NASA Has Been Asked By Archaeologists To Help Decipher Prehistoric Paintings

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
People make art representations (for worship and otherwise) about lots of different things in nature.

And there's another thing, art itself can be the way of worshipping, so we may be looking at worshipping itself instead of a representation of something to be worshipped.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yes, context is important, but what we see in the OP is not really context, it's a selection of images that support the OP's opinion. If we had different paintings/drawings from that location and time then I would consider that context.

It would be the same if the future archaeologist would find a collection from a science-fiction fan instead of a large movie library with all kinds of movies.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
People make art representations (for worship and otherwise) about lots of different things in nature.

And there's another thing, art itself can be the way of worshipping, so we may be looking at worshipping itself instead of a representation of something to be worshipped.

True. And some of that art may have been depicting clothing worn by shamans, chiefs, priests, etc. that itself (the clothing) are artful representations used in worship and other ceremonial uses, such as the ceremonial clothing and headdress worn by a modern Pope:

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: fromtheskydown


If some archaeologist 10000 years from now were somehow watching the 1920s film "Metropolis", should they think that the robot from that film was a representation of aliens or a representation of the (very Earthly) industrial/machine age?

I see your point. But context, my friend. If an archaeologist 10000 years from now saw only the film "Metropolis" and no other film or art from the time period, they may interpret it as a literal observation. But if they saw it in addition to maybe 10 other films of the 1920's, they'd know it was meant to be ficticious.

The OP lists examples of this cave painting phenomenon from all over the world at various points in history. And many of them, like the Legend Rock glyphs of Wyoming, also have depictions of other animals at the time that were easily observable like eagles and antelope. I don't think they would just splice in ficticious beings aside them. But that's just my opinion

I'm thinking along your lines of reasoning...but totally understand other peoples' opinions and respect them, despite my belittling of the "Ritual" hypothesis. If cave art depicts animals, bison for example, the consensus is that they drew what they saw. As soon as anything out of the ordinary crops up, it appears that they stem from some wild imaginings or it's purely "Ritual". I am going with they drew what they saw...for everything.

Another thing, if these cultures were sophisticated enough to create specific designs on masks and textiles then why were they painting their depictions on the walls and roofs of caves? Makes no sense to me. What makes more sense to me is a clash or meeting of cultures with differing capabilities and technologies, the lesser sophisticates taking to the caves to record what they see...because they are at least intelligent enough to know that the event needs to be recorded.

Just my opinion and I know I may be wrong.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
People make art representations (for worship and otherwise) about lots of different things in nature.

And there's another thing, art itself can be the way of worshipping, so we may be looking at worshipping itself instead of a representation of something to be worshipped.

True. And some of that art may have been depicting clothing worn by shamans, chiefs, priests, etc. that itself (the clothing) are artful representations used in worship and other ceremonial uses, such as the ceremonial clothing and headdress worn by a modern Pope:

I revert to my point that if they possessed the capability to decorate and create textiles, masks etc., then painitng on the walls of a cave just does not fit alongside the other capabilities.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Yes, context is important, but what we see in the OP is not really context, it's a selection of images that support the OP's opinion. If we had different paintings/drawings from that location and time then I would consider that context.

It would be the same if the future archaeologist would find a collection from a science-fiction fan instead of a large movie library with all kinds of movies.

Well, the OP has to select content that supports his opinion but I agree with your reasoning and further images from the same location would be helpful. I still need more explanation on using cave walls to depict scenes where more advanced techniques may have already been developed to decorate textiles and masks etc.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

I revert to my point that if they possessed the capability to decorate and create textiles, masks etc., then painitng on the walls of a cave just does not fit alongside the other capabilities.

The clothing represented in the cave art/rock art does not necessarily need to be complex textiles. Any designs that might be depicted on the clothing could have been painted onto the clothing rather than woven into it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

I revert to my point that if they possessed the capability to decorate and create textiles, masks etc., then painitng on the walls of a cave just does not fit alongside the other capabilities.

The clothing represented in the cave art/rock art does not necessarily need to be complex textiles. Any designs that might be depicted on the clothing could have been painted onto the clothing rather than woven into it.

Of course but I still cannot understand the reasons behind going into a cave system to paint on the walls and ceilings. Did these people live in dwellings? If so, why retreat into a cave to depict these scenes? There is too much ambiguity and, as has already been said, more on the culture and fabric of the society of the time is needed.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about the textiles. Complex? What defines complex textiles?
Even if they were animal skins etc., would there not still be a fairly high level of competence required?

a reply to: fromtheskydown

What did caves do to you, man?

Such hatred, vile words tossed around about good old caves.

And about the textiles, yes, they are the ancient markings yes, hence the name, In many languages too.

The paintings are fascinating. It is rather strange that people took to painting things deep in the bowels of a cave - that in itself seems rather strange if their intention was to get their art 'out there' - but then 10000 years ago, I suppose a cave was a nice big, ready-made shelter just waiting for occupants. The wall art was a form of decor perhaps. As for what the wall art depicted...well most of it doesn't even look human to me.

The Uzbekistan picture looked like the sort of 'art' one might produce if 'one' was ripped to the tits on mind altering drugs. Quite a few of the creatures possessed only four digits and no opposable thumbs. Curious. Some of the faces seemed well detailed but clearly NOT human and not shielded by a mask of some kind. Others looked crudely drawn - perhaps by children - and show what looks like phallic 'mischief'. The sort of thing that a naughty 12 year old boy might draw on a piece of paper and throw at one of his peers in class. No wonder that particular piece of 'art' was hidden down the end of a dirty great cave - imagine the good hiding his/her parents would have metered out had they found it somewhere more public LOL!

I think it's very difficult for people to come up with anything scientific when looking at these amazing drawings. They can probably get a rough idea of how old they are. What was used to paint them. But what they depict? Who is more qualified to express an opinion? I have to be honest - IMO some of the images look like non-human bi-peds. One of the images looks like a dissection of a Kangaroo. Another - like a bunch of space suited EBE's. Either that, or it was ancient people's idea of Sci-Fi. Pretty impressive seeing as aircraft, flying discs and helicopters weren't around at that time. A remarkable work of fiction that ties closely into our modern accounts of extraterrestrials.

Or it wasn't fiction. And that's what they saw. So they drew their hearts out and used special dyes, paints and what not to produce images that are still around 10000 years later. That in itself is pretty f#'king amazing if you ask me. I honestly don't expect anything we paint or draw in 2018 to still be around in 10000 years. 12018. Think about it.

In this current climate, we'll be lucky if there's any trace of anything left that far ahead. Let alone 'art' depicting people with four fingers, no opposable thumbs, wearing pointy hats dissecting a kangaroo.