I was not just skeptical of the claim that this was rock art--I was dismissive, and in a derogatory tone. To my eye this 'figure' looked like anything but a human male with an oversized phallus, as it's described in the paper. And I made a 'rush to judgement.' And, like OJ's prosecution, I come out smelling like a fart. It appears that I missed the fine print in the article that referred to other localities where such 'figures' are recorded--C-shaped heads and all.
Here is the comment from Anonymous
An extremely negative piece that fails to mention the fundamental differences between pecked or hammered rock-art and non-anthropic markings created by natural processes. A cursory glance at the images strongly suggests a pecking or hammering process involved, though it would take an in-person visitation and examination to be absolutely sure. Given the similarity between the Lagoa Santa image and nearby rock-art...it stands to reason that the archaeologists have made an appropriate identification.
You offer no evidence at all for your position and it comes across as simply having go at both PLoS ONE and the archaeologists who worked at Lagoa Santa. The former may be fair enough, but the latter?
Clearly I was wrong. There is obviously a well-established pictorial tradition in that part of the world wherein humans have three fingers, C-shaped heads, and exposed and exaggerated (one would have to think) genitals, often tumescent. Mind you, the Lapa do Santo Rock shelter petroglyph that started all this is nowhere near as precise as these other examples in its depiction of the lower reaches of the body. The meandering peck marks that form the ?lower limbs and phallus? are, forgive me for saying so, rather coarse when compared with the figures from the other localities. I'm still wrong. But I hope I can be forgiven for treating the claim of an oversized phallus as 'a bit of a reach.'
At this time, I'd like to apologize to the authors for my original blog post, which I will not take down, but to which I've attached a note explaining where to go for the true story.
I'd also like to thank Anonymous for having the temerity to upbraid me for my failings.
I choose not, at this time, to let PLoS ONE and its referees off the hook. In my defense, images of the other, validating, petroglyphs were published only as supplementary material, and your's truly missed them. Given the very distant, unique, and regional tradition from which the Lagoa Santa petroglyph arose, they should never have let the authors publish the comparative material as supplementary material. For that matter, what is PLoS ONE doing publishing anything as supplementary? They're all electronic. Supplementary material is something that traditionally print-based journals do in addition to the print paper. On that basis I still maintain that the referees were asleep at the wheel, since they obviously didn't think the other examples of C-headed, three-fingered, pecked stick figures were important enough to be included in the paper, proper.
That's cold comfort for me, unfortunately. It's a bloody good thing I had no credibility in the discipline before I began this blog. Otherwise I might be worried that such gaffes as this one would erode my readers' confidence to such an extent that they'd stop visiting. It's my fervent hope that the possibility of such an outcome is just my own, personal, cauchemar.