"Palaeo cave paintings are based on religious beliefs"

[Rokcet Scientist]

Maybe its that damned volcano?

I'm having no trouble but... I don' know where I'ma gonna go when d' volcano blow...

When the Yellowstone supervolcano blows you're not going anywhere.

[Minimalist]

There's a smiley for damn near everything.

[Ishtar]

Mod Note:

Is anyone else, aside from Rokcet, having trouble accessing the board?

Nope! It's an act of God!

I'm not going to bother arguing about this with you guys, because I know you'll just circle your wagons, hunker down around the camp fire and reassure each other prejudices.

And I appreciate that I started the diversion, but let's revert back to discussing what this article is about, as it's not important what we believe but what our ancestors believed. If we don't understand that the thinking of our ancestors was ... let's call it an appreciation for the divine which they saw in Nature ... and that this way of thinking wasn't just reserved for Sundays or church going, but permeated their whole lives, then we will never understand our ancestors. And understanding our ancestors is surely the whole reason that archaeology exists. Or do you guys just dig old stuff out of the ground because you've run out of ideas about Christmas presents .. and hey, what about some of that nice Beaker Ware for Great Aunt Em?

[Rokcet Scientist]

If we don't understand that the thinking of our ancestors was ... let's call it an appreciation for the divine which they saw in Nature ... and that this way of thinking wasn't just reserved for Sundays or church going, but permeated their whole lives, then we will never understand our ancestors.

"It permeated their whole lives" allright! They were scared shitless of "the divine which they saw in Nature ..."
They were no different than today's Africans, Indians, Chinese, south-east Asians, and the majority of Caucasians: superstitious to the core!

You're in plentiful company, Ish.

[Digit]

and that this way of thinking wasn't just reserved for Sundays or church going, but permeated their whole lives,

and after X 1000 yrs how would I know that was the case?

Roy.

[uniface]

They had time on their hands, so the artistically inclined among them carved and painted. Much, perhaps, as my school chums at age fifteen used to draw hot rods and dragsters in study hall, adults doodle on their notepads during boring meetings at work, and women do (or at least used to do) needlecrafts.

The creation of the venus figurines may have been "religiously" motivated -- or they may have been the paleo analogue of Farrah Faucet pinups. The animal scenes may have been hunting magic. But a lot of dens and business offices today are similarly decorated with paintings of stags, bears, horses and whatnot. Yes, they retired into the deep recesses of caves for their whatever it was. As they retire to special rooms today for their lodge meetings. Some of which are quasi-religious, but most of which aren't. From a possibly skewed perspective, the nominal subjects (whether the Oddfellows or the British Society for the Advancement of _______) often seem to be pretexts to gather for meetings rather than endeavors which require them.

In an age in which people are encouraged by every means possible to project their energy into imaginations (religious, anti-religious, political, social sporting and other) rather than acknowledge the evidence in their environment of what's going on around them and what it's coming to (maintaining a sort of auto-narcosis valuable for "staying out of trouble"), Lascaux and such will naturally be seen as evidence of "religion." And whatever variety of religiosity one projects into it will be the "explanation" of what they were doing there. It will all make perfect sense, and no two people will ever agree on the exact specifics of it.

[Digit]

whatever variety of religiosity one projects into it will be the "explanation" of what they were doing there. It will all make perfect sense,

Exactly!

Roy.

[Ishtar]

OK, guys ... I can see you're only interested in having your own prejudices confirmed, as usual.

If anyone on here is opened minded enough to want to really understand this issue through all the peer reviewed (and non-peer reviewed) research that exists, not to mention anthropological research on and interviews with indigenous tribes who trace their shamanic practises back tens of thousands of years (which is what this article's conclusion was based upon) you're welcome to come over to this thread on on Ishtar's Gate.

It's a absolute waste of my time and energies to explain anything here because the Good Ol' Boys, as usual, are dug in round the campfire and they ain't budgin'. There are so many misunderstandings here that I don't know where to begin, and I wouldn't get a thank you for it anyway.

[Digit]

It's a absolute waste of my time and energies to explain anything here

I've run into the same problem elsewhere!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Alright, Ish. You're entitled to a real answer.

This comment from the OP:

"At this time, the conception of the origins and the nature of art that the westerners and scientists had at the time was redefined. From then on Palaeolithic art was reinterpreted in a symbolic-religious key,

There is a position in the study of ancient historical writing that those "histories" tell us more about the times of the people who wrote them as opposed to the times of the people they were writing about. For example, in the Exodus tale when "god" warns the "Israelites" to avoid the north road through Philistia. This reflects a reality at the time of the authors ( c 7th century ) not during the Late Bronze Age setting for the Exodus when the Philistines were not even present in the area.

So, what the OP suggests is that the initial reading of cave art was that it was merely art and decorative. Then, intellectual theories in Europe changed and the art was re-interpreted as being "religious." As above, that tells us the inclination of the scholars doing the evaluating but the pictures remain the same. They may have been right the first time.

[uniface]

If anyone on here is opened minded enough to want to really understand this issue through all the peer reviewed (and non-peer reviewed) research that exists, not to mention anthropological research . . .

Which, 20 years ago, was adamant that Clovis was first in the USA.

1,000,000 X 0 = 0

[Rokcet Scientist]

There are so many misunderstandings here that I don't know where to begin, and I wouldn't get a thank you for it anyway.

Aaaawww, I comiserate, Ish...

But it's no surprise: I've heard that door shutting argument – "you don't understand us" – at every turn from people who feel slighted and/or mistreated. But that's a very biased fig leaf argument: who are they (you) to determine what I do and don't understand! That's pretty presumptious. And actually offensive.

[Minimalist]

I'll just stick this report from today's News Page right in here as it deals with cognition.

http://www.physorg.com/news191176909.html

Ochre found in this cave at the tip of Pinnacle Point in South Africa has offered up key evidence that early humans were engaging in symbolic behavior long before anthropologists previously surmised.

When and where did the cognitive abilities of modern humans arise? It's a big question -- one debated by anthropologists for decades. It's an even bigger question for an undergraduate thesis, but senior Logan Bartram has a leg up on this ambitious project: he helped unearth artifacts that are playing a critical role in shaping our knowledge about human origins.

[Digit]

Just to add me two pennorth, (quiet here at the moment! ) I have always understood that a 'religion' required a God or Gods.
That would make Shamanism and Buddhism a philosphy perhaps, but not a religion.
I would add that a Buddhist of my aquaintance disagrees.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I'd be willing to stretch animism into a religion.

You have to give animism one thing.....no massive bureaucracy!

Not that I believe in "spirits" any more than I believe in Odin but Odin threw some good parties.