James Mahaffy and I had a brief discussion on Blombos Cave. I had said that
when people spoke of bone tools as being amazing from this site, they
weren't. However, the recently found piece of art which dates to 70,000+
years has different implications. The report can be found at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1753000/1753326.stm
First, this discovery illustrates the nature of the archaeological record in
two areas. Whatever is the oldest example of a given activity today, will
not be the oldest example tomorrow. Tomorrow's discoveries almost always
find the activity earlier. Secondly, it illustrates the gapped nature of the
archaeological record. Here we have a piece of art from 70,000 years with
the second oldest being around 43,000 years (in Australia) and the third
oldest is from Europe around 38,000 years. (I will mention older art in a
minute) Note that there is a gap of 35-38,000 years in which no art if
found. Does this mean that no art was produced during that time? No, of
course not. It means that none has been found. I can guarentee everyone that
there was art prior to 70,000 years ago because there are examples.
Secondly this illustrates a bias towards thinking that the guys who made
this art were physically just like us. The bones found from this time are
not just like us--they are slightly archaic. There is no definition of what
distinguishes us modern men from archaics. All there is is a gradual change
in shape from what the erectus was like to what we are like and very
arbitrarily at 150,000 years, men are proclaimed to be 'modern' but they
have features we would find disquieting.
Third, it illustrates the propensity for a discovery to be claimed to be the
oldest when in fact it isn't. Earlier art includes the Tata pebble from the
Neanderthal region of Europe which dates to around 75,000 years, the
Berekhat Ram figurine (Golan Venus) which is a modified scoria pebble carved
to make it look like a human figure which dates from around 300,000 years.
There are bones marked similarly (different pattern though) from the
archaic/erectus site of Bilzingsleben Germany dating from around 400,000
years ago (see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/chron.htm) And of
course there is the phonolite pebble mentioned in 1963 by Mary Leakey in her
reports on the Olduvai excavations, which had an intentionally carved human
face pecked into the pebble. This dates to 1.6 million years old and is
truly the oldest man-made art in the world, but it is often forgotten.
Fourth it shows how little many of the apologists have understood the
archaeological record. This includes many who have made much of the
'artistic revolution" occurring after 40,000 years. Anyone familiar with
the process of discovery and how things get older, should have been able to
anticipate an even earlier art work. And given that it is highly unlikely
that this is the very first piece of art ever produced on earth, we can
anticipate even earlier works will be found in the future. Of course many
apologists will now talk about the 70,000 year old artistic revolution
forgetting how they blew it in the past.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2002 - 02:18:14 EST