3 ms·

What an odd thing to claim and publish, and the wikipedia article is already updated with these spurious "findings". That qualifies as suspicious. The actual

by NHQ 3y ago

What an odd thing to claim and publish, and the wikipedia article is already updated with these spurious "findings". That qualifies as suspicious. The actual position taken by these "archeologists" from their paper about a "modern social history of prehistoric handaxes" is quite a reach. The rock does not look like the flat head of any axe, nor does a "prehistoric stone tool" bear any meaning whatsoever in the context of the image. In fact the rock resembles fragments of meteorite. Perhaps all the supposed "ancient handaxes" are really from a more recent meteoric event. That would be quite a thrust against prehistorical man narratives made up by archeologists. Oh, people really called these supposed axes "thunderstones" before the advent of modern archeology claimed they are tools of prehistoric man. Yet these "researchers" claim a painting proves that 15th century people already thought the rocks were ancient handaxes despite contrary evidence, in other words that what archeologists made up was already well know; so it must be true after all, how convenient. But that is tautological: provide a theory based on a painting and claim the painting is evidence the theory is correct.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
Oh boy, you're missing quite a lot here. First let's breakdown what "modern social history of prehistoric handaxes" means, as virtually every word has a technical definition. "Modern" - from the modern period, i.e. 1500s onwards "Social history" - a specific type of historical analysis focusing on essentially what a common man would have thought and known about. This is a very rough reduction of what the term actually encompasses. "Prehistoric" - old stuff "Handaxes" - a specific category of lithic (i.e. stone) tools that are typically symmetrical bifaces, distinct from modern axes. Also, most rocks can be confused for meteorites and vice versa. "Looking like a meteorite" means nothing. The rock shown does look quite a bit like a chert core though. I'd be surprised if it was actually a handaxe because they're almost always symmetric and tapering, which the painting doesn't show, but I don't care enough to read the paper.
- NHQ 3y ago
  I know what words mean, what is your point? The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. They are shoe-horning this theory into the painting by claiming the painter and 15th century people already thought these rocks were ancient handaxes, and thats why it features so importantly in the mysterious painting. That seems a rather hoaxy claim to me: The archeological narrative must be correct if people already knew it to be true! The authors state in their abstract this is their goal, to push back the evidence of such a "social history", to a time before archeologists made up the narrative about hand-axes. The authors are literally attempting to incept the archeological claim to a prior age of modern history. Is that what you mean, because that is definitely and literally the motive of this research. Edit, also the rock in the painting is not a "biface". That part of the painting has obvious depth and perspective (shadows, walls, angles). The rock in the painting is ROUND.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. You're mistaken, the article does not say that 15th century people knew the rock was a hand axe. The article claims (correctly I think) that the painting depicts a hand axe but doesn't say the painter intended to depict an axe. The painter would have understood the rock to be a thunderstone and painted it accurately enough that today we can see that it was actually a handaxe.
    - NHQ 3y ago
      You are wrong. Maybe you did not read the paper which the article is reporting. From the paper abstract: "Identifying a fifteenth-century painting of a handaxe does not change what we know about Acheulean individuals, but it does push back the evidence for when handaxes became a prominent part of the ‘modern’ social and cultural world." Indicating they think the painter and his contemporary society had a "culture" of appreciation for the objects as axes.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    > The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. I read the paper. I found no such claim - please cite. > The authors state in their abstract this is their goal, to push back the evidence of such a "social history", to a time before archeologists made up the narrative about hand-axes. The authors are literally attempting to incept the archeological claim to a prior age of modern history. Is that what you mean, because that is definitely and literally the motive of this research. They literally do not do so. They claim that the stones we call handaxes were considered a separate type of rock. Then they discuss various conceptualizations of that rock at the time. They claim that one person thought it was interesting that category of stone including handaxes bore a resemblence to arrowheads from the new world, but his work wasn't published until 1717 (long after that person's death). You seem mad at archaelogists for claiming things like "these handaxes are old" in general, and specifically at these guys for pointing out historical descriptions of things that sound like handaxes, and paintings that look a lot like handaxes. They literally (using a dictionary definition of the word - in this case the factual definition) state in their paper: "In the knowledge that works of art are not exact transcripts of reality, it would be difficult, if not impossible, conclusively to identify whether a handaxe is represented in this fifteenth-century painting. We can, however, potentially strengthen the inference that a handaxe is depicted through three artefact-based routes of inquiry." I'm not sure what you're going on about, your claims seem false upon reading the paper.

by NHQ 3y ago

AlotOfReading 3y ago

Oh boy, you're missing quite a lot here. First let's breakdown what "modern social history of prehistoric handaxes" means, as virtually every word has a technical definition. "Modern" - from the modern period, i.e. 1500s onwards "Social history" - a specific type of historical analysis focusing on essentially what a common man would have thought and known about. This is a very rough reduction of what the term actually encompasses. "Prehistoric" - old stuff "Handaxes" - a specific category of lithic (i.e. stone) tools that are typically symmetrical bifaces, distinct from modern axes. Also, most rocks can be confused for meteorites and vice versa. "Looking like a meteorite" means nothing. The rock shown does look quite a bit like a chert core though. I'd be surprised if it was actually a handaxe because they're almost always symmetric and tapering, which the painting doesn't show, but I don't care enough to read the paper.

NHQ 3y ago
I know what words mean, what is your point? The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. They are shoe-horning this theory into the painting by claiming the painter and 15th century people already thought these rocks were ancient handaxes, and thats why it features so importantly in the mysterious painting. That seems a rather hoaxy claim to me: The archeological narrative must be correct if people already knew it to be true! The authors state in their abstract this is their goal, to push back the evidence of such a "social history", to a time before archeologists made up the narrative about hand-axes. The authors are literally attempting to incept the archeological claim to a prior age of modern history. Is that what you mean, because that is definitely and literally the motive of this research. Edit, also the rock in the painting is not a "biface". That part of the painting has obvious depth and perspective (shadows, walls, angles). The rock in the painting is ROUND.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. You're mistaken, the article does not say that 15th century people knew the rock was a hand axe. The article claims (correctly I think) that the painting depicts a hand axe but doesn't say the painter intended to depict an axe. The painter would have understood the rock to be a thunderstone and painted it accurately enough that today we can see that it was actually a handaxe.
  - NHQ 3y ago
    You are wrong. Maybe you did not read the paper which the article is reporting. From the paper abstract: "Identifying a fifteenth-century painting of a handaxe does not change what we know about Acheulean individuals, but it does push back the evidence for when handaxes became a prominent part of the ‘modern’ social and cultural world." Indicating they think the painter and his contemporary society had a "culture" of appreciation for the objects as axes.
- sophacles 3y ago
  > The authors claim that modern 15th century people already knew the "pre-historic" narrative about rocks being axes. I read the paper. I found no such claim - please cite. > The authors state in their abstract this is their goal, to push back the evidence of such a "social history", to a time before archeologists made up the narrative about hand-axes. The authors are literally attempting to incept the archeological claim to a prior age of modern history. Is that what you mean, because that is definitely and literally the motive of this research. They literally do not do so. They claim that the stones we call handaxes were considered a separate type of rock. Then they discuss various conceptualizations of that rock at the time. They claim that one person thought it was interesting that category of stone including handaxes bore a resemblence to arrowheads from the new world, but his work wasn't published until 1717 (long after that person's death). You seem mad at archaelogists for claiming things like "these handaxes are old" in general, and specifically at these guys for pointing out historical descriptions of things that sound like handaxes, and paintings that look a lot like handaxes. They literally (using a dictionary definition of the word - in this case the factual definition) state in their paper: "In the knowledge that works of art are not exact transcripts of reality, it would be difficult, if not impossible, conclusively to identify whether a handaxe is represented in this fifteenth-century painting. We can, however, potentially strengthen the inference that a handaxe is depicted through three artefact-based routes of inquiry." I'm not sure what you're going on about, your claims seem false upon reading the paper.