4 ms·

Oldest art that we know of. I bet a lot of other art from that era and before has already been destroyed. We should just count it lucky that we've found and doc

by jemmyw 3y ago

Oldest art that we know of. I bet a lot of other art from that era and before has already been destroyed. We should just count it lucky that we've found and documented any of these things.

frogpelt 3y ago
Good point. Once this one is gone, another oldest art will take it's place.
throwup238 3y ago
It's only the oldest for purposes of simplifying pedagogy in scientific education. In reality the error bars on half a dozen of the "oldest" cave art in the world overlap so much that it's impossible to really conclude which one was older. There are even older works of art but they're more like patterns and abstract scribbles than what we would consider drawings. I do believe the Indonesian cave painting have the distinction of being the oldest known art with distinct animal figures.
schwartzworld 3y ago
Isn't that just understood? If I say my grandfather is my oldest relative, nobody is like "oldest LIVING relative"
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Isn't that just understood? If I say my grandfather is my oldest relative, nobody is like "oldest LIVING relative" You might think so, but no, very few people understand this. People are constantly being shocked when a technology that is obviously highly developed in one archaeological period turns out to have precursors in earlier periods. You might also compare the common claim that one human language is older or younger than another one. With a few obvious exceptions, this claim is gibberish, but that doesn't stop people from making the claim or believing that it means something. It's that tendency to believe things despite the fact that half a second of thought would be sufficient to disprove them that causes trouble here.
  - schwartzworld 3y ago
    > the common claim that one human language is older or younger than another one Why is this gibberish? Languages are pretty tied to time/place, and some are undoubtedly older than others?
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      It's gibberish because the concept itself fails to make any sense. Think about it. How would it work? You can say that Latin is younger than French. But you can't say that Sardinian is older than French or that Telugu is older than Hindi; those claims are incoherent.

by jemmyw 3y ago

Oldest art that we know of. I bet a lot of other art from that era and before has already been destroyed. We should just count it lucky that we've found and documented any of these things.

frogpelt 3y ago

Good point. Once this one is gone, another oldest art will take it's place.

throwup238 3y ago

It's only the oldest for purposes of simplifying pedagogy in scientific education. In reality the error bars on half a dozen of the "oldest" cave art in the world overlap so much that it's impossible to really conclude which one was older. There are even older works of art but they're more like patterns and abstract scribbles than what we would consider drawings. I do believe the Indonesian cave painting have the distinction of being the oldest known art with distinct animal figures.

schwartzworld 3y ago

Isn't that just understood? If I say my grandfather is my oldest relative, nobody is like "oldest LIVING relative"

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Isn't that just understood? If I say my grandfather is my oldest relative, nobody is like "oldest LIVING relative" You might think so, but no, very few people understand this. People are constantly being shocked when a technology that is obviously highly developed in one archaeological period turns out to have precursors in earlier periods. You might also compare the common claim that one human language is older or younger than another one. With a few obvious exceptions, this claim is gibberish, but that doesn't stop people from making the claim or believing that it means something. It's that tendency to believe things despite the fact that half a second of thought would be sufficient to disprove them that causes trouble here.
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  > the common claim that one human language is older or younger than another one Why is this gibberish? Languages are pretty tied to time/place, and some are undoubtedly older than others?
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    It's gibberish because the concept itself fails to make any sense. Think about it. How would it work? You can say that Latin is younger than French. But you can't say that Sardinian is older than French or that Telugu is older than Hindi; those claims are incoherent.