Absolutely fascinating study. I look forward to more as the density of materials rises.
I would observe that calligraphy such as in Islamic art, frequently conveys two messages. One is more abstract such as it's compelling beauty, but it can also be strongly representational. A word about swans in the shape of a Swan.
So I don't see "it's just decoration" as a strong rebuttal. It may be decorative. It can also convey meaning.
The X's on the animal forms (Fig. 1B) ... isn't that likely to be "hit here" type markings, for hunting reference? Shoulder, side, stomach... surprised this wasn't really touched on in the paper, since it seems really likely. Though, the paper doesn't seem to care so much about the actual meanings, seemingly just narrowing down the number of possible interpretations /shrug
Some of the marks on it, particularly the head marks, are right over areas of the thickest bones. It's not impossible, but always worth being self-critical of "obvious" meanings with things like this.
Things that are straightforward even to us as non-expert megafaunal hunters would probably be completely obvious to actual experts (if it's not wrong), and people usually don't want to record the obvious stuff.
Interesting comment, I remember something similar about how researchers thought hairstyles depicted in paintings or statues were unrealistic but it wasn't until a hairstylist pointed out that you can sew the hair together:
I've also heard similar stories about people working with leather recognizing some set of artifacts as being more useful for work rather than ceremonial.
Here's of video of creating a roman Vestal Virgins hairstyle:
Sorry to be the wet blanket. However research on monkeys/apes has for the most part proven that their intelligence is at a dead end and never can progress past what is basically around human 2yo level.
That really depends how you measure and define intelligence and does a disservice to them.
Toddlers for example dont tend to have gang wars for territories and certainly couldnt do battle outcome predictions from a glance at a group across thick canopy and the sounds of branches and hollering.
Absolutely fascinating study. I look forward to more as the density of materials rises.
I would observe that calligraphy such as in Islamic art, frequently conveys two messages. One is more abstract such as it's compelling beauty, but it can also be strongly representational. A word about swans in the shape of a Swan.
So I don't see "it's just decoration" as a strong rebuttal. It may be decorative. It can also convey meaning.
The X's on the animal forms (Fig. 1B) ... isn't that likely to be "hit here" type markings, for hunting reference? Shoulder, side, stomach... surprised this wasn't really touched on in the paper, since it seems really likely. Though, the paper doesn't seem to care so much about the actual meanings, seemingly just narrowing down the number of possible interpretations /shrug
Some of the marks on it, particularly the head marks, are right over areas of the thickest bones. It's not impossible, but always worth being self-critical of "obvious" meanings with things like this.
Things that are straightforward even to us as non-expert megafaunal hunters would probably be completely obvious to actual experts (if it's not wrong), and people usually don't want to record the obvious stuff.
Interesting comment, I remember something similar about how researchers thought hairstyles depicted in paintings or statues were unrealistic but it wasn't until a hairstylist pointed out that you can sew the hair together:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-woman-is-a-ha...
I've also heard similar stories about people working with leather recognizing some set of artifacts as being more useful for work rather than ceremonial.
Here's of video of creating a roman Vestal Virgins hairstyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9JYWh1r7U
I bet there are many more similar stories yet to be told.
> Humans have carved visual signs into the surfaces of mobile artifacts [...]
And, undoubtedly, while doing so, some of them walked into something and got hurt.
They could also be simply idle doodling or decorations.
Yes, the specialist researchers didn't think of that.
It's probably both, each lending to the existence of the other.
Too bad we don't have a paper that applies information theory techniques to answer that question. Oh wait...
I remain skeptical. Pictures in clouds.
4 replies →
considering there are so many of them I think you are right.
[dead]
[dead]
Clanker.
[flagged]
Created two new accounts to push your narrative?
.
2 replies →
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35863186
12,500 years ago seems to be a more sensible and evidence-based estimate.
Its wild how far off a lot of the mainstream "consensus" takes on this are.
I think some responders have been misled here, falling victim to Poe's Law. Because you are joking, right? Right?
[flagged]
Ha! And someone today at HN laughed at the research of monkeys playing with crystals...
Maybe one day we could communicate with monkeys with marbles and crystals and stuff as SIGN language.
Imagine monkey soldiers becoming reality in AI WARS.
Sorry to be the wet blanket. However research on monkeys/apes has for the most part proven that their intelligence is at a dead end and never can progress past what is basically around human 2yo level.
That really depends how you measure and define intelligence and does a disservice to them.
Toddlers for example dont tend to have gang wars for territories and certainly couldnt do battle outcome predictions from a glance at a group across thick canopy and the sounds of branches and hollering.
1 reply →
Please quote your sources regarding monkey and ape intelligence with regards dead ends (whatever that means), wet blanket.
Please also note you are just a wet blanket and not the wet blanket - that epithet is not normally sought after.
well that surely seems to be empirically true...
Apes tend to be way more intelligent than humans of any age about how to hold and consume different vegetables and fruits.
1 reply →