Cave Art, Alien Beings, and Betty Hill's "abductor"
Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.
Spanish UFO researcher Jose Caravaca sent us these images derived from cave walls at Barrier Canyon, Utah, and thought to date from anywhere between 1500 and 4500 years old:
(The image above was noted by Senor Caravaca as “eating a snake.”)
This painting of a “group” shows one entity or being that reminds me of drawings of alleged aliens by UFO witnesses, notably the Betty Hill alien:
The “alien” image separated from the others:
An enlargement of the “alien”
In conjunction of the commentary for the posting just previous to this one, what can we deduce or hypothesize about such images?
PurrlGurrl offers that we are going a bit far in trying to decipher what such images mean, not being privy to and not having anything informationally concrete about such primitive societies, cultures and/or mind-sets.
Bruce Duensing thinks that such images derive from primitive man’s natural inclination to imbue things as magical totems.
Shamanism needs an antecedent of some kind.
Thinking that primitive societies require forensic study to determine what the peoples were thinking or experiencing when such images were created is scientifically sound but disallows conjecture, based upon how extant primitive societies think today.
After all, mankind hasn’t progressed that far from its brutish past.
What would possess a Neolithic artist to create imagery from imaginative mental forays?
Were primitive mankind’s mental abilities so evolved 4500 years ago (or earlier) that an artist could call upon such mental imagery to create the paintings we find on cave walls around the world?
Wouldn’t such an ability have been ingrained by creative natural selection to an extent that the early Epyptians, Greeks, and other early cultures would have produced painters with an equally imaginative output?
Where is such output?
Abstraction in art didn’t really arrive until the end of the 19th century.
And looking at Aboriginal societies, Brazilian Indians, or African tribes can give us an almost certitude about how primitive mankind lived and thought.
I see such images as representations, as best as can be created by primitive artists with primitive tools, of what was actually being seen by or experienced by the “painters.”
That the odd accretions seen in cave imagery are creative adornment by the painters goes a bit far, in my estimation, of how primitive man thought or was able to think.
The evolution of thought and art (or creativity itself) doesn’t allow a hop, skip, and jump to the 1900s.
What we see is cave art is what the artist saw and painted. It’s not a spurt of abstract thought or creative output that prefigures what modern artists conjure up.
Now should come a considered evaluation or set of hypotheses.
Duensing and PurrlGurrl have provided some. But are they on to something? I’m guessing, no.