Archaeologica.org

Hi Roy -

The distinguishing characteristic is the maritime food harvesting tools - harpoons, fishing points.
Bows and arrows were very late; two sources in the Americas - one north, one south.

The current big issue is atlatl development - I go with HSS, a harpoon development/derivative.

The other bissue

Digit wrote:I think I'm not explaining myself very well.
I want to know who painted them. I was hoping that there were imagies with either arrows or spears as a possible means of establishing whether the artists were HSN or HSS.

Roy.

But they didn't apparently. One would think that if they were hoping for success on a hunt that they might show their weapons striking home but we do not see that kind of display. So perhaps something else is going on with this artwork. But that is where I say that we'll never get inside the mind of these people - no matter who they are.

Bows & arrows were not seen in Centarl Texas until about 1000 AD. Atlatl before

No, no! I'm not interested in the reasoning, the symbolism, the technique or anything else.
Who painted them?
When the caves were discovered the reasoning went, painted by modern humans as Neandertal man did not have the intellect for such artistic appreciation etc etc.
That appears not to have altered any such since, thus I was hoping for a clue from the paintings them selves.

Roy.

thus I was hoping for a clue from the paintings them selves.

Seekers of knowledge are frequently disappointed...........

Unfortunately so Min. But in view of the lack of evidence it makes me wonder how the conclusion was reached, and not apparently challenged, that HSS were the artists.

Roy.

Oh, as you said, when that determination was made HNS was still regarded as a grunting cave man. It therefore had to be that marvel of evolution: US!

But I would have thought that by now someone would have re-evaluated what evidence there is Min.

Roy.

Optimist!

Yep! The glass is half full.
What puzzles me Min is the fact that if HSS brought the skill with him why are there no comparable sites elsewhere.
Plenty of rock paintings, yes, but nothing quite like Chauvet elsewhere, that I know of that is.

Roy.

Actually, given the climate of the Levant or even Morocco ( assuming the most obvious crossing points from Africa to Europe ) one would think that paintings made with organic pigments would survive even better in a dry climate as opposed to France. It's a puzzle, alright. I think HNS has been rehabilitated in recent years so that the dumb brute image is a thing of the past but I don't know if anyone has made the leap of faith ( which is about all it would be ) to give them credit for cave paintings.

Still the point is well taken. Why is there no indication of such a skill elsewhere?

Digit wrote:No, no! I'm not interested in the reasoning, the symbolism, the technique or anything else.
Who painted them?
When the caves were discovered the reasoning went, painted by modern humans as Neandertal man did not have the intellect for such artistic appreciation etc etc.
That appears not to have altered any such since, thus I was hoping for a clue from the paintings them selves.

Roy.

You are quite right Dig, conventional 'wisdom' states that HSN didn't have the necessary intelligence for symbolic thought...

At this time, no-one is willing to go out on a limb and state categorically that 'this artwork' or 'that jewelry' was made by HSN.

Almost 100% of paleolithic art is attributed to HSS. Yet there are a few intriguing pieces that MAY be of HSN origin. Some examples would be the so-called Venus of Tantan; the piece of flint with a bone jammed in a cavity making it look vaguely like a human face; the highly disputed bear bone flute; drilled and/or dyed shells and grooved animal teeth for attaching to clothing or a necklace and the decorated stone slab that was found covering the burial of a HSN child. These are the only examples that I can recall that can possibly be attributed to HSN and yet there are many anthropologists that dispute even that paltry collection of art.

As far as cave art representations of animals being hunted, yes there are a few. And they have always been attributed to HSS exclusively. Those animals are usually depicted with abstract slashes on the belly, hindquarters and neck. Those slashes have been interpreted as wounds. Any people who are represented with weapons look like they are brandishing spears or darts in the oldest depictions. Any representations of bows and arrows are from a much later era.

As regards the 'leap of faith' Min perhaps I'm a pioneer! I certainly have been as a supporter of HSN as 'human.'
When I first became interested in HSN it soon became clear that the info available to me was 3rd party interpretations, access to the original material was non-existant. As I gained more info I began to see that the info was open to entirely different interpretations.
It was then that I met the 'closed shop' mentality of the scientific cummunity, happily over the last 50yrs I have lived long enough to see the offical line swing more and more my way.
So now I am prepared to argue further.
This is 'The Human Race' according to Digit, at least as I see it.
HSS is reported to have left Africa some 70000yrs ago, crossing into Arabia and following the coast before turning northwards, this supported by DNA.
As he progressed he must have met up with HE or his offspring, this neatly explains the racial differences between the far eastern Asiatics and people from central Asia/Eastern Europe.
After some years HSS then turned west and entered Europe, where he then met HSN. This again neatly explains the wide morphology of the western European people.
Thus the racial differences between the Mongoloids to the east, the Slavs in the centre and the classical European morphology to the west.
Heresy? Yes! But it is the only explanation that seems to fit the facts. Never overlook the obvious.
In the 40000 yrs that HSS was in Asia he seem to leave no comparable sites such as Chauvet etc. The logical deduction must be that the art form was indigenous to Europe, and as circumspice suggests it only a mind set that refuses to consider that.
That leads me to ask how did the art arose, and why did it stop.
I have ideas on that as well but I think that I may have stirred the pot sufficiently already.
Having dug myself a hole the time has come to stop digging!

Roy.

Lascux was only discovered 70 years ago and Chauvet less than 20 . Both are in deep limestone settings that have remained relatively dry and also been close enough to to modern settelment to be found by accident or not too difficult to access for explorers . These conditions do not even apply to areas not that far from these sites . Plenty of deep limestone caves in the UK ,plenty of sites close to setttlement and handy for explorers but even if there were paintings in these caves they woould not have survived because of the totally differnet conditions .It's a Jared Diamond situation but it is also very early days , we don't know what will be discovered in the east , Bhimbekta is a start .

George

Very true, but world wide there is no shortage of cave/rock paintings, none of which acheive the sophistication or quality of the European examples.
Why?
Take perspective, fully understood by the European cave artists then' discovered' during the Renaissance.
Other examples of rock painting show hunting scenes, absent in European caves.
Elsewhere the human form is depicted, absent in European caves.
It suggests to me an entirely different purpose or mindset.
Till these other venues are discovered George the Chauvet complex exist as a one off.

Roy.