Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lion-man

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Lion-man

#71

Post by broken-kebab »

IsTom wrote: post #68
broken-kebab wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a lot to do during winter, though, cause it was a society with subsistence economy.

If 30-40k timelines are right that's way before agriculture and any kind of "economy". It's firmly hunter-gatherers and there's not much of that to do when it's after sunset.

"Economy" by merits of its definition is an applicable term for hunter-gathering societies. And is used widely in this quality, in fact.

Nobody says they couldn't find a time to do carving (existence of the artifact shows they could). The issue in question is comparative value of the time spent on it. Hunting, gathering and concomitant works were certainly both physically and mentally very demanding activities, and their way of life required thoughtful spending of energy. Consequently, whatever irregular pastime they had should have to be extremely valuable. It makes 'toy theory' somewhat unconvincing.

Re: Lion-man

#72

Post by rayiner »

broken-kebab wrote: post #62
IsTom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine them not having a lot to do during winter nights, besides sitting by the fire. That's a lot of time for carving.

They had a lot to do during winter, though, cause it was a society with subsistence economy.

Subsistence economy as a hunter gatherer is much easier than as a farmer.

Re: Lion-man

#73

Post by Cockbrand »

solidasparagus wrote: post #27
fishfasell wrote: post #12

Been reading "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind", this piece is mentioned as the earliest proof of the Cognitive Revolution that we know of. It displays how humans were able to envisions things that do not exist, crafting fiction from reality. How early man was able to share stories and how religions probably came to be.

Sapiens is super loose about interpreting facts carefully, particularly the prehistory part.

I'm currently reading that book, and I find this sentiment interesting (not knowing any better myself) - is there a critique/fact-check somewhere?

Re: Lion-man

#74

Post by int3trap »

broken-kebab wrote: post #62
IsTom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine them not having a lot to do during winter nights, besides sitting by the fire. That's a lot of time for carving.

They had a lot to do during winter, though, cause it was a society with subsistence economy.

It could have been a member of the tribe that was disabled and had nothing but time. There's evidence to suggest that individuals like that weren't simply discarded.

There are a number of plausible explanations including just someone DID have the time and wasn't all that busy. That's even more likely but I wanted to call out the perspective that it might not have been the most typical situation that led to this.

Re: Lion-man

#75

Post by adonovan »

rayiner wrote: post #30

> Some researchers have ascribed sexual characteristics to the object. My wife jokes that anthropologists think everything is about either sex or religion. It never occurs to them that these figurines might be toys for kids. After all, children 40,000 years ago were anatomically modern. They would have gotten bored and wanted to play, or missed their parents while the parents were out foraging or hunting.

Yeah, I get the sense “possibly for ritual use” is how anthropologists say “no idea”.

Re: Lion-man

#76

Post by newsy-combi »

Lion standing up makes no sense. This is supposed to be a bear. The marks on its arm denote how many people it killed. It's not religious, it's not sexual, it's educational.

Re: Lion-man

#77

Post by lloeki »

mischief6 wrote: post #59
doctoboggan wrote: post #44

A bit of a meta comment: I love when wikipedia articles are posted to HN, I always click on them as I know they will be interesting. On one of the recent wikipedia article posts (Glacier Mice I believe) someone commented that there should be a bluesky bot that collects and posts these so I (well Claude..) made one! https://bsky.app/profile/hnwiki.bsky.social Check it out! This article is the first post, and if there…

this is my favorite Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

A dramatic rendition of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Re: Lion-man

#78

Post by fishfasell »

solidasparagus wrote: post #27
fishfasell wrote: post #12

Been reading "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind", this piece is mentioned as the earliest proof of the Cognitive Revolution that we know of. It displays how humans were able to envisions things that do not exist, crafting fiction from reality. How early man was able to share stories and how religions probably came to be.

Sapiens is super loose about interpreting facts carefully, particularly the prehistory part.

Agreed. The whole premise of language being created to gossip has zero scientific merit.

Re: Lion-man

#79

Post by jantuss »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #60
jantuss wrote: post #58

The sculpture was relatively safe for 40,000 years. I think we should study it, 3D scan it, replicate it, and put it back in the cave so it can stay safe for a few more Millenia. In a museum it may be bombed, burnt, or stolen, and that would be a shame.

How certain are we really that not the materials but the resulting figurine is authentic? From Wikipedia on the Lion-man (English): > It was not until archaeologist Joachim Hahn started an inventory and assembly of more than 200 fragments that a figurine with animal and human features began to emerge.[5] We have seen countless examples before, from the Brontosaur skull mixup mess to the heavy-handed "restoration" of…

Exactly, the reconstruction is subjective and can lead to damage. It is better to make copies of the parts and reconstruct those

Re: Lion-man

#80

Post by mcookly »

rayiner wrote: post #30

> Some researchers have ascribed sexual characteristics to the object. My wife jokes that anthropologists think everything is about either sex or religion. It never occurs to them that these figurines might be toys for kids. After all, children 40,000 years ago were anatomically modern. They would have gotten bored and wanted to play, or missed their parents while the parents were out foraging or hunting.

It's probably because, unfortunately, anthropologists don't play much.
Post reply on HN