009, I posted the following column under the title Charles Darwin's Bear. 

"Don't Deface the Bear", 5BN651, Picketwire canyon, Bent 

County, CO., Photograph, Peter Faris, June, 1991.

"At the time of his death Charles Darwin had in his correspondence files a letter that had accompanied a photograph of a Colorado pictograph. According to the on-line database of the Darwin Correspondence Project at the University of Cambridge, England, they (the letter and accompanying photo) were sent on May 24, 1874, by Lieut. George J. Anderson, of Fort Lyon, Colorado. The database entry refers to the letter, which describes the image as a “photograph of a ‘natural curiosity’, a bear apparently ‘painted’ with red iron on the face of a soft rock”. The letter itself forms part of the Darwin Archive at Cambridge University Library, but the photograph has not been found.

I had found mention of this a number of years ago and was interested enough to pursue a search in an attempt to identify which bear image from southern Colorado this might be. During a subsequent conversation with Larry Loendorf we agreed that it might be the large Picketwire bear. This figure was prominent, had been discovered and publicized early on - its photograph had been printed in newspapers. Loendorf also pointed out that it was originally known as the “cinnamon bear” because rain runoff from the canyon rim had dyed it red with the red dust of the soil. This seems to match the description of it being “apparently ‘painted’ with red iron on the face of a soft rock”.

On May 13, 2009, I received from the Darwin Correspondence Project a transcription of the letter, which described the picture and its location. “The image is painted – as it were – on a perpendicular face of a very soft grey sandstone rock, about 40 feet from its base & 38 feet from its top, but may be easily reached – to the level of the bottom of the picture – by climbing over the dèbris at the foot of the bluff. . . . The coloring matter appears to be iron (probably Fe3O4) and penetrates the rock to a depth of more than ½ inch. . . . The image is in length, from nose to tail, about 8½ feet”. (This preliminary transcription has yet to be published in the Correspondence of Charles Darwin.)

Anderson’s description of the image size seems to fit that of the large Picketwire Bear and I know of no other bear pictograph in southeastern Colorado of that size, but its location is nothing like that described in the letter. The location of the large Picketwire Bear is basically just a little above the present ground surface on a slight slope. Unless we can be assured by a geomorphologist that the canyon bottom has been raised by nearly 40 feet (unlikely since the canyon bottom can be demonstrated to have been eroding deeper) since the creation of the pictograph, then I see no way to reconcile the present location of this bear with the described location. If we are lucky the original picture may some day be located in the Darwin archives: meanwhile the identity of the southeast Colorado bear pictograph sent to Charles Darwin remains a mystery.

(I wish to extend an extra thank you to Rosemary Clarkson of the Darwin Correspondence Project for her generous assistance with my inquiry.)"

At that time I had not yet read Paul Bahn's 2010 book Prehistoric Rock Art: Problems and Polemics. In that book Bahn takes up the question of trying to determine the oldest existing rock art photograph.

Bahn wrote “One interesting question which was not answered in my earlier book is that of when the first photograph was taken of rock art; two examples were given (Bahn 1998a : 30, 69) of photos of rock art in the United States taken in the 1890s, and it was also stated (ibid.: 69) that the first known photograph of an African rock painting was taken by von Bonde in 1885. Recently, however, two earlier examples have come to light.” (p. 7)

“On the Carrizo Plain of California is the (now much damaged) Chumash painted site known as Painted Rock. Four photographs of this, taken by R. A. Holmes, were published in a fanciful book by Myron Angel called The Legend of Painted Rock (Angel 1920), which claims that the pictures were taken in 1876. The photograph reprinted here (Fig. 3) is now housed in the collections of the San Luis Obispo Historical Society (W. Hyder, personal communication).

If that 1876 date is accurate, this may be the earliest known rock art photo, and on present evidence it is probably the earliest to have survived. There is at least one other claimant, however, which has not survived as far as is known. In France in 1878, Leopold Chiron, a schoolteacher, noticed deep engravings in the cave of Chabot (Gard); he published a note about hem, although he could not know their date of origin. He mistakenly thought he could see birds and people among the lines; unfortunately, the Chabot engravings are difficult to decipher, and the figures are far from clear. In May 1879, Chiron wrote to the eminent Gabriel de Mortillet to tell him of the discovery of a cave with Paleolithic flint tools and with engravings on the walls – Chiron had no doubt the drawings were ancient because they were covered in calcite. De Mortillet, however, who was certain that no parietal art could exist in Palaeolithic times, did not deign to reply – or to present the information in the journal he published (Bahn and Vertut 1997: 16).

In the 1890s Chiron exchanged letters with Francois Daleau, another pioneer who had excavated the decorated cave of Pair-non-Pair near Bordeaux, and had seen its art in 1883, although he did not make the discovery of the art public until 1896. It is from this correspondence that we know Chiron had the Chabot engravings photographed in 1878.” (p. 8)"

In this we see that Bahn's oldest example so far seems to be the 1876 photograph of Chumash rock art on the Carrizo plain in California. Until Charles Darwin's bear photograph is relocated by the good folks at the Darwin Correspondence Project it is likely to remain so. However, from the correspondence we know that Darwin's Bear photograph existed in 1874 so it would be the oldest known example. How about you, what other early rock art photos can you suggest to Paul Bahn?

REFERENCES:

Bahn, Paul G.

2010    Prehistoric Rock Art: Problems and Polemics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Faris, Peter

2009     Charles Darwin's Bear, http://rockartblog.blogspot.com, June 3, 2009.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9466.html.

IS IT ART?

Revisiting the subject of "is rock art really art?" This one question probably generates more arguements in the field than anything else. Second would probably be the S-word, "Shamanism," and epigraphy coming in at the third position. This small quotation adds no clarification either way, but as an unapologetic fan of Kipling's writing I loved it (Robert W. Service too, but that is another question). I merely pass this on for your own enjoyment. 

“When the flush of a new-born sun fell on Eden’s green and gold,

Our father Adam sat under a tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;

And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,

Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves “It’s pretty, but is it Art?””

Kipling, Rudyard

1890    Conundrum of the Workshop

BIRDS IN ROCK ART, PUEO – THE HAWAIIAN OWL:

Puako owl, Hawaii, Ellen Belef, Sept. 2012.

 

At the Puako petroglyph site on the island of Hawaii, this figure on the right is called the Puako Owl. If this identification is correct that means that it is a representation of the Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), a subspecies of the Short-eared owl that is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. The Pueo also represents an ancestor spirit (na’aumakua) in Hawaiian culture.

Figure on right is called the Puako owl, Joe Belef, 2012.

 

Inhabiting forests and grasslands throughout the islands, their numbers are now in decline, especially on the island of Oahu, and they are now listed as an endangered species.The Pueo was first named Strix sandwichensis in 1825, by Andrew Bloxam, a naturalist aboard the british ship HMS Bonde. It is now classified as a subspecies of the Short-eared Owl, Asio flammeus. The Pueo nests on the ground which leaves their eggs and young vulnerable to predators such as the mongoose and cats, as well as by bulldozers (Wikipedia).

Hawaiian Pueo owl, Asio flammeus sandwichensis, Wikipedia. 

 

In mythology, as an amakua, the owl is specifically skilled in battle.

“The most famous legend, "The Battle of the Owls" underscores the aumakua's force. It relates the story of an Oahu man who robbed an owl's nest: After he slung the coveted bounty in his knapsack, the owl-parent shrieked with grief and complaint. The man felt sorry and quickly returned the eggs unharmed to the nest. Not only that, he took the owl as his god and built a temple in its honor. Naturally, the ruling chief thought this an act of rebellion against the prevalent gods, and ordered the man's execution. The weapon was poised, the man feared his last breath, and the owls gathered, darkening the skies with their wings. Any further action of the king's soldiers became impossible. The man walked free. Pueo-hulu-nui near Moanalua on Oahu is one of the alleged places where the awesome battle took place.”

“Much further back in time, it is said that Hina, the mother of the god Maui, gave birth to a second child, in the form of the pueo. Later, when the brave Maui was taken as prisoner by enemies and held for sacrifice, brother owl rescued him and led him to safety.”

“Another old story of rescue tells of a warrior who fought under King Kamehameha the First. Cornered by the enemy, he was about to plunge over a dangerous cliff. Right at that moment an owl flew up in his face, so that he was able to thrust out his spear into the earth, saving himself from the suicidal leap.” (http://www.coffeetimes.com/mar98.htm)

The image does also bear a marked resemblance to a figure wearing a traditional Hawaiian gourd headdress/mask or helmet. However, although one cannot completely discount identifications of rock art images made by the descendants of the original creators, but we can question the original meaning, or assign multiple references to such an image. So, until we know better, based upon its identification by Hawaiian peoples, this figure represents Pueo, the Hawaiian short-eared owl, and I like him that way.

REFERENCES:

http://www.coffeetimes.com/mar98.htm

Wikipedia

"DISCOVERING SOUTH CAROLINA’S ROCK ART", BY TOMMY CHARLES:

Circle-and-line petroglyph. From: Discovering South Carolina's 

Rock Art, Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 65, p.73.

 

Circle-and-line petroglyph in position to process pine tar. 

From: Discovering South Carolina's Rock Art, 

Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 66, p.74.

This book, published in 2010 by the University of South Carolina Press in Columbia, includes a very interesting set of petroglyphs in South Carolina under the stylistic designation of “circle-and-line petroglyphs.” These can best be described as a good sized circle, deeply pecked on a horizontal rock face with a line running from the edge of the rock to within the circle. Within the circle the line either branches out or intersects one or more concentric circles. What I find fascinating about these images is that they are documented to have been used by Anglo inhabitants of the area for a couple of different household chores.

Kettle full of pine wood ready for processing. From: Discovering

South Carolina's Rock Art, Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 68, p.76.

Set up for pine tar extraction. From: Discovering South Carolina's 

Rock Art, Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 69, p.76.

One use of the design was in the extraction of pine tar from pine roots and rich sapwood. In order to accomplish that a metal pot was filled with the pine wood and upended over the petroglyph which left only the channel to the edge of the rock exposed. This channel was covered by a piece of sheet metal when possible. Any gap around the rim of the pot was then sealed with clay or mud, and a fire was built around and on top of the pot. Heat from this fire would distill the pine tar from the wood which would drip down and be caught in the channels in the rock, to run out the channel to the edge of the rock and drip down into a second container as seen below.

Pine tar distillation runoff. From: Discovering South Carolina's 

Rock Art, Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 70, p.77.

The other purpose to which these images were turned was in the leaching of lye from wood ashes for soap making. To accomplish this, a container with small holes in the bottom was filled with wood ashes and set on top of the circle and line design. Water was then poured into the top of the container full of wood ashes and the lye leached out through the holes in the bottom, again to be caught by the channels pecked into the rock and to run out the main channel to the edge of the rock and drip down into a container. (Charles 2010:73-78) This lye could then be used with animal fat to make soap, a process that I remember watching my maternal grandmother go through, although not with a petroglyph involved. 

Set up to process lye from wood ashes. From: Discovering South

Carolina's Rock Art, Tommy Charles, 2010, fig. 71, p.78.

Not all of the circle and line petroglyphs recorded in South Carolina and reported in this book would have been usable for these processes. Some were on vertical or angled rock faces and others on rocks that were shaped such that it would be impractical to attempt these activities. Charles wrote: “As circle-and-line petroglyphs were recorded in South Carolina, their individual characteristics were noted in detail: their placement on the host rock, the size and shape of the glyph, the configuration of the drip groove (which determined its ability or inability to transport an extracted liquid to a container), and wear patterns created by use. Any circle-and-line glyph that could possibly have functioned as a tar-burner or lye-leaching stone was accepted as such. The majority of those we recorded conform to these historic, utilitarian categories. However, there are others whose attributes or placement eliminate them from consideration as tar-extraction or lye-leaching rocks – or at least make them unlikely candidates – and offer the possibility of their being prehistoric.” (Charles 2010: 77&78)

Also, since these processes really are not used today, the recognition of these uses of petroglyphs would seem to have depended on the memory of elder citizens who still remember such things. Had this not been recognized and recorded now, would people have known about it a decade or so in the future? Would the true purpose of these images have been lost? Or would they have automatically been recorded as Native American designs? It gives us pause to think, and to thank Mr. Charles for a great piece of detective work and for giving us this fascinating record.

REFERENCE:

 

Charles, Tommy

2010    Discovering South Carolina’s Rock Art, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

AUSTRALIA'S GENYORNIS, EXTINCT ANIMALS AND TRACKS IN ROCK ART:

Extraordinary Engraved Bird Track from North

Australia, Ouzman, et. al., 2002, Cambridge

Arch. Journal, Vol. 12, 2002, p. 103-112.

In 2002, a fascinating article published in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal (Ouzman et. al., Vol. 12, p. 103-112) described and illustrated a petroglyph in Australia of a large three toed footprint that they interpreted as a representation of the track of Genyornis newtoni.
 

 “Genyornis was a large flightless bird, considerably taller and heavier than the modern ostrich or emu. It had powerful legs and tiny wings, and probably most closely resembled its living relatives, ducks and geese. But instead of having webbed feet and a duckbill, Genyornis had large hoof-like claws on its toes and a big beak, with which it ate fruit and nuts, and perhaps small prey. Like modern birds, it had no teeth, but relied on gizzard stones to assist its digestion.
 

Genyornis lived in the dry grasslands and woodlands of southern and eastern Australia. Fossils have been found in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, especially on the surface of the dry Lake Callabonna. The bones of a number of birds have been found in one place, suggesting that they lived in flocks. Fossil eggs and footprints have also been found. 

Genyornis illustration, artist: Peter Trussler.

 

Genyornis was the last of the dromornithids, and was small compared to other species. This family of giant birds is known by a variety of names, including ‘thunder birds’, ‘demon ducks’ and ‘mihirungs’. Humans almost certainly lived alongside these birds, and some scientists think that hunting may have contributed to their extinction. Other scientists think the extinction of Australian megafauna was linked to the continent becoming drier during the last Ice Age. (museumvictoria.com.au/Melbournemuseum)”

Pictographs identified as Genyornis. www.digplanet.com. 

A dating study of more than 700 fragments of Genyornis eggshells demonstrated that the birds declined and became extinct over a short period at about 50k ±5k years BP – too short for climate change. This suggested that the extinction event had been due to human activity. (www.digplanet.com)

Then, in May 2010, an Aboriginal rock painting at least a possible 40,000 years old, was discovered at the Nawarla Gabarnmung rock art site in the Northern Territory that depicts two of the birds. This suggested late survival of the species in southwest Victoria which is reinforced by Aboriginal traditions. (www.digplanet.com)

REFERENCES:

http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Genyornis

http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/discoverycentre/dinosaur-walk/meet-the-skeletons/genyornis/
 

Ouzman, Sven, Paul S.C. Tacon, Ken Mulvaney, and Richard Fullagar

2002    Extraordinary Engraved Bird Track from North Australia: Extinct Fauna, Dreaming Being, and/or Aesthetic Masterpiece, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 12, p. 103-112.