261 replies to this topic

[HerNibs]

Hmm...even the "face" looks like the little gold thingies.

Nibs

[The Silver Thong]

OMG it's the Nephilim........... RUN !!!! oh wait a sec lol

[Qoais]

Not the artifact, that's for sure.  It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch.  The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold.  It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact.  Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin.

[HerNibs]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 03:42 PM, said:

Not the artifact, that's for sure.  It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch.  The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold.  It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact.  Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin.

Just out of curiosity, how do we know what is the front and what is the back?  I mean, the artifact is always photographed in a "pose" that is similar to a modern aircraft.  But how do we know that is the "top"?

If you flip it over, it is far "fishier".

Nibs

[Qoais]

Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves)

[HerNibs]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves)

Fresh out of cocoa leaves.  

Ok, I'm not sure I am explaining myself well...

This is a dragon fly pendant -



I don't think it looks like a dragonfly.  It's the artists interpretation or a natural creature.

Wouldn't it be most likely that the "artifact" is the same type of thing?  

What else was found with it?  

Nibs

[Oniomancer]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 03:24 PM, said:

For heaven's sake.  It probably isn't an exact replica.  It was a piece of jewelery.  I'm sure if I work a pendant around my neck of a car with a "shark-tooth" bumper on it, no one would expect it, in a 1000 years, to actually run and they'd wonder what the shark's teeth were for. Decoration.

If you'd have linked to the article, you'd find that the nose folds under, therefore the gap.

I couldn't find anything in the article that said the object itself was hinged, just that they thought it represented a hinged vehicle. Either way, it's worth noting that the guitarfish has a second "face" under it's body. (which Hernibs beat me to)

http://fishanatomy.n...itarfish012.jpg

Since the objects were meant to be displayed top up, this presents a problem unless one bends the front of the animal up to attempt to affectively show both sides at once. That this may have been the case is most dramatically shown when one compares the animal against the head-on view of the object in the article. The lines appear to form almost the exact same "smile" as the mouth.

[Oniomancer]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 03:42 PM, said:

Not the artifact, that's for sure.  It would take one hell of an imagination to make that stretch.  The fish you're showing are smooth and sleek, a design that is easy to work in gold.  It's harder to make all the little fanciful ridges and embellishments that are shown on the artifact.  Obviously it's been decorated, but not truncated (as in removing a foot of the tail) just the opposite - it's showing an upright fin.

I think it's been shown elsewhere the artists were no strangers to embellishment on critters. I'm not just sure what type of ornament these were supposed to be, but it may not have been one suited to a long thin pokey bits that're easily broken, hence cutting out the middle length of the tail. Maybe they were just chibified;.

[questionmark]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

Right - so flip it over and you now have a fish with a tail fin sticking downward - better lay off the cocoa (leaves)

What we don't know is the context it was found in. It could be that this is a piece of an installation and the "fin" is nothing but the piece that held it to a base.

Certain is, you cannot have it both ways, it is either a precise depiction or it is not. If it is not it could be all kinds of things.

[Qoais]

1)  I think the dragonfly looks very much like a dragonfly.  
2)  As was said, the tail is not similar to a fish or a bird.
3)  The point is, when duplicated in larger scale, it does fly.  Whether or not it's an exact replica as far as embellishment goes, is irrelevant.  It's the design that's important.

[Qoais]

http://www.world-mys...s.com/sar_7.htm

[questionmark]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 04:26 PM, said:

3)  The point is, when duplicated in larger scale, it does fly.  Whether or not it's an exact replica as far as embellishment goes, is irrelevant.  It's the design that's important.

I want to see that.

[HerNibs]

Qoais, on 09 October 2009 - 04:26 PM, said:

1)  I think the dragonfly looks very much like a dragonfly.  
2)  As was said, the tail is not similar to a fish or a bird.
3)  The point is, when duplicated in larger scale, it does fly.  Whether or not it's an exact replica as far as embellishment goes, is irrelevant.  It's the design that's important.

No, the point that when duplicated in larger scale it will fly isn't the point.  If you duplicate a manta ray and throw it in the air, it will fly too won't it?  Doesn't make it an airplane.  

Nibs

[questionmark]

HerNibs, on 09 October 2009 - 04:35 PM, said:

No, the point that when duplicated in larger scale it will fly isn't the point. If you duplicate a manta ray and throw it in the air, it will fly too won't it?  Doesn't make it an airplane.  

Nibs

No need to duplicate it, all you need is enough power and it will fly... the controlled landing is another story though.

[HerNibs]

questionmark, on 09 October 2009 - 04:37 PM, said:

No need to duplicate it, all you need is enough power and it will fly... the controlled landing is another story though.

SPLAT isn't considered a controlled landing?



Nibs