91–100 of 138 posts
I find it amazing that early humans tended to make art of animals not humans. Like the cave paintings in France. It seems that early humans put the animals front and Center at some point.
I was about to say they have a powerful imagination to see camels in that eroded rock... however after a quick search, there are better photos online: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-2-000-year-old-...
Don't forget, they look so eroded because the sculptures have been eroding for 8,000+ years. Also, the original article (original with regard the this HN thread, not the older article you linked to) talked about examining the tool marks. It's not just examining the large shape, it's about seeing the method of construction on a smaller scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many places have the geology for these massive stone walls that can be carved and ... folks saw it and thought "Man we should make this really big sculpture!". My imagination makes me think that it's a pretty obvious thing to do for any number of reasons and that there have been quite a few that have been lost to time.
As evidenced by the amount of grafitti in public places, people just really like leaving their mark wherever they can. There's grafitti in ancient ruins that (aside from the language) could be mistaken for grafitti in a bathroom stall. People are just gonna people.
I was about to say they have a powerful imagination to see camels in that eroded rock... however after a quick search, there are better photos online: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-2-000-year-old-...
Anyway, based on camel remains, it seems the splay-footed quadrupeds reached Arabia in the Holocene, at least 7,000 years ago. (Camels are believed to have reached ancient Israel only about 3,000 years ago.)
I find it amazing that early humans tended to make art of animals not humans. Like the cave paintings in France. It seems that early humans put the animals front and Center at some point.
Once again, an article all about something visual with neigh a proper visualisation in it, let alone a photo of a greater scope, and no original design trace out proposal or recreation. Both of the provided examples essentially look like weather-exposed rocks.
This seems really standard for any archeological article, sadly. Every time with the bait.
Also, where did this 10-15 day estimate come from? They shouldn’t just drop a detail like that with no explanation!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, id find those interesting too - I've always found archaeology grabs my attention. Once I asked a local archaeologist about why articles are always like that, and she told me that there's also a problem with looters. They try to only release pictures that don't give away the location, to prevent looters from ruining a site. Not sure if that's a general thing or her specific area of expertise.
Depends on the location. You usually don't release wide landscape shots if that's a major concern, but super localized photos aren't necessarily an issue. Not all areas take the same degree of precaution though (e.g., scheduled monuments in the UK are pretty much public). Anyway, if you'd like an example of an "onsite" photo, I've uploaded one from an ancient settlement (2k+ years old): https://i.imgur.com/0ITzYZD.pn…
I sort of see what you mean about "unremarkable", at least without context. Knowing its an archaeological site of course raises questions: What does an archaeologist see in those rocks that I don't? What made people settle here 2kya (besides the water source)? Why dig here to begin with (instead of a km either direction, instead of 5m either direction, etc)?
Similarly, if I was reading about the dig (a report or article or whatnot), I'd be asking questions like: what does the place these ancient humans chose look like? What does "near the river bank" mean? etc. This photo would help me understand those.
I was about to say they have a powerful imagination to see camels in that eroded rock... however after a quick search, there are better photos online: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-2-000-year-old-...
https://archive.is/l3Vmm http://web.archive.org/web/20210916005143/https://www.haaret...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As evidenced by the amount of grafitti in public places, people just really like leaving their mark wherever they can. There's grafitti in ancient ruins that (aside from the language) could be mistaken for grafitti in a bathroom stall. People are just gonna people.
This is exactly why I doubt all the expert opinions on cave art. "This undoubtedly had ritual significance." BS. It was probably just some teenagers screwing around.
A rule of thumb I've heard is that "ritual significance" is code for either "we have no idea" or "probably a sex toy", depending on context. In cases like this, I think the default assumption should be "probably art".