Ice Age Proto Writing system discovered

By an amateur.
Guess Graham Hancock is wrong about archaeologists not being open to outside ideas.
www.theguardian.com... gxVbzpmC508mWSejn8LUc_8sw

Link to the research at the Cambridge Archaeological Journal: Link

Harte

a reply to: Harte

It's at least plausible for that area - could be a local cultural thing.

Information analysis can turn up some interesting things. It's been a surprisingly useful partner for many sciences (now that we have machines able to do huge amounts of number crunching.)

Nice find! I don’t think Graham Hancock is wrong by any means, but that’s still funny. Great to see amateurs getting involved and I’m very thankful that some people with “credibility” (use that term loosely) supported his efforts along the way. Thanks for posting.

a reply to: Harte

From your source.

Archaeologists have long believed these markings had meaning but no one had deciphered them.

Bold is mine.

Maybe archeologists should look even more to outside influences, since they clearly couldn’t figure this out.

He approached a team of academics with his theory and they encouraged him to pursue it, despite him being “effectively a person off the street”, he said.

Jo Shmo off the street did.

a reply to: Harte
www.evawaseerst.be...
Big question: Where is the moon in ancient paintings?
Before the mega disasters (until thousands of years later) the moon was never depicted.
A fascinating and mysterious celestial body that changes shape and is childishly simple to be painted, is nowhere to be seen in any picture older than say 8000 years.
Why the first cave painters apparently ruminated about animals is indeed a mystery. But they made countless drawings not limited to animals, in places far outside Europe. They made a lot of strange patterns, they painted dots as it were stars and star clusters. (It would make sense if they represented stars simply by dots.) The Sun was a (concentric) circle. Also fairly logical. But where is the crescent moon? Sure, some could say they painted the crescent moon as a half circle. Only a crescent moon is not a half circle. She has the shape of a hemisphere. Something incredibly easy to draw for a great artist. As a remark: It is strange that little attention has been paid to the investigation of the (concentric) circles and their possible meaning, although they are remarkably common. We think those circles represent the sun and not vulvas as some claim (where do they get it?). In Newgrange (and others), the so-called tombs are full of concentric circular patterns, and those tombs appear to be devoted to ... the sun, according to scholars. A logical conclusion since the buildings clearly have an overwhelming relationship with the solstice. A good sign that shows that not only 'we' are 'searching'.
Thanks to the moon humans could hunt at night, they could travel or flee ... The moon must have been a 'God Gift' to them. But still they didn't picture her. Come on.
Our ancestors had a keen interest in the night sky. And they thought symbolic. The chances are large –húge- that they had painted the moon as a half moon ... if that half moon would have been there.
Some claim that so-called lunar calendars have been recovered, which show the lunar cycle. But if one observed the moon that closely, then it becomes completely incomprehensible why no one ever painted a crescent moon.
Many scientists state that 30.000 years ago some ancients were real astronomers. A statement that makes sense. Someone who creates great works of art, has a great intellect, thinks symbolic … will be fascinated by the night sky … and the phases of the moon. The most obvious and most fantastic conclusion, is that they saw no moon. (Something the rulers of this planet know ... but they count on conspiracy thinkers to break the ice.)
Archaeologists are desperately looking for the moon in prehistoric art. So desperate that they assume that the moon must have been a bull, while certain constellations then again were other animals. Very acceptable prehistoric people invented the zodiac.
But if they did so: why didn’t they painted a crescent moon? Not once, but tens of thousands of times?

Quite an interesting question Zandra.

My guess is that the night sky was radically different then than how it is today. Why is the earliest time called the purple dawn of creation?

a reply to: zandra

a reply to: KKLOCO

They do ... the person who figured this out worked closely with actual archeologists and figured it out together. That's how science and such works, if you have a good idea experts and such will take you seriously and work with you but you need to come up with some compelling evidence.

I assume you're hinting that guy's like Hancock are right about Atlantis and other such loose ended theories?

a reply to: Byrd

If they're semi-nomadic it could be a local cultural thing, the majority of findings are from France and Spain which would be some fairly lengthy walks unless they sailed/rowed.

If this system was used by nomadic people over a long span of time I'd assume it's just another form of communication that can be passed on over time. Oral communication tends to change, a cave painting doesn't. Breeding patterns tend to stay the same too.

I'd say it's safe to say these cave paintings were for education. They could use language and practical skills to learn about nature and gain success or they could simply understand some fundamental systems. Visiting a cave like one of these back in those days could have saved an individual years of learning.

To add:
Imagine being a hunter in those times. In your mind you think the deer go to a certain place every year but the reality is the gatherings are happening simultaneously all over the place... Next year you might miss the deer entirely.
With timing? You'd just stalk a deer for a couple of weeks and it'll lead you to the herd. Same applies for fishing you just need to know where the water is and they'll come to you.

In most instances, cave paintings are painted over earlier cave paintings. That's why the theory is they are ritualistic or shamanistic.

Harte

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Byrd

If they're semi-nomadic it could be a local cultural thing, the majority of findings are from France and Spain which would be some fairly lengthy walks unless they sailed/rowed.

If this system was used by nomadic people over a long span of time I'd assume it's just another form of communication that can be passed on over time. Oral communication tends to change, a cave painting doesn't. Breeding patterns tend to stay the same too.

I'd say it's safe to say these cave paintings were for education. They could use language and practical skills to learn about nature and gain success or they could simply understand some fundamental systems. Visiting a cave like one of these back in those days could have saved an individual years of learning.

To add:
Imagine being a hunter in those times. In your mind you think the deer go to a certain place every year but the reality is the gatherings are happening simultaneously all over the place... Next year you might miss the deer entirely.
With timing? You'd just stalk a deer for a couple of weeks and it'll lead you to the herd. Same applies for fishing you just need to know where the water is and they'll come to you.

yes
and i think it's safe to think
the writing might be a sort of inventory
rather than a play.

i guess more like real world information than esoteric rumenations.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: Harte
www.evawaseerst.be...
Big question: Where is the moon in ancient paintings?
Before the mega disasters (until thousands of years later) the moon was never depicted.
A fascinating and mysterious celestial body that changes shape and is childishly simple to be painted, is nowhere to be seen in any picture older than say 8000 years.

Dear ghods. I don't think you should use that site in any discussion. The "I don't understand it so here's how I think it really happened" isn't a good look on anyone.

Yes, there's whopping bunch of evidence that the moon existed, and even when it formed. I've seen it; held it in my hands. It exists as tide markings in rocks all around the world. You may not know what it looks like, but anyone who works with geology or paleontology knows.

As a remark: It is strange that little attention has been paid to the investigation of the (concentric) circles and their possible meaning, although they are remarkably common. We think those circles represent the sun and not vulvas as some claim (where do they get it?).

There's an assumption by many that if they haven't heard of something then it must not be studied by academics. This would not be correct. Try looking for "lunar pictographs" and "lunar petroglyphs" in scholar.google.com and in archive.org

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Byrd

If they're semi-nomadic it could be a local cultural thing, the majority of findings are from France and Spain which would be some fairly lengthy walks unless they sailed/rowed.

If this system was used by nomadic people over a long span of time I'd assume it's just another form of communication that can be passed on over time. Oral communication tends to change, a cave painting doesn't. Breeding patterns tend to stay the same too.

I'd say it's safe to say these cave paintings were for education. They could use language and practical skills to learn about nature and gain success or they could simply understand some fundamental systems. Visiting a cave like one of these back in those days could have saved an individual years of learning.

That sort of thing would be taught directly. You'd have learned it from the time you could barely walk - the men of the group going out at certain times and doing ceremonies to ensure good luck and a good hunt.

To add:
Imagine being a hunter in those times. In your mind you think the deer go to a certain place every year but the reality is the gatherings are happening simultaneously all over the place... Next year you might miss the deer entirely.
With timing? You'd just stalk a deer for a couple of weeks and it'll lead you to the herd. Same applies for fishing you just need to know where the water is and they'll come to you.

Uhmmmmm.... that's not how deer behave or how the nomadic hunter-gatherers behaved. And that's not how ancient humans fished. Depending on who they are and where they lived, many made fish traps or fish gardens to bring the fish in.

*self imposed prevention of thread drift censorshi*

originally posted by: DaRAGE

originally posted by: Harte
By an amateur.
Guess Graham Hancock is wrong about archaeologists not being open to outside ideas.
www.theguardian.com... gxVbzpmC508mWSejn8LUc_8sw

Link to the research at the Cambridge Archaeological Journal: Link

Harte

I highly doubt that graham hancock is wrong about it.

Harte's links showed that archaeologists are now considering a new theory about some aspects of cave age art (even though some people are still a bit doubtful about the theory in question).

But this does demonstrate that - contrary to Graham Hancock's claims - archaeologists are open to new ideas.

So this means that Hancock is wrong.

a reply to: Hooke

This really has nothing to do with Graham Hancock. And i'm sure Graham Hancock is probably talking about archaeologists in a general sense. More minds are closed than they are open.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Hooke

This really has nothing to do with Graham Hancock. And i'm sure Graham Hancock is probably talking about archaeologists in a general sense. More minds are closed than they are open.

This particular case has nothing to do with Hancock's fraudulent claims about antiquity, but it DOES have to do with Hancock's (also fraudulent) claims about Archaeologists.
I'll concede that Hancock fans can easily overlook or side-step that bit of evidence about Archaeologists. After all, they already ignore the tons of evidence against his other ridiculous claims.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Obviously you have something against Graham Hancock. Your source says nothing about Graham Hancock.

What fraudulent claims of antiquity are you talking about?

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Harte

Obviously you have something against Graham Hancock. Your source says nothing about Graham Hancock.

What fraudulent claims of antiquity are you talking about?

You've not heard ?
He was there ! ( sure he thinks this the case ). That's what in his mind gives him the OK to poo poo anybodies theory that goes against his OPINION.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: DaRAGE

originally posted by: Harte
By an amateur.
Guess Graham Hancock is wrong about archaeologists not being open to outside ideas.
www.theguardian.com... gxVbzpmC508mWSejn8LUc_8sw

Link to the research at the Cambridge Archaeological Journal: Link

Harte

I highly doubt that graham hancock is wrong about it.

Harte's links showed that archaeologists are now considering a new theory about some aspects of cave age art (even though some people are still a bit doubtful about the theory in question).

But this does demonstrate that - contrary to Graham Hancock's claims - archaeologists are open to new ideas.

So this means that Hancock is wrong.

Virtually every thing I learned about archaeology and ancient civilizations in the 70s has been modified or overturned by new evidence - new cultures found etc., If in fact archaeologist are not open to new ideas where did all this new stuff come from? What HGs is really saying is that they are against his ideas because the evidence doesn't support him and in that they are being really mean to him.

originally posted by: fotsyfots

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Harte

Obviously you have something against Graham Hancock. Your source says nothing about Graham Hancock.

What fraudulent claims of antiquity are you talking about?

You've not heard ?
He was there ! ( sure he thinks this the case ). That's what in his mind gives him the OK to poo poo anybodies theory that goes against his OPINION.

A number of fringe folks suffer from my-opinions-are-factistis, a dreadful affliction that makes them amusingly insufferable.