Archaeologica.org

Wikipedia has a pretty interesting write up on it.

History, culture, religious, prevalence, etc.

In the European influenced part of the world it seems to be a post 1900 thing in the English speaking part of the world, but interestingly, not in the UK itself.

The USA is part of the sphere of influence and I was born post 1900 when the USA was mostly “Christian,” hence my personal experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Well, that article says "It is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa, including some Oriental Orthodox Churches", and "the vast majority of Christians do not practise circumcision as a religious requirement"...

Or did I miss something?

Only if you're Jewish!

Roy.

Oh dear, silly me!

I shouldn't have brought on the penis at the same time.

Any chance you guys might also want to discuss the Venus of Tan-Tan .... at any stage?

A nice write up from Bednarik on the Venus thing. A natural formation which was worked on by an intelligent life form. This suggests to me that someone had enough imagination to see a human form in the stone and then plopped himself down to improve it.

http://donsmaps.com/tantanvenus.html

There is no evidence that the overall form of the object was modified by human action. Evidence of impact and of crushing of quartz grains does occur, but it is entirely restricted to specific grooves in the figurine. The form of the object is attributable to the natural bedding of the initial sandstone and to weathering. Originally horizontal bedding planes formed the "arms" and the median line, including the separation of the "legs." The object is entirely the result of random natural processes. However, the grooves at roughly right angles to the bedding plane, appearing on both sides of the object and emphasizing its anthropomorphous character, are partly natural and partly artificial. Some of these defining grooves are attributable to slight variations in the petrology of the quartzite (grain orientation), some were formed by connecting natural depressions, and some were formed by percussion alone.

Actually, this is typical of so much prehistoric ritual art and partly why we're so often plunged into this divide between geofacts and artefacts. Geofacts would be used to create artefacts. We also see this in the rock carvings of the Lascaux caves. The object does not have a work of art created entirely upon it, like an oil painting on a blank canvas. Rather, the natural features of the rock are literally drawn out, or elaborated upon, to show, in my opinion, the spirit within the rock.

Here's a couple of examples of that process from Lascaux:

Geofacts would be used to create artefacts.

You know, Ish, when you stop to think about that for a moment it is inherently logical. In a landscape with friggin' rocks everywhere, why wouldn't someone be attracted to an odd shape and modify it at night around the fire. Sure, you can use a hard rock to cut a soft rock out of a wall but why bother. It is still a lot of work and while you are doing it you can't be doing something else...like eating. These people had to watch their time-management.

“Geofacts would be used to create artefacts.”

So,

Is Mt Rushmore a geofact or an artifact?

The cliff was very prominent.
But the “modification” was pretty extensive.

The only difference is the size, kb.

There is a suggestion that Yonaguni, off Okinawa, was also a natural feature that was modified.

The Great Pyramid, OTOH, was built from the ground up using stones which were cut and moved for the purpose.

That belief is I think supported by the oft quoted comments from sculptors, that they created nothing, they just freed it from the matrix.

Roy.

You know that artists are always bullshitters, Dig!

They're not alone Min!

Roy.

The political debate has been moved to the "Everything Else" forum.

This is to let you know that the November-December issue of the Pleistocene Coalition News is now out and I’d be happy to email anyone a copy who wants one.

This issue contains the following articles:

Diversity not Darwinism by Jorn Greve and Gerhard Neuhauser, on why Darwinism should be revisited and revised.

A case of the ‘Limited Hangout’ by David Campbell, on the thinking behind current theories about man in the Americas.

In their own words by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, on the dating of skull fragments found in Mexico.

Mystery of the Dorenberg skull by Patrick Lyons, on the trail of the skull which could upset all paradigms on how long man has been in the Americas.

Bilzingsleben by Beth McCormack, on how this German camp demonstrates the advanced cognition of Homo erectus 400,000 years ago

Does symbolism represent progress? Jorn Greve and Lutz Fielder, on the changing environment in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic which can be traced through art and symbolism.

The Mind in The Cave by Ishtar, a book review on David Lewis-Williams’ award-winning book about cave painting and shamanism.

Debate: In Plain Sight by Peter Faris, an article critical of Gloria Farley’s book and opening up the subject for discussion.

Just PM me with your email address if you'd like a copy.

I would....and I think you have my email address.