> The depiction of the part-human, part-animal hunters may also be the earliest evidence of our capacity to conceive of things that do not exist in the natural

> The depiction of the part-human, part-animal hunters may also be the earliest evidence of our capacity to conceive of things that do not exist in the natural world. This ability is a cornerstone of religious thought and experience with origins long shrouded in mystery. This irks me a little. The claim that the figures in the painting "do not exist in the natural world" stinks of the "we already know all the things" philosophical bent. Making this claim overlays a rather modern conception of a strictly materialistic world onto a culture we have little to no knowledge of. Our whole worldview mars our ability to conceive of a culture different than ours. I suppose we must view the world within some context, some worldview, but I think more awareness of our preconceptions is necessary. I think any analysis beyond "there are old paintings in this cave, and these are the paints they used, and these are the things they painted" are almost certainly pure speculation and should be relegated to publications that deal in pure speculation.