Skip to comments.Religious beliefs are the basis of the origins of Palaeolithic art
Posted on 03/31/2010 6:33:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
This statement isn't new, but for years anthropologists, archaeologists and historians of art understood these artistic manifestations as purely aesthetic and decorative motives. Eduardo Palacio-Pérez, researcher at the University of Cantabria (UC), now reveals the origins of a theory that remains nowadays/lasts into our days.
"This theory is does not originate with the prehistorians, in other words, those who started to develop the idea that the art of primitive peoples was linked with beliefs of a symbolic-religious nature were the anthropologists"...
This idea appeared at the end of the XIX century and the beginning of the XX century. Up until then, Palaeolithic art had been interpreted as a simple aesthetic and decorative expression.
On one hand, Palaeolithic art is composed of so-called mobiliary art -pieces of stone, horn and bone sculpted or engraved- that are included within archaeological deposits. These discoveries, that spread through the scientific community from 1864, are dated to the same period as the rest of the archaeological material and there was "practically no doubt about their Palaeolithic origin".
"The problem came years later with the discovery of the paintings in the cave of Altamira (in 1879), published by Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola and spread by the Spanish geologist Vilanova and Piera at a scientific conference held in Lisbon in 1880. This art composed of paintings and engravings on the walls and the ceilings of the caves, was not included within the archaeological deposits and it was unknown if it was so old. The international scientific community ignored its Palaeolithic origin for 20 years", states the researcher.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
In her Plato Prehistorian: 10,000 to 5000 B.C. Myth, Religion, Archaeology, Mary Settegast reproduces a table which shows four runic character sets; a is Upper Paleolithic (found among the cave paintings), b is Indus Valley script, c is Greek (western branch), and d is the Scandinavian runic alphabet.
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
NO alphabet is that old anyway.
This was an oral tradition, so do not confuse the language called "sanskrit" with the writing system.
Then, too, Indo-European writing systems are all relatively recent arrivals. The oldest stuff is in Mesopotamia. It was developed by the Sumerians, a nomadic people who ALSO built cities, wrote laws, developed weights and measures, and INVENTED writing.
They were non-Indo-European.
Rune alphabets used for Indo-European languages were actually developed AFTER the Roman alphabet. The ancients knew that to be effective an alphabet must work well with the language which is going to use it for writing. The Greek alphabets drew upon earlier Semitic alphabets, and they, in turn, drew upon Egyptian hieroglypic systems (combination of ideographs and syllabries), and those systems, in turn drew upon the earlier Sumerian system.
The Chinese ideographic writing systems begin with characters not all that different than those used initially by the Sumerians and are believed to have been devised by Sumerians. The earliest written Chinese is in such characters.
Going back a few thousand years, the oldest ideogram systems we can hope to understand are located in the Kola peninsula in Finland and Russia.
These systems are so ancient few of the stories have been derived. A number of them have to do with the day to day life of Sa'ami-like cultures, and tell stories about a fellow probably named Lot who wanders around following reindeer and getting in trouble with people who live in settlements.
Pretty exciting stuff eh!
It all depends on who your authorities are.
I accept the statements in the Puranas themselves, and there is much authenticating evidence, with more being discovered or admitted every year.
According to the Puranas, Vedavyas wrote down on leaves (which were used as writing surface up until a few hundreds years ago) 5000 years ago at the advent of the Kali Age. So the Sanskrit written characters are 5000 years old. Much of what has been accepted as standard Indology was knowlingly fabricated by British historians and linguists in order to denigrate the country they invaded and plundered.
Statements from some of these early Indologists have been found wherein they admitted their purposeful lies about the great antiquity of the Vedas and archeological evidence.
Sanskrit is Indo-European, as is Latin, Greek, German, Tocharian, etc.
Much of the argument for claiming a more ancient origin for Sanskrit is based on a hijacking of Dravidian tradition.
BTW, Sumerian is considered to be a "close relative" of the Dravidian group, but not exactly a cognate of any extant Dravidian language. The Sa'ami languages are also more closely related to Sumerian than to the so-called Fenno-Ugric group (which still provides a lot of vocabulary to the Sa'ami languages but not the grammar).
Whatever the Brits thought is irrelevant. They have the same problem ~ they're stuck within the more primitive and less ancient Indo-European language group using borrowed alphabets.
The whole “Aryan invasion” thing was made up and is not factual. I accept Vedas and if historians agree with Vedas, fine. If they contradict them, I don’t agree with the historians.
People can argue historical details but as a student and follower of the Vedas, I accept them as infallible and truthful.
Stephen Knapp’s website has a lot of historical evdidence (and tons of other stuff, it’s a rather confusing website), if you’re interested. I find it hard to navigate but he used to have some links to interesting historical info.
The Persians came in from the West ~ so whatever you interpret the ancient texts to say, the DNA says everybody in Indian has a Western ancestor.
The "hips don't lie" eh!
Shakira with “The Hips Don’t Lie” ~ might give you an idea of what drives “gene flow” eh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQgjEhH400
Look at the mythological creature costumes ~ lots more Indian stuff there than the uncounseled eye will see.
The Brits brought many East Indians to the American during the colonial period.
Runes were obviously not derived from the Latin alphabet.
In any case, runes were used by Indo-European peoples, not the more ancient Sumerian and Sa'ami culures.
Runic alphabets also underwent serious changes as they were handed around from one group to another. The letter "X", for example, has at least two dozen different sounds assigned to it depending on language using it in a runic alphabet.
I call shenanigans!
Everyone knows that the cave paintings were what remains of the 1st gen powerpoint presentations used during the command/staff strategic/tactical planning meetings of tribe level hunt operations.
LOL! I'd never seen the results of DNA archeology put quite that way before!