I always love quotes like this: "All jewellery had a magical meaning for ancient people. Bracelets and neck adornments were to protect people from evil spirits, for instance."
And we know this how? Maybe it was just made to be pretty. A rich person giving their partner a gift etc. No one could possibly be able to make any further inferences from a species of human we know almost nothing about.
I think if you reference the Dungeon Master's Guide tables regarding loot, you'll notice a preponderance of protective magic when it comes to magical necklaces. +1s and +2s to general saves, resistance to elemental damage types, that sort of thing.
This is true, however it is generally accepted that proto-humans had much higher constitutions as well as greater general resistance to fire, water, etc... due to their lack of advanced structural dwellings and plate armor. If this is the case, the +1s and +2s would be less necessary and bracelets could, in fact, have been merely decorative. That said, if archaeologists take the time to attune to the bracelets, I'm sure they will discover some magical properties.
My mother studied archaeology and she told me once what she heard during her classes - that "religious significance" is the default label that is put on things they found when they have no clue what those things were for.
I went to grad school in archaeology, and I can tell you that this is absolutely the case. Part of the problem is that archaeologists are generally terrible at cultural anthropology (compared to other anthropologists, not compared to the general population). The other part is that in most societies, there is not a firm dividing line between the religious/magical and the mundane.
Which is curious, because you'd think there'd be conceptual understanding with regard to "ornamentation," "amusement/diversion/boredom" and "craftsmanship/showmanship."
The amount of time spent fixating on ornamentation should be obvious, just by spending time in a flea market, looking at the trays upon trays of common jewelry people toss tens of dollars at.
Amusement, and diversions should be obvious from watching people engage in repetitive tasks like crossword puzzles, card games and knitting. Fidget spinners fit into this category. Boondoggles have a utility in letting the mind wander. Polishing stone by hand was probably rewarding, when there were no consequences tied to failure.
Craftsmanship as a sign of status is probably the closest secular concept to the token "religion or magical thinking" and goes hand in hand with fashion and ornamentation. There are extremely slim reasons for the geek cred associated with odd piercings or those decorative spin tops based on the one from the movie Inception. Being able to show that you know about something, and or how to do something, displays skill sets without having to brag openly. The subculture of skin piercing and body modification displays a capacity for tolerating pain, awareness of anatomy, and a taming of wound infection in edge cases. Spin tops really represent membership within a nerd subculture that has money to burn, and fetishizes metallurgy trivia juxtaposed with movie trivia, but the craftsmanship of the pieces justifies their price, earning it's owner status, since there remains the authentic barrier to simply making a DIY inception top, contrasted against buying the collector's item.
Rare sneaker subculture probably encapsulates all three of these ideas without being religious at all. But observing sneaker collectors in the wild leaves me with the impression that maybe it really is a religion after all.
These are probably difficult concepts to communicate in academic papers that often must get translated into multiple languages, so the catch all religious, magical shrug will probably persist.
Yeap, in Time Team (warning: you can lose days binging on those videos on youtube!) they use the term "ritual". Everything is ritualistic, every pathway is for "processions" and so on, until they find evidence of something that makes said object or pathway or location mundane :)
Even if she's not american, it could be an attribute of the line of study. Mathematics weren't started in Germany, but many text books, even in the USA are strongly influenced by german aspects.
Also, if it's not that, where does that aspect come from then? How long have archeologists been doing this?
Defaulting anything they should ordinary label as "purpose unknown" to "religious".
> How long have you been doing it?
Claiming that i am jumping to conclusions is ridiculous. I started the first post by saying i already thought my initial thought may have been doing that, and stated it as a feeling (subjective), and thus positioned it not as an objective fact but a hypothesis, inviting discussion. I was earnest, honest and clear. You're just being gracelessly sarcastic and dishonest.
I don't know, but I also don't know of anything that would suggest that this is a typically American bias or that archaeology as a field of study is that heavily influenced by American culture.
I've had many of my american friends tell me they've observed the bias and the details in upbringing, particularly stressing confidence as being more important than being correct, and "fake it till you make it".
And i think you're right about archeology. Most of the notable people mentioned in the history section of wikipedia are english.
It an expression of a more generalized need I've seen to disbelief that ancient humans could be capable of the rationality and logical thought we feel is proprietary to our time.
Also why many people cannot understand how the pyramids could be built without alien intervention
I agree! Our (subconscious?) arrogance of our intellect always biases the way we look at our ancestors. If we could just be more humble, we would probably be seeing more of what's there.
I'm late to the party, but I would assume that the amount of non-useful items owned by a person can be a heuristic for the amount of respect/power/influence that person would have.
How that influence is manifested could well be through religious (shamanism) means, but it could also signify a great warrior, or the dominant member of a family/tribe/etc.
Yes, very condescending, in the same way Neanderthals were seen as primitive cave men until hard evidence showed they were at least as advanced as modern humans in many ways.
Also, this is a completely different species of human. A bit presumptuous interpreting there actions from homo sapiens mindset.
For all we know they could have been Spock like atheists.
Reminds me of an article that was on HN a while ago, about how prehistoric people used to smear ochre on dead bodies using rocks, and then break these rocks to dispel the spirits of the dead (or something along those lines..), all this inferred from some broken rocks with traces of ochre on them.
Usually these conclusions are derived from observations of the habits and rituals of primitive tribes, presumption being that life-style similarities would lead to them developing similar sets of beliefs and culture, too. Of course, it's just a theory, no one can be 100% sure about it.
Yes but look back only 60-70 years in Europe and a lot of jewelry had a double purpose. It was pretty but it was also for example St. Anthony, a cross or some other spiritual tribute.
IANAA[0] but there are some pretty good techniques for telling the difference, from what I understand. Publishing something like this only for it to be something like 'Oh wait, I guess Denis did it' is a great way to end your career as a scientist.
This article about the bracelet is from 2015. No updates since then, and it does not link to anything peer-reviewed. All in all I would take this with a huge grain of salt.
Except the Siberian Times article also doesn't link to anything peer-reviewed, and the Nature paper is about bone identification, not bracelets or other artifacts.
The only academic paper about the bracelet I could find is from 2008 and was submitted to the journal "Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia", whose editor-in-chief, Anatoly Derevyanko, is also the paper's primary author.
> True but to be fair they're still fresh findings.
Your "fresh finding" was found nine years ago - this is even explicitly stated in the 2015 Siberian Times article.
All of the citations for the paper describing the "bracelet" [1] are for uncontroversial findings (that Denisovans existed, that they interbred with Neanderthals, etc.) - none of them make any reference to the supposed "bracelet".
I figured someone who has no idea what they were talking about would say that. They're fresh but I'm not going to teach as to all the reasons why, as it's clear you don't do much with science, research or archaeology. Good luck.
There's an article in Pleistocene Coalition News from 2015.[0] But I note: "The Pleistocene Coalition
is now into its sixth year of challenging mainstream scientific dogma. If you would like to join the coalition please write to the editors." So ...
I find no peer-reviewed followup about the Denisovan bracelet. However, I do find an article in Current Biology about Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans.[1] The date estimate is about right: "[W]e estimate 44,000–54,000 years ago for Denisovan admixture."
Indeed, it's poorly written (no morphological similarities to modern humans?? They were alive before they were extinct? Daily mail as source), and this scans more like the mystical bullshit you read in Russian media all the time (Jesus was Russian, all peoples are descended from the pure Slavic archetype, dinosaur spotted in Yekaterinburg, putin wrestles ten bears saving orphanage).
and quotes the daily mail. as far as i'm concerned that puts it immediately in "bigfoot discovered in noah's ark" territory until definitively shown otherwise.
Daily Mail's holding company has a serious data operation in place though, maybe they're leaking their inside info, like where the ark of the covenant is warehoused, now that earth is totally fucked
> the recent discovery of a female Denisovan finger bone and various teeth shows that they had no morphological similarities to either Neanderthals or modern humans.
Does "morphological similarities" have a particular definition in palaeoanthropology beyond the apparently plain meaning of the words? Even if "they" refers to the finger bone and teeth rather than the Denisovans as a whole, I would have thought they would have had some morphological similarities to modern humans, otherwise they wouldn't be recognisable as a finger bone and teeth.
For some modern people, as much as 5% of their DNA comes from neanderthals. Pretty-close species can have hybrid children, but the more distant the less likely the child will be fully-functional.
Consider mules (horse + donkey) which are sterile or the infamous Ligers and Tigons (Lion + Tiger can make some monstrously large cats).
I remember reading that Australian aboriginals have up to 5% of Denisovan genes (don't remember source, but it was widely reported after the discovery)
200km is not necessarily 'imported'. People can walk 5km/hr easily. You are talking about 4 days' comfortable walk. Many nomadic groups would have had ranges exceeding 200km at least on occasion. For example I believe there is evidence that some Australian aboriginal societies regularly communicated over vaster distances, at least sporadically - eg. annually in certain seasons.
They still do for pilgrimage - the main "Camino de Santiago" (St. James' Way) from France to Spain is 700km+, and some people make the journey every year. Obviously nowadays they have modern comforts, but the Way stretches back centuries.
* In Europe which was home of Neanderthals at that time (middle/upper paleolithic) , there are beautiful artifacts in places such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohle_Fels
Until now, scientists had believed that such skills had only evolved among humans in the Neolithic period, which began at about 10,000 BC. Indeed, originally, they believed that the bracelet had somehow become mixed up with materials dating from a later period.
However, experiments have now definitely ruled that out, and they confirm that it could not have been made by homo sapiens or Neanderthals. After 7 years of analysis, the scientists are confident that the piece was made 30,000 years before the beginning of the Stone Age.
A better term for species would be 'race'. Modern homo sapiens interbred with Denosovians at times and acquired some of their genes. Species means a lack of cross-bredability.
Species means that there is normally no cross breeding in the wild. You can have two species which will reproduce in captivity, but in the wild are blocked by some geographic feature such as mountains or water, or by some behavioral aspect such as a mating ritual.
It's not uncommon for two species in the same genus to be able to have offspring, for example equines (mules) and felines (ligers).
In some cases the resulting hybrid offspring are fertile, for example the "Savanna" cats which are domestic cats hybridized with servals.
In the wild, when previously separated species are put in contact with each other, there can be instances of natural hybrids. This is what happened with the various Homo species, due to various migrations.
It's a little outdated, but anyone interested in "extinct human species", or proto-humans, should read Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee", which is about the small genetic and vast cultural differences that separate us from other large primate, including the two other types of chimp...
IANAA (I am not a archaeologist), but I'm guessing the dating is based on the materials that encased/surrounded the artifact rather than the material of the artifact itself.
This is interesting. Could modern scientists today create a piece of jewellery using ancient material? Surely they can.
I'd be interested in knowing what techniques modern scientists would use to 'fool' other scientists, and then knowing when these techniques generally became available.
Interesting question. I didn't read the article and don't know anything about the subject, but maybe you can tell if the chisel marks are 5000 or 35000 years old? Probably not, but just a thought.
And we know this how? Maybe it was just made to be pretty. A rich person giving their partner a gift etc. No one could possibly be able to make any further inferences from a species of human we know almost nothing about.