Live data from Hacker News

40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

digitaljournal.com

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#61
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, how could they have mated, let alone have hybrid children?

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).

My question was how they could mate without having any morphological similarities. Horses and donkeys surely do!

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#63
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. And oldest as well, so comparison to other findings is pretty low.

> 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".

[1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008...

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#64

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.

Not to mention they weren't 'people'.

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#66
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but to be fair they're still fresh findings. And oldest as well, so comparison to other findings is pretty low.

> 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". [1]: http://www.scienc…

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.

Re: 40,000-year-old bracelet made by extinct human species found (2015)

#67

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.

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.

Post reply on HN