4 ms·

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.

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.