Archaeologica.org

We have been told that only HSS had the mental capacity for abstract thinking. Perhaps that is wrong, too?

Well, Min, it appears observations are proving differently.

I'll be bold and state that Homo Erectus's cognitive abilities have been largely "dumbed" down (despite evidence to the contrary) in order to support the contention that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are somehow "better" or unique.

I agree, 100% Many. The more observations that come in, the more I think Homo Erectus was fully human.

Well, I must say that i am very skeptical of these pieces.
Look at the heko verlag site, for example, which are mostly asserted to be human forms.

The standard you require for "art" is very low. Just a vague resemblance to
a face or birdhead, which are very simple forms. You want to say that
the makers of this so -called art were advanced, like us, but it is plain that their skills (even if these objects were intended as images, and if they are indeed man-made) were very low, not very high.

I think that a lot of this is just people seeing what they want to or need to see , like a rorschach test. It's like that so called face on mars. Bunk, I think.
Some of the "animal" forms that appear inside chert or flint nodules
seem to be just discoloration in the stone to me.
Or, compare it to the islamic miracles...google it and you'll see what I mean...people find a few squiggles in a tomato, a cabbage, or a dead cat and think it spells out the name of Allah.

Sorry, that's my take on it so far.

Maybe some of the pieces are what you say, but I am just skeptical.

Some of these pieces may have been worked by man in order to make a functional tool - such as an awl. I think an awl in any toolkit would be important.

That shape could easily look like a birds beak. Maybe a case of art imitating life.

stan wrote:The standard you require for "art" is very low.

is the standard of this piece not good enough?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... %20035.jpg

only I am being told that it would be "impossible" to produce??

stan wrote:Just a vague resemblance to a face or birdhead, which are very simple forms."

is this vague?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... %20033.jpg

stan wrote:You want to say that the makers of this so -called art were advanced, like us, but it is plain that their skills (even if these objects were intended as images, and if they are indeed man-made) were very low, not very high.

Producing multi-symmetrical tiered sculptures in stone? Have you ever tried knapping Stan?

stan wrote:I think that a lot of this is just people seeing what they want to or need to see

You could be right Stan,

But I am darn sure it ain’t natural processes.

[/img]

Modern art sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, too.

I wonder what the above piece will look like in 15,000 years?

You want to say that the makers of this so -called art were advanced, like us, but it is plain that their skills (even if these objects were intended as images, and if they are indeed man-made) were very low, not very high.

You have to remember, though, HE didn't have the same technological backdrop on which to rely, as we do. HE developed many key technologies, that would continue to be used for millennia to follow: bifacial stone tool production; control of fire; ability to build boats, fish and survive at sea; ability to think abstractly and create art; ability to migrate great distances and adapt to many different environments; etc...HE's descendents would appear more advance, but, I propose, only because they built on the solid technological foundation, which their forefathers left them. Compare our current level of technology compared to, say, the 1600's. But, to say the individuals living in the 1600's were less sophisticated than us, would be inaccurate. We built on their inventions, as will our descendents.

O.K., that's my two cents.

Peace

Modern art sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, too.

I wonder what the above piece will look like in 15,000 years?

Funny!...but something to ponder...

That sculpture would look like a giant monkey wrench.
Or a petrified first basemen's mitt.

stan wrote:That sculpture would look like a giant monkey wrench.
Or a petrified first basemen's mitt.

You must do well on Rohrschact tests, Stan.

Manystones, i am hampered by not seeing all those pieces in my hand.
I hope you do find or have found genuine examples of imagery produced by early hominids, but
I am simply skeptical. I would like to know more about the contexts, whether there were other indicators of human presence where the pieces were found, for example.

I would like to see other views of that interesting detailed face! The photo seems taken from an angle to show it to its best advantage.
The other one, the white oval with the holes, looks like the work of water to me.

On this board we have had discussions of this type before. For example,
Osmanegic "saw" a pyramid in Bosnia, and other people saw
natural formations.

I like Charlie's point about building on the experience of early man. BUt I don't know what the mechanism was for that. Did humans gradually produce smarter and more talented babies, or was there a cultural tradition as you suggest...through religious symbols...of passing the knowledge down so that we simply became better educated?

I like Charlie's point about building on the experience of early man. BUt I don't know what the mechanism was for that. Did humans gradually produce smarter and more talented babies, or was there a cultural tradition as you suggest...through religious symbols...of passing the knowledge down so that we simply became better educated?

Perhaps, a bit of both? Maybe we became better parents and we built on our forefathers' experience...

http://www.dvhardware.net/article14548.html

It looks pretty real, even a lot more realistic than the face on Mars IMO. It's also pretty big, I used the measure tool in Google Earth to measure the size of the Native American's forehead and its about 225 meters (0.14 miles) long.

Thank God somebody else is looking in their backyard! See min better get your shovel sharpened.

I'm sure this hill will get prompt attention

See min better get your shovel sharpened.

I might wreck my irrigation system, Bruce.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... %20033.jpg

I think you need to look at the pictures that are in the eyes. I see faces there to. The right eye looks like hns looking to the right.

Hmmmm....