Written communications 60,000 yrs ago ~ on ostrich shells

[archaeo]

Meanwhile, Native Americans in 1500's USA did not have "writing"



because we don't read their stuff

but we KNOW shamans did ritual and pilgrimage but no one knew where they were on the earth

Seriously, the serious anthropologists are saying decorations communicate and the would-be science journalists are demonstrating why they are not the scientists, as usual.

At least the interpretations of some who are not even science journalists don't get into print

[Rokcet Scientist]

I apologise for jumping to that conclusion, Rokcet. I was obviously wrong in that assessment. Mea culpa.

It's OK, Ish. Thanks. Let's move on.

But interestingly, I think this discussion highlights the nub of our problem in our trying to understand early man and how he thought.

For instance, let's analyse what we call writing and what we call design.

Much of the cognitive skill for what we call writing has been attributed, by scientists, to the left hand hemisphere of the brain. Whereas the pictorial/metaphor (design) skills are attributed to the right.

Now it is my understanding that early man used both hemispheres in a more holistic way. I've come to this conclusion from practising shamanism, which has put me much more in touch with the right hemisphere. When I view many of the ritual finds that turn up from time to time, I see them in a different light to someone who is not of this way of thinking.

So let's go back to what we call writing .... in essence, what is it? What is writing? It is lines on a page, and not even a page sometimes ... it can be lines on a stelae or a gravestone or a signpost or ...anywhere, even an ostrich shell. These lines are formed to create symbols which repeat themselves in varying fashions over and over into patterns that we've been taught to recognise as sounds. These sounds go to make up words to which we also been taught to attribute specific meanings.

So I'm sure you can grasp where I'm going with this ... if I'm right that early man was more in touch with the right hemisphere of his brain, then it would be no surprise to find that his method of communication was more pictorial, more design-influenced. Add to that ~ and this is why I put the Ogham up here ~ we have at least one example of an early language which was based on long parallel lines intersected by regularly spaced short ones (as was that on the ostrich shells at Diepkloof) and so perhaps we can start to see this from a different perspective?

So to go back to the article, I don't believe it is the researchers' wishful thinking but that the logical steps taken to reach the above conclusion were just not included in the article for very good reason ~ it is not The Times or the Daily Mail. This story came from Archaeology Daily News who assume that most of their readers would have enough knowledge of this particular subject not to need it to have it spelled out to them (no pun intended! ) Of course, they could have been wrong in that assumption ...because it was not understood here.

That's all true, but you apply it to the premise that those patterns have an intentional, considered, and composed meaning, that they are a conscious, reasoned effort to communicate something, a composed message, to others that might see it. And exactly that is a bridge too far, imo. Odds are that it is exactly what we see: non-figurative decorative patterns with no special meaning or intention other than to please or impress the eye of others. Potters have been doing it for millennia.
The message of the ostrich shell engraver probably was no more portentous than "Look! Isn't this pretty? That's how good I am", when he offered it to his, or her, desired mate...
Sure that's 'communication'. Just like all higher animals 'communicate'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dx2CUMtZ-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmmp3wrf ... B&index=20

So even the descendants of dinos do it. And there will probably be a lot of that going on in the next few weeks and months if you look outside your window. It's all 'communication'.

But 'writing' it's not.

[Ishtar]

That's all true, but you apply it to the premise that those patterns have an intentional, considered, and composed meaning, that they are a conscious, reasoned effort to communicate something, a composed message, to others that might see it. And exactly that is a bridge too far, imo. Odds are that it is exactly what we see: non-figurative decorative patterns with no special meaning or intention other than to please or impress the eye of others. Potters have been doing it for millennia.

You say here "no special meaning" ... but that is an assumption, as much as mine is an assumption that it may well have been a language with meaning. Probably all writing systems which are not based on the Proto-Canaanite look pretty strange to us, for instance Chinese (汉语／漢語 ) or Sanskrit (संस्कृतम् ) But we know that these are languages and not just designs because we've been taught that they are.

Added to that, my assumption has something to back it up ~ that Ogham is constructed in exactly the same way as that of the ostrich egg shell scratchings ~ long parallel lines intersected by regularly spaced short ones.

In fact, to the untrained eye, Ogham could just look the same as the ostrich egg-shell scratchings do to you: iow, just patterns to convey "Look! Isn't this pretty? That's how good I am".

Perhaps if ET lands here in five million years time and, by some miracle of technology, this post has been preserved for posterity, they might come to the same conclusion ~ that as a member of this primitive race, I was just trying to show you how good I am.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Perhaps if ET lands here in five million years time and, by some miracle of technology, this post has been preserved for posterity, they might come to the same conclusion ~ that as a member of this primitive race, I was just trying to show you how good I am.

Well, you were, weren't you?

[Ishtar]

Perhaps if ET lands here in five million years time and, by some miracle of technology, this post has been preserved for posterity, they might come to the same conclusion ~ that as a member of this primitive race, I was just trying to show you how good I am.

Well, you were, weren't you?

[Minimalist]

When in Rome some years back I went on a tour of the cathedral (St John in Lateran) given by a scholar who specialized in the lives of saints. He was a fascinating guy who would have us concentrate on one particular mosaic at a time and he would then explain the various symbols in the mosaic which were coded to have specific meaning for the particular saint involved. The purpose of these mosaics is not merely decorative but also to tell a story to the generally illiterate society which it served.

So, while the vast majority of us today might look at this example of a mosaic from that church:



and conclude that it was merely a pretty picture, someone who is schooled on the symbolism knows exactly what each color and object meant.

Now, I will not hazard a guess on whether or not there are hidden meanings in the first picture but certainly to someone who is not at all familiar with the story it will be seen as a simple drawing. I might employ logic to reason that if 12th century Catholics could do it so could 15th century native Americans. I might then be inclined to speculate that cave art in France and Spain might just as easily might also employ symbolism. It's hard to get actual evidence of what people (particularly dead people) may have thought, though.

[Digit]

You entered a cathedral? Raining was it?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

When in Rome.........

[Rokcet Scientist]

I might employ logic to reason that if 12th century Catholics could do it so could 15th century native Americans.

However, they didn't. There aren't any 15th century cathedrals – or similar buildings – in north-America. So that 'logic' doesn't wash IRL.

[Minimalist]

Are you sure?


There are plenty of mound structures throughout north America. I wouldn't think any spiritual use for them should be discarded. Just because native americans did not build European style cathedrals does not mean that they did not worship their own gods in their own way. YOu are letting your ethnocentrism cloud your judgment.

I might make the counter-argument that spending centuries building a single church is an exceedingly stupid waste of resources by Europeans.

[Ishtar]

The 'cathedrals' for the Hopi were the natural pyramids of the Grand Canyon.

The 'stained glass windows' were the rock art ~ cave paintings and petroglyphs found in profusion all over North America.

The Gothic arches and pillars were originally inspired by the groves and forests where they practised their rites.





Horn Creek, Isis Temple and Cheops Pyramid, Grand Canyon



The Monument



Tower of Set






Rock art, Nevada

[Minimalist]

Timing is everything.

From today's News Page.

http://www.examiner.com/x-40598-Archite ... ild-mounds

Why and how did Native Americans build mounds?

[archaeo]

I might employ logic to reason that if 12th century Catholics could do it so could 15th century native Americans.

However, they didn't. There aren't any 15th century cathedrals – or similar buildings – in north-America. So that 'logic' doesn't wash IRL.

The question is not if Catholics built buildings in the Americas, the question is if Americans used symbols. That should be obvious enough (unless your job is to disrupt scientific discourse).

[Minimalist]

What R/S is dancing around, archaeo, is the notion that the "cathedral" is a higher form than a dirt mound. In an engineering sense, that may or may not be true but it is not a symbolic usage. Moreover there are examples of cultures much closer together in time and space that reached different solutions to that issue.

The Egyptians built lavish temples. The Canaanites, existing right next door, worshiped from "high places" in a very natural setting. Continue eastward and you have ziggurats in Mesopotamia. Go north, and the Phoenicians built temples, again. Move to Greece and they built temples ON the high places. Different strokes for different folks.

To a degree, I like Ish's point, or what I think is Ish's point. Certain N-A tribes had natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon or Sedona in their midst to hold sacred. It is almost impossible to stand on the rim of the canyon and not be awed. In the flood plain of the Mississippi though perhaps they felt the need to build their own monuments? Of course, it also serves a useful purpose when the river floods, too.

[Rokcet Scientist]

What R/S is dancing around, archaeo, is the notion that the "cathedral" is a higher form than a dirt mound. In an engineering sense, that may or may not be true but it is not a symbolic usage. Moreover there are examples of cultures much closer together in time and space that reached different solutions to that issue.

The Egyptians built lavish temples. The Canaanites, existing right next door, worshiped from "high places" in a very natural setting. Continue eastward and you have ziggurats in Mesopotamia. Go north, and the Phoenicians built temples, again. Move to Greece and they built temples ON the high places. Different strokes for different folks.

To a degree, I like Ish's point, or what I think is Ish's point. Certain N-A tribes had natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon or Sedona in their midst to hold sacred. It is almost impossible to stand on the rim of the canyon and not be awed. In the flood plain of the Mississippi though perhaps they felt the need to build their own monuments? Of course, it also serves a useful purpose when the river floods, too.

There are of course many reasons why, and MOs how to 'build' mounds. Be it symbolical, practical, or both.
But mounds are light years apart from cathedrals, temples, bath houses, catacombes, or aqueducts, in my book. The one is/are an expression of loose nomadic bands of HGs we call tribes (or, euphemistically: nations), the other an expression of organised city states. A level of development NA indians never achieved.