Talk:Red Bird River Petroglyphs

message: Looking at the nomination form, I don't see this name at all, and the one good source I can find for the place  doesn't show anything I can match with this piece of rock, nor does it mention any of the fringier claims being made. The rest seems to all come from amateur websites. I really can't decide whether to put this up for deletion or to throw the current content away and use nothing but the NRHP nomination and this one book. Suggestions? Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite confident that it's the same site.  NRIS gives the Smithsonian trinomial of 15CY52, and Swauger et al give the same trinomial, so they're definitely writing about the NR-listed site.  I visited the site last summer (it's under a fenced shelter at about ), and all indications there agree that it's the NR-listed site.  Design elements that Swauger mentions, especially the "linear incisions and several bird tracks, overlain by modern graffiti", are definitely present.  He notes that most of the modern vandalism is "modern initials and dates"; these are plentiful, but there's a good deal of other stuff (including at least one little bit of spray paint on a section that was attached o the wall before it fell), most of which is probably the result of it being placed in a public park for 20 years now.  Most of the languages-related stuff is completely unrelated to the actual contents of the stone — it's speculation or hoax-believing comparable to the Mound Builders stuff that's believed about the Newark Holy Stones (mentioned at http://s8int.com/phile/page43.html) and the Book of Mormon, and that kind of thing is irrelevant for archaeological purposes, which is all that's needed for the book and for the National Register.  We still ought to mention the stories, since their place in local folklore is obviously quite significant, but they need to be separated from the archaeological understanding of the site.  Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: PS, see WP:SELFPUB.  In the absence of published sources that talk about the local legends, we might as well cite some of the local legends pages themselves.  It's completely appropriate to say something like "Local folklore has held that the petroglyphs are inscriptions in [all these Old World languages]" and to give some details — whether or not the locals are right, nobody can dispute that they've said it (the signs shown at http://s8int.com/phile/page43.html and in my photos are clear proof of what the locals have said), and we ought not omit them.  More opinions if you desire them.  Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Swauger, however, illustrates a completely different site that is high on a bluff and incorporates a cave. It's possible the photographed rock somehow came from that site, but it is clearly not the same site, and it's not at all clear that the rock did come from the site; I don't see a reliable source here that says it did. I'm not seeing how not to treat this as two separate sites. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a different site.  [Sorry for sounding like I'm looking down on you, but I'm not sure how else to ask] Are you familiar with the concept of a rock shelter?  Like many (most?) of Kentucky's major petroglyph sites, Red Bird was carved on the walls of a rockshelter; in this case, part of the shelter fell, ended up on a road, and was moved to the park.  Petroglyphs in rockshelters are extremely common; if part of the Piney Creek West Site in Illinois collapsed, it would look quite similar to this.  Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: PS, see this article from the local newspaper.  Again, not reliable for the history or meaning of the petroglyphs, but we have no reason to doubt the article's account of the stone's detachment from the wall.  Note that Swauger's only clear photo of carvings shows the west wall, and his east-wall photo doesn't depict much of anything distinctive; this is part of the east wall.  Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! There are two different sites! If you look at the previous entry in Swauger, you'll see the "Red Bird River petroglyph site" (note lack of "Shelter" in name), ID 15CY51, which matches the location much more closely and whose photograph and diagram of the markings fits better. So the main problem here is in the name of the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I'd already looked at the 15CY51 entry, but I overlooked the page 33 drawings.  They're definitely the same as those of the site in Manchester.  Now I'm really annoyed — except for Elliott County, I had photos for at least one NR site in every KY county.  Now I'm down to just 118 of the 120...Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Can you do us a favor and write a decent article with Swauger and the nomination?  I discovered this book long ago while looking for the location of the Jeffry Cliff Petroglyphs in Hancock County; I'd thought of starting to write articles on them, but I never got a round tuit.  Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The article link you give is missing the year of publication as well as the name of the paper, not to mention the photographs.  The basic information about the fact and date of its relocation is in a rather new article at http://clayconews.com/news/local-news/3697-chamber-working-to-move-county-forward.html .  A more contemporary article would be better, but perhaps they were not online back then, so perhaps this is the best we can do.  Unfortunately, they call it the Red River Shelter Petroglyph (15CY52, which is still in place)!  I'll try to incorporate it, along with info from the Coy, Fuller, Meadows, and Swauger book, plus Tankersley. HuMcCulloch (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of adding the City of Manchester Parks & Recreation webpage at https://sites.google.com/site/claycountykentuckyusa/parks-recreation as an authority that the stone is now in Rawlings/Stinson Park in Manchester, but I see that their description of the inscription is almost verbatim what's on Wikipedia, so that there may be a circularity problem there! HuMcCulloch (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped the photos as suggested. The city parks page is perhaps good for citing the new location, but nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Nyttend has pointed out on the National Register of historic Places listings in Clay County, Kentucky talk page that I was mistakenly taking nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com to be an official listing, when in fact it is a derivative unofficial (and inaccurate) listing.  It appears that 15CH51 was delisted on the NRHP as of 2003, apparently because the object of interest was no longer at the designated place.HuMcCulloch (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted the delist. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I see now that this is a "Smithsonian Trinomial", but is there a record of these online,  or only on paper in some state bureau?  HuMcCulloch (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not at all sure that this is the NHRP listed site 

message: The personal website used is pretty problematic and doesn't tell us who made these claims. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See link above for a local newspaper article, which works as a source for the local folklore.  Personal website also displays photos of signs placed by local officials; we could say "The stone is surrounded by signs claiming X".  Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 'alphatbets'