by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
They put effort into producing something that had no practical value, unlike those tools I mentioned earlier.
Lots of those tools don't look like they were ever used. Maybe lots of tools were made for no practical purpose other than to show off.
If a you could fashion a really good tool, you were obviously an evolutionarily fit, intelligent mate. It was a peacock's feather. It was the beginning of human art.
"A Darwinian Theory of Beauty."
An art analyst? Not an archaeologist, nor a scholar of ancient religions? Really?
And you two have both forgotten that art had a dual purpose for a very long period of human history.
The cave paintings in France were not art galleries. The carvings at Gobekli Tepe weren't part of a "sculpture" exhibit to the people who carved them. And the Berekhat Ram figurine and the Tan-Tan 'venus' weren't just "personal art forms" either.
But I've got more reading and research to do on the subject, rather than going in circles with you people.
Okay, I don't know how much control the speaker had over the visual illustrations, but he just referred to a sketch of the Tan-Tan figurine as a "fossil"...
Animism focuses on spirits which differ from gods. There were types of spirits, but they weren't individuals. These groups tend to not see a huge separation between the spiritual and the natural. They are everywhere.
Gods are fewer and more powerful. They have individual personalities and names. Some are superior to others, and they would be in charge of certain domains---like some part of nature they controlled.
I have to read more, and am getting too tired, but Totemism may be another form of religion that does not require gods, but does focus on spirits.
NC
It's crazy when you look into modern day bands and tribes. The variety is endless.
Is there any reason to believe diversity did not exist in prehistory? I think it is quite probable.
Hoo brother...
His comments about the hand axes are somewhat similar to the comments on the site I quoted regarding the Acheulean "goddess", but I suspect that this art analyst and others may have missed some significant factors...
I suspect that the best way to see if the hand axes were useful or merely decorative, would be to engage in a near-complete re-enactment of Acheulean life, preparing foods available to the Acheuleans [Homo erectus] and hunting/gathering as close to the ways in which they did so...
I know that being a member of the SCA re-enactment group, has shown we SCA'ers a great deal about how tools were used in medieval times, the types of clothing they wore, and so on.
Nothing like actually trying to apply the artifacts of the period, to really get a 'feel' for how they functioned...
Here is his website. Apparently he passed away a couple of years ago.
Not at all. There has always been a great deal of diversity. The more 'primitive' a culture is, the more it seems to rely on animism, totems, magic and the like. Tomorrow I will do some more research. I'm trying to get some specific info on cultures that may not have gods/goddesses as part of the mix. I know I read of one that had a lot of spirits---like post spirits that would inhabit a post in the house.
But it is also a valid argument that ancient humans would have seen the female as the lifegiver, and that attributing this to a male entitity would not have made a lot of sense. I touched on genesis, and it seems to be a convoluted attempt to make a male a lifegiver, and thereby, taking away women's power. A Father rather than a Mother. Kind of backwards---but defining. By the male entity taking over all aspects of life, male and female, it helped keep women incredibly subordinate.
But then we can look at chimps and bonobos. Females have very little power with chimps, because they are more isolated from other females and they aren't treated well. It is very different with bonobos, where females form strong alliances with each other. This all may have been due to an extended drought. Chimps had to take to the trees to get food, and this was solitary. Male chimps being stronger, would have had the advantage getting food. Bonobos were able to congregate more and get food closer to the ground. Males didn't have the same advantage.
We are more closely related to chimps.
It's a lot to think about, and my eyes are crossing.
NC
Has anyone read this?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Matriarchal-Prehistory-Invented/dp/0807067938
TTFN.
I suspect that the best way to see if the hand axes were useful or merely decorative, would be to engage in a near-complete re-enactment of Acheulean life, preparing foods available to the Acheuleans [Homo erectus] and hunting/gathering as close to the ways in which they did so...
Yeah---there is an entire portion of archeology that does that. Another interesting experiment eliminated a lot of what was previously seen as human activity. Animal bones that had cuts in them had been assumed to have been handled by humans. But the patterns did not make sense. There were a lot of cut marks, but not where they made sense. We'd expect to see them at the joints, but not up and down the bone. An archeologist took some animal bones and buried them where there was a lot of heavy animal traffic. After some time, she dug them up and found the bones had similiar cut patterns. It was the silica in the soil that did it, so they were able to eliminate a lot of finds. Disappointing, but very valuable.
NC
