Archaeologica.org

Manystones wrote:
Breuil seems to have used a little artistic licence in his sketch.

Ishtar wrote:

Manystones wrote:
Breuil seems to have used a little artistic licence in his sketch.

Incidentally, I didn't use this sketch, as I agree it's overdone. So once again Manystones is using sleight of hand to make it look as if I was presenting something that I wasn't.

Pure dishonesty.

Ishtar wrote:Manystones, why do you think anyone here will be the least bit interested in anything you have to say after the way you discredited yourself yesterday?

Not only did you behave like a viscious-minded bully, but you also tried to misrepresent me by falsifying one of my quotes - and your reason for doing so, when I challenged you, was pure, unadulterated mendacity.

You have no integrity here, Manystones.....in the meantime, we will be going with the widely accepted definition from Wikipedia which, although it may not be perfect, it certainly more reliable than you and your so-called neutral scientists.

Ishtar wrote:Manystones

When you PM-ed me the other day about my approach being 'bad for the discipline', I was too polite to say: "Bad for what discipline? The discipline of seeing faces in stones?"

But I'm not feeling so polite now after reading your arrogant remark about your post getting us ‘back to reality'.

Do you think if you ape the pomposity of the Club, they’ll accept you and your stones? You need to think again.

I write in plain language that most people can understand. So if you can’t understand what I say, you might try a local literacy class.

Manystones wrote:
From personal PM's I know they are interested.

rich wrote:hmm - Not so sure MS. If you look - the knees of the "creature" are bent in the way a humans are - not an animals. And it does appear to be human feet.

[Merlin] Donald has proposed a complex model in which he posits three broad stages of human evolution from our common human/chimp ancestor (1991: 124–61). For example, he begins his discussion by referring to ape culture as episodic. This is characterised by complex, periodic event perception; improved self-awareness, including the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror, as chimpanzees do; and event-sensitivity with a sporadic and reactive cognitive style and a limited voluntary expressive morphology…….These proto-cultural behaviours form a bridge leading from episodic culture to Donald’s first stage of hominin evolution, mimetic culture, which he believes peaked with Homo erectus (this bridge of development stretches from about 3 Ma–0.5 Ma).………

Some of the other characteristics of mimetic culture involve such novel forms of representation as non-verbal action modelling. With this advance there is a revolution in skill development transmitted via mimesis, non-verbal communication becomes increasingly important, and there are more opportunities for shared attention and participation in specific events. Mimetic culture thus allows for increased variability of custom and cultural ‘archetypes’ (Donald 1998: 7–17). Donald suggests that this ancient mimetic system is still crucially important in human behaviour and remains rather separate from linguistic cognitive evolution. Mimetic abilities, especially perceptual recognition, vocalisations and facial expressions are largely mediated through the right hemisphere. Hunting and gathering techniques no doubt began to evolve in complexity, as they were more readily transmitted across generations by means of imitation. In such a cultural milieu it is entirely likely that hominins observed the various camouflaging devices utilised by both predators and prey and attempted to mimic them.

During the pursuit of game, to the targeted quarry a disguised hominin would seem to have become one of the herd; whereas, to members of the hunting party, the same individual would appear to have metamorphosed into an animal. A strategy of this kind might have been interpreted as ‘magical’ by those involved, as it would have seemed able to transport humans into the midst of the animal world with impunity. For much of hominin history, throughout mimetic culture and later mythic culture up until about 30 000 years BP, the social organisation underlying these groups most likely consisted of small band societies (Gamble 1999; Renfrew and Bahn 1996), which were characterised by egalitarianism, with leadership being informal and based upon natural ability. Earlier in the cultural development of animal disguises for hunting, many individuals were probably considered competent in this role. But, as the demands increased due to growing cultural complexity, one particular individual is likely to have been especially convincing at mimicking animals. This person therefore probably came to be seen as in possession of a special ‘gift’, in the sense of appearing to be able to pass, at will, from the human to the animal world.

According to Donald’s evolutionary scheme, about 500 000 BP some basic advances upon the earlier mimetic cultural stage began to develop, culminating in mythic culture. This culture was characterised by high-speed phonology, oral language and oral social records. It is ‘mythic’ because it is governed by representations that consist of a shared oral-mythic tradition, which includes a public, standardised version of reality permeated by mythic archetypes and allegories that can exert direct control over the form of human thought and convention (Donald 1998: 14). This would also include enhanced visual representational abilities that would form a basis for the creation of artistic objects such as the Berekhat Ram and Tan-Tan figures mentioned earlier. This phase of cultural evolution peaks in Homo sapiens sapiens, and some of the visual records of that culture survive in the Palaeolithic cave painting of animals.

Manystones wrote:

rich wrote:hmm - Not so sure MS. If you look - the knees of the "creature" are bent in the way a humans are - not an animals. And it does appear to be human feet.

Hi Rich,

I am not saying it is not a therianthrope, just that the Breuil sketch was not in line at all with the painting - at least as far as my eyes can see.

Manystones wrote:And yet you have failed to explain why you have blatantly misrepresented me:

I went back to the original source from whence the sketch that you provided was quite clearly derived from.

Ishtar wrote:Manystones

When you PM-ed me the other day about my approach being 'bad for the discipline', I was too polite to say: "Bad for what discipline? The discipline of seeing faces in stones?"

But I'm not feeling so polite now after reading your arrogant remark about your post getting us ‘back to reality'.

Do you think if you ape the pomposity of the Club, they’ll accept you and your stones? You need to think again.

I write in plain language that most people can understand. So if you can’t understand what I say, you might try a local literacy class.

john wrote:

Manystones wrote:Ishtar,

it's a forum not a boxing ring... what are you frightened off - making a fool of yourself

And anyway, to remind you, you said that you wouldn't reply to me anymore (principally because you can't and have failed to respond to any of my questions or challenges) although you did make out it was because i had twisted your words where in fact all I did was put the focus on the terminology you are using.

OK, gang -

Let's start off with a couple easy ones.

The Willendorf "Venus" and

The painted cave known as "Chauvet"

Neither example demonstrates any "practical" use,

Such as those demonstrated by a club or a handaxe,

Or a length of twisted fibre.

They do, however, demonstrate

In my opinion, a pretty highly developed

Level of cognition.

To what end?

Enquiring minds wish to know..........



Have at.


hoka hey


john

rich wrote:Another question - when do we start to see paintings or carvings of fish or other sea animals? Or sea plants? Wouldn't they have been important enough for putting in pictures? Or are most of the paintings and sculptures we have from inland areas?