3 ms·

It is significant psychologically. It gives insight into their minds and how they thought about the world around them. It shows there was a culture, a civilizat

It is significant psychologically. It gives insight into their minds and how they thought about the world around them. It shows there was a culture, a civilization.

optimalsolver 4y ago
I don't think this tells us anything other than they collected a bunch of animal skulls. Anything else is projection of values.
- flir 4y ago
  If you're going to get sceptical, it doesn't even tell us that. Maybe the collection is just a side-effect of the true action - eating the brain direct from the skull for example. The assemblage is then just a midden.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Because it's obvious the only way to eat animal brain is in a cave, unlike the rest of the animal that can be consumed outside.
    - flir 4y ago
      The article does say that the secondary processing, inside the cave, was to remove the brain ("A second round of processing took place within the cave, perhaps related to accessing the brain and/or working the crania into the configuration in which they were found in Level 3. [...] This is supported by the large number of percussion-associated tools present, by the percussion marks associated with the removal of the maxillae and the extraction of the brain, and by the presence of some isolated cranial fragments.") Note that in at least one case, the maxillae was found under the skull - it was left exactly where it was processed. Does that sound like a collection to you? But ok, change the reason, it wasn't really the point. The point was that the apparent collection could be a side-effect rather than a goal, and there's insufficient evidence to say "they collected skulls". So... they're hauling the skull and the skin into the cave, where they can use smoke and brains to tan the skin. Again, the skull collection becomes a side-effect of the goal (tanned skins). Although the evidence for fire damage still suggests cooking to me.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Ever see an animal do that? Did you ask yourself why they would do it? If they collected them, doesn't it mean they held some significance for them? How could these animal skulls be significant for them? How did they get the skulls? What happened to the animals they came from? Just because you can't see or understand something, doesn't mean something isn't there or that there is no way to know anything. Indeed, it is you that are projecting your values onto something you find inscrutable: if I can't understand, then no one can. What you should turn your searing skepticism towards is your own unsupported conclusions.
lm28469 4y ago
But does it ? Doesn't it tell more about us since it's mostly us projecting our idea of culture on them despite having literally 0 clue whatsoever ?
- Maursault 4y ago
  It really does. There is nothing practical about collecting animal skulls. They can't be used as tools, so there is nothing practical about them. They saw some value in them enough to separate them, maybe what once was a habit out of a curiosity became tradition and ultimately a ritual in recognition of the importance to them of these animals, which sustained them and allowed them to survive. This impractical collecting is an emergence of a more human type of consciousness, a birth of a spiritual life such as no animal would ever have prepared. This is not projecting, it is investigative understanding of what makes us like them, recognizing the similarities. These were not animals. They were primitive peoples. Humans have a rich internal life of dreams and impressions, and so too did they. Maybe in 20K - 50K years this impractical collection of skulls becomes an alter. Would you also say, if they found what was obviously some kind of alter, that it didn't mean anything, or that there was no possibility of understanding what they used it for? It speaks volumes. When you can't see something, your first impression is that nothing is there. This isn't always true, and whatever it is you are good at and have full understanding of, it doesn't mean that you are expert at everything. Archeologists and anthropologists are not morons. They do not invent things, they uncover and can see and understand through experience and study things we never will without also having their experience and knowledge. They know what they're doing and recognize the significance of their own work, just as you know your own expertise and recognize its significance.

It is significant psychologically. It gives insight into their minds and how they thought about the world around them. It shows there was a culture, a civilization.

optimalsolver 4y ago

I don't think this tells us anything other than they collected a bunch of animal skulls. Anything else is projection of values.

flir 4y ago
If you're going to get sceptical, it doesn't even tell us that. Maybe the collection is just a side-effect of the true action - eating the brain direct from the skull for example. The assemblage is then just a midden.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Because it's obvious the only way to eat animal brain is in a cave, unlike the rest of the animal that can be consumed outside.
  - flir 4y ago
    The article does say that the secondary processing, inside the cave, was to remove the brain ("A second round of processing took place within the cave, perhaps related to accessing the brain and/or working the crania into the configuration in which they were found in Level 3. [...] This is supported by the large number of percussion-associated tools present, by the percussion marks associated with the removal of the maxillae and the extraction of the brain, and by the presence of some isolated cranial fragments.") Note that in at least one case, the maxillae was found under the skull - it was left exactly where it was processed. Does that sound like a collection to you? But ok, change the reason, it wasn't really the point. The point was that the apparent collection could be a side-effect rather than a goal, and there's insufficient evidence to say "they collected skulls". So... they're hauling the skull and the skin into the cave, where they can use smoke and brains to tan the skin. Again, the skull collection becomes a side-effect of the goal (tanned skins). Although the evidence for fire damage still suggests cooking to me.
Maursault 4y ago
Ever see an animal do that? Did you ask yourself why they would do it? If they collected them, doesn't it mean they held some significance for them? How could these animal skulls be significant for them? How did they get the skulls? What happened to the animals they came from? Just because you can't see or understand something, doesn't mean something isn't there or that there is no way to know anything. Indeed, it is you that are projecting your values onto something you find inscrutable: if I can't understand, then no one can. What you should turn your searing skepticism towards is your own unsupported conclusions.

lm28469 4y ago

But does it ? Doesn't it tell more about us since it's mostly us projecting our idea of culture on them despite having literally 0 clue whatsoever ?

Maursault 4y ago
It really does. There is nothing practical about collecting animal skulls. They can't be used as tools, so there is nothing practical about them. They saw some value in them enough to separate them, maybe what once was a habit out of a curiosity became tradition and ultimately a ritual in recognition of the importance to them of these animals, which sustained them and allowed them to survive. This impractical collecting is an emergence of a more human type of consciousness, a birth of a spiritual life such as no animal would ever have prepared. This is not projecting, it is investigative understanding of what makes us like them, recognizing the similarities. These were not animals. They were primitive peoples. Humans have a rich internal life of dreams and impressions, and so too did they. Maybe in 20K - 50K years this impractical collection of skulls becomes an alter. Would you also say, if they found what was obviously some kind of alter, that it didn't mean anything, or that there was no possibility of understanding what they used it for? It speaks volumes. When you can't see something, your first impression is that nothing is there. This isn't always true, and whatever it is you are good at and have full understanding of, it doesn't mean that you are expert at everything. Archeologists and anthropologists are not morons. They do not invent things, they uncover and can see and understand through experience and study things we never will without also having their experience and knowledge. They know what they're doing and recognize the significance of their own work, just as you know your own expertise and recognize its significance.