An Amazon tribe converts the missionary

[Requia ☣]

Sapiens sapiens is what I'm talking about
for 150 thousand years the species behaves one way, then it changes.

[Kai]

Sapiens sapiens is what I'm talking about
for 150 thousand years the species behaves one way, then it changes.

What evidence do you have that the behavior was homogenous as you think it was?

[Requia ☣]

I can't get decent sources atm, to verify all the research (I'm getting this from a textbook), can't afford to pay for the papers.

Fuck, except there was a find in 2007 that may overturn all this (the article I found is sensationalist, and lacks the data I need to make a judgment call) so my info is out of date.

anybody here have access to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America?  I need that paper.

Edit: NM, pnas made the paper available for free.

[Requia ☣]

Ok, yeah, art starts in North Africa at least 70k years ago.  The change in behavior is still somewhat unexplained, but that provides a patterm of spreading from there that makes sense.

[Kai]

what I'm saying is, if a population lacked any sort of art that could be preserved over time, you'd have absolutely no evidence of it.

In other words, your homogeneous conclusion is based upon scatterings of evidence and I really don't think parsimony leads to this conclusion. I don't think we can just say "we found art here from a 70kya dig and that shows that modern humans have been homogeneously art makers since that period (or likely before)" The more parsimonious conclusion is simply "some humans were making art that long ago; we don't have evidence of the rest, and we definitely won't find art evidence of peoples that didn't make art"

[Requia ☣]

Erm, I want to say there's not any material to use that wouldn't leave at least some evidence (the3 tools to do it with would be around, even if the materials aren't) , but it'd be impossible to prove they weren't using say, a form of paint we don't know about that leaves no traces after thousands of years, and painting/making the paint with their hands.

Keep in mind though, that we know individuals were doing art for long before we find it as a cultural thing, (the oldest known carved statue is about 300kya iirc) and they used materials that preserve nicely.


Hrm, it occurs to me the whole concept is upside down, maybe its only the same individuals who are making real art, but *fashion* is what started happening.

[Kai]

what is art?

[Requia ☣]

what is art?

Unanswerable questions, ITT 

In this case I'm making a distinction between creating something and copying what someone else created.

[Kai]

what is art?

Unanswerable questions, ITT 

In this case I'm making a distinction between creating something and copying what someone else created.

its good you recognize that it would be an endless meaningless arguement. too many connotations on the word, which is why I bring it up anyway, because I don't really know what you mean by art in this context. I'm guessing you're going with the "objects that are not merely for survival in form and function".

[Requia ☣]

Pretty much, yes.

[Requia ☣]

Well, not necessarily just for survival, but just for utilitarian purposes.  The tools used to make beads are still tools.  You can also have utilitarian+art.  Tools with patterns carved into them aren't uncommon.

[Kai]

Well, not necessarily just for survival, but just for utilitarian purposes.  The tools used to make beads are still tools.  You can also have utilitarian+art.  Tools with patterns carved into them aren't uncommon.

Thats more or less what I meant. An impliment for survival (utillian use) strictly....on the other hand, a well knapped flint blade could be considered art, no designs added.

Isn't the ambiguity of major words like 'art' so much fun?