Archaeologica.org

Hey, I don't write 'em I just post 'em.

Fair enough. But the mentality of the people who reduce the heart-mind-soul-spirit aliveness of living things to reductionalist absurdities like that because their idiot models require them is just, to me, offensive. It's like the terms of the discussion are set by those who are manifestly the least competent at coming to grips with the fundamental perceptions that any discussion of it involves.

It reinforces the suspicion I decided was a certainty by age 20 -- that formal "education" is a money-making placebo to keep people who otherwise might start thinking (ergo, causing problems) occupied, the same way you distract a child with a toy when he's up to something untoward. Change his channel, as it were, by giving him a new set of (harmless) energy occupiers.

that formal "education" is a money-making placebo

I tend to agree but that would be the start of another thread.

that would be the start of another thread.

Some sort of New Year's resolution ?

Minimalist wrote:I got the impression that it was another artifact rather than the one shown. The article is a little vague in its references to which artifact it means at any given point.

Finally, a bit of clarification:

A Spondylus gaederopus shell from the same site contained residues of a reddish pigmentatious mass made of lepidocrocite mixed with ground bits of hematite and pyrite (which, when fresh, have a brilliant black, reflective appearance), suggesting the kind of inclusion 'for effect' that one would expect in a cosmetic preparation.

The choice of a Spondylus shell as the container for such a complex recipe may relate to the attention-grabbing crimson, red, or violet colour and exuberant sculpture of these shells, which have led to their symbolic- or ritual-related collection in a variety of archaeological contexts worldwide.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 010810.php

circumspice wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I got the impression that it was another artifact rather than the one shown. The article is a little vague in its references to which artifact it means at any given point.

Finally, a bit of clarification:

A Spondylus gaederopus shell from the same site contained residues of a reddish pigmentatious mass made of lepidocrocite mixed with ground bits of hematite and pyrite (which, when fresh, have a brilliant black, reflective appearance), suggesting the kind of inclusion 'for effect' that one would expect in a cosmetic preparation.

The choice of a Spondylus shell as the container for such a complex recipe may relate to the attention-grabbing crimson, red, or violet colour and exuberant sculpture of these shells, which have led to their symbolic- or ritual-related collection in a variety of archaeological contexts worldwide.



One more thought I'd like to add... I object to ascribing symbolic or ritual meaning to anything that is perhaps not obviously functional... whatever happened to the idea of using or wearing something just because it is 'pretty'? I certainly don't choose my jewelry or clothing for symbolic or ritual meaning... People like pretty things. Reminds me of Macaulay's spoof Motel of the Mysteries.

uniface wrote:[...] placebo to keep people who otherwise might start thinking (ergo, causing problems) occupied, the same way you distract a child with a toy when he's up to something untoward. Change his channel, as it were, by giving him a new set of (harmless) energy occupiers.

Like Football and Soccer.
Bread & games.
The old smoke & mirrors strategy.

And the Roman arena of course.

Roy.

A recent article that shows some good photos of the original scallop shell fragment that is the topic of this thread.
The title is somewhat misleading, as most of the article is a reference to the use of shells for jewelry/ornamentation.

http://news.discovery.com/human/neander ... meals.html

Circ, I can remember that the notion that HNS ate seafood would have been big news in and of itself. For a while this was considered to be one of HSS' great achievements as the protein from seafood is alleged to have contributed to their "sudden" development of brainpower.

Might also be interesting to learn where such shells originated versus where they were found. Somehow, I always think of commerce rather than migration as the answer to that particular question.

Minimalist wrote:Circ, I can remember that the notion that HNS ate seafood would have been big news in and of itself. For a while this was considered to be one of HSS' great achievements as the protein from seafood is alleged to have contributed to their "sudden" development of brainpower.

Might also be interesting to learn where such shells originated versus where they were found. Somehow, I always think of commerce rather than migration as the answer to that particular question.

True, it was once touted that only HSS exploited seafood type resourses. I think that finds at Gibralter altered that perception.
I also believe that commerce answers a lot of questions as to how certain regionally available items made it to other areas. People
have always been merchants and traders, it seems.

As I stated somewhere above, I believe that people used and/or wore items more for asthetics than for any symbolic reason. Why do we have to read
more into something than is shown by the actual evidence?

Which leads to ask what is 'sea food?' When the experts tell me this, do they mean only salt water species, if so why is the fact that the food was marine based have any bearing on brain power, or do they include within that definition fresh water species?

Roy.

Dig, I'm going from memory here (always dangerous at our age, I know) but the article I first saw on this seemed to suggest that it was shellfish and sea mammals of an ocean going type. However, this could simply be because the bones/shells that contributed to this particular study were what was found. There are fish in lakes and rivers too, but my recollection was that they were studying a coastal site with a large midden of shells. HNS in central Germany is pretty far from the sea but they certainly had access to the rivers/lakes.

Minimalist wrote:Dig, I'm going from memory here (always dangerous at our age, I know) but the article I first saw on this seemed to suggest that it was shellfish and sea mammals of an ocean going type. However, this could simply be because the bones/shells that contributed to this particular study were what was found. There are fish in lakes and rivers too, but my recollection was that they were studying a coastal site with a large midden of shells. HNS in central Germany is pretty far from the sea but they certainly had access to the rivers/lakes.

Wasn't there a butchered whale carcass found in... um... West Africa... that was attributed to HSS, that kicked off the whole seafood as a "brain-booster" idea? I think that they thought it might have been a beached whale that archaic HSS found and scavenged? (just an article that I remember reading in the last couple of years)