Controversial rock art may depict extinct giants of the ice age

(Article)
220307082103-01-rock-art-colombia-scn-exlarge-169.jpg

More than 12,000 years ago, South America was teeming with an astonishing array of ice age beasts -- giant ground sloths the size of a car, elephantine herbivores and a deerlike animal with an elongated snout.

These extinct giants are among many animals immortalized in an 8-mile-long (13-kilometer-long) frieze of rock paintings at Serranía de la Lindosa in the Colombian Amazon rainforest -- art created by some of the earliest humans to live in the region, according to a new study.

"(The paintings) have the whole diversity of Amazonia. Turtles and fishes to jaguars, monkeys and porcupines," said study author Jose Iriarte, a professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

Iriate calls the frieze, which likely would have been painted over centuries, if not millennia, "the last journey," as he said it represents the arrival of humans in South America -- the last region to be colonized by Homo sapiens as they spread around the world from Africa, their place of origin. These pioneers from the north would have faced unknown animals in an unfamiliar landscape.

"They encountered these large-bodied mammals and they likely painted them. And while we don't have the last word, these paintings are very naturalistic and we're able to see morphological features of the animals," he said.

But the discovery of what scientists term "extinct megafauna" among the dazzlingly detailed paintings is controversial and contested.

Other archaeologists say the exceptional preservation of the paintings suggest a much more recent origin and that there are other plausible candidates for the creatures depicted. For example, the giant ground sloth identified by Iriarte and his colleagues could in fact be a capybara -- a giant rodent common today across the region.

Final word?​

While Iriarte concedes the new study is not the final word in this debate, he is confident that they have found evidence of early human encounters with some of the vanished giants of the past.

The team identified five such animals in the paper: a giant ground sloth with massive claws, a gomphothere (an elephantlike creature with a domed head, flared ears and a trunk), an extinct lineage of horse with a thick neck, a camelid like a camel or llama, and a three-toed ungulate, or hoofed mammal, with a trunk.

The hope is to directly date the red pigment used to paint the miles of rock, but dating rock art and cave paintings is notoriously tricky. Ocher, an inorganic mineral pigment that contains no carbon, can't be dated using radiocarbon dating techniques. The archaeologists are hoping the ancient artists mixed the ocher with some kind of binding agent that will allow them to get an accurate date. The results of this investigation are expected possibly later this year.

Further study of the paintings could shed light on why these giant animals went extinct. Iriarte said no bones of the extinct creatures were found during archaeological digs in the immediate area -- suggesting perhaps they weren't a source of food for the people who created the art.
 
It may, or it may depict how early artists didn't have a sense of scale. They didn't in the medieval era.
That or the past may have been somewhat different than the present, and historians are not completely objective in their assessments of what may have been different in olden days.

There are a lot of these depictions where artists were entirely incapable of drawing to scale is all I am saying. Considering some of the accomplishments of that era I would find this to be... surprising.
 
Uh oh, looks like they forgot to deface or destroy another one. Better make up a story and downplay those silly tribal people before anyone thinks twice about it.
 
Some ancient cave paintings are still very impressive in the sense that humans have always had the ability to create expressive works of art.

World-famous-prehistoric-paintings-of-the-Lascaux-Cave-Nov-2004-The-cave-has-been.png
Rather see stuff like this than what's hanging in museums.
 
It may, or it may depict how early artists didn't have a sense of scale. They didn't in the medieval era.
I remember, in high school, having a world history textbook that used a Byzantine icon to demonstrate that pre-Renaissance artists didn't have a complete understanding of body proportions. This is likely not the exact image they used, but it's the same kind:

1646935398500.png

Thing is, this is entirely on purpose. Orthodox iconography is firstly theological, and that baby Jesus is drawn more as a small man as opposed to an infant is meant as a thematic merging of his human infancy and his divine anciency.

I think of this when people talk about how earlier artists were lacking in understanding-- could it just be that they did what they did, with full understanding of what they were doing, for a specific purpose?
 
Thing is, this is entirely on purpose. Orthodox iconography is firstly theological, and that baby Jesus is drawn more as a small man as opposed to an infant is meant as a thematic merging of his human infancy and his divine anciency.

"Every brush stroke is a theological statement" is ex post facto rationale devised by early medieval Byzantine theologians (IIRC roughly 7th C or so) to explain why the prechristian styles and conventions of the classical world that evolved into Orthodox iconography were actually inspired by God. And since so many icons are copies-of-copies-of-copies, over time, they become less and less realistic due to the artist using only prior icons as reference points, never human models.
 
"Every brush stroke is a theological statement" is ex post facto rationale devised by early medieval Byzantine theologians (IIRC roughly 7th C or so) to explain why the prechristian styles and conventions of the classical world that evolved into Orthodox iconography were actually inspired by God.
It's far more likely that it's a statement made by theologians who were aware of the efforts and mindsets of iconographers, the earliest of whom may have imported a pre-Christian style to their work (they could only work with what they knew, at any rate) but nonetheless sought to convey theology through it and became part of a community who settled upon a certain set of artistic conventions given their particular purpose.

I mean, you're not going to tell me that nobody knew what a baby looked like even though they were close to getting it right by secular artistic standards, and they were incapable of drawing one but also never bothered to become capable for over a millennium.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I remember, in high school, having a world history textbook that used a Byzantine icon to demonstrate that pre-Renaissance artists didn't have a complete understanding of body proportions. This is likely not the exact image they used, but it's the same kind:

Wyświetl załącznik 3061147
Thing is, this is entirely on purpose. Orthodox iconography is firstly theological, and that baby Jesus is drawn more as a small man as opposed to an infant is meant as a thematic merging of his human infancy and his divine anciency.

I think of this when people talk about how earlier artists were lacking in understanding-- could it just be that they did what they did, with full understanding of what they were doing, for a specific purpose?

Yes, this is the take that is missing from this thread. Some aspects don't live up to modern standards because they didn't understand stuff like 1 and 2 point perspective in the early days but no doubt a lot of these things are stylistic choices that match their times/context. You might paint a big ass buffalo that dwarfs the men hunting it because you fucked up and made the head too big when you started but you might also do it because you are trying to summon or invoke a plentiful hunt the next day or because you are telling fish stories to the kids and the catch keeps getting bigger and bigger. It might also be they drew the animal larger because of the limits off conveying the identifying details in mixed medium blood and charcoal.

The ancients weren't dumb, in many ways they were sharper than modern people I feel. A lot of ancient civilizations had amazingly complex astronomy, the pyramids lined up with Sirus, stone henge is a giant calendar, the Myans predicted eclipses.... I think they understood "This is bigger than that."
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I mean, its not that crazy, Wooly Mammoths died out around 2,000 BC, its not that impossible that someone saw Megafauna and drew it on a rock.
Yeah, I thought it had been confirmed that humans were what killed off the giant sloths.
 
I remember, in high school, having a world history textbook that used a Byzantine icon to demonstrate that pre-Renaissance artists didn't have a complete understanding of body proportions. This is likely not the exact image they used, but it's the same kind:

Wyświetl załącznik 3061147
Thing is, this is entirely on purpose. Orthodox iconography is firstly theological, and that baby Jesus is drawn more as a small man as opposed to an infant is meant as a thematic merging of his human infancy and his divine anciency.

I think of this when people talk about how earlier artists were lacking in understanding-- could it just be that they did what they did, with full understanding of what they were doing, for a specific purpose?
That's a great point, the only way we can truly know the context is by asking the creator.
 
The ancient world was also about utility. Pre-literate societies used art to convey meaning and teach lessons.
I think they understood "This is bigger than that."
Of course they did. Their decision was between a visually accurate depiction of the object or one which depicts its utility or relevance in the real world or in culture. They thought the message was more important to convey. For instance Harvard does not actually have books with gigantic letters in them, even though three such books appear on their coat of arms.
 
Better make up a story and downplay those silly tribal people before anyone thinks twice about it.
Good lord, this.
It's always the woke fuckers who tout shit like "Muh native peoples!" but then when it comes time to actually listen or learn or treat them like people they shove their fingers in their ears. They treat other people like a separate species in need of protection.
Yeah, I thought it had been confirmed that humans were what killed off the giant sloths.
That's the main explanation, but I personally believe in the more fringe explanation that the Younger Dryas Impact is a thing that happened and the resulting climate change helped kill off the megafauna. It wasn't humans alone.
Part of why I believe this is because of what I said above. A shit-ton of people in the Americas have stories about a time when the world basically ended and people had to live in caves and shit.
 
It's wouldn't be surprising, humans got to South America about 14,000 years ago.

The Dakota still have stories about a waterfall in MN in their histories from 10,000 years ago when Lake Agassiz burst its banks at the end of the last ice age where the river that was formed made it to the Mississippi. It was 300' high and miles wide. The stories match up with what the erosion tells us, even though all that's left are the 10' wide, 20'-ish high Minnehaha Falls that are part of a creek, and St. Anthony falls, which is just a 3' high weir now.

All of the River Warren is still there except the water. A pretty major river (the Minnesota River) runs through the deepest part of the Warren's riverbed, and it is so dwarfed be the old River it looks like it is just bluffs formed by the Minnesota, but it's not.

Still part of a historical record, and they never even had writing.

Humans had essentially all the capabilities they have now minus some technology. But of course the answer is aliens.
 
It's wouldn't be surprising, humans got to South America about 14,000 years ago.

The Dakota still have stories about a waterfall in MN in their histories from 10,000 years ago when Lake Agassiz burst its banks at the end of the last ice age where the river that was formed made it to the Mississippi. It was 300' high and miles wide. The stories match up with what the erosion tells us, even though all that's left are the 10' wide, 20'-ish high Minnehaha Falls that are part of a creek, and St. Anthony falls, which is just a 3' high weir now.

All of the River Warren is still there except the water. A pretty major river (the Minnesota River) runs through the deepest part of the Warren's riverbed, and it is so dwarfed be the old River it looks like it is just bluffs formed by the Minnesota, but it's not.

Still part of a historical record, and they never even had writing.

Humans had essentially all the capabilities they have now minus some technology. But of course the answer is aliens.
This is also cool:
So here's a story from Australia where the aborigines were telling the truth: Aboriginal Myth Inspired By 37,000-year-old Volcano Could Be The Oldest Story Ever Told
But you know what else happened 37,000 years ago? Chauvet Cave Paintings Could Depict a 37,000-Year-Old Volcanic Eruption
 
There was an historian talking about this topic, so reading this sounds very misleading and I think they do it in purpose:
the last region to be colonized by Homo sapiens as they spread around the world from Africa, their place of origin.
This isn't technically wrong as America was colonized by Homo Sapiens, but it wasn't the people straight from Africa the ones who came here, but rather Asians (and a couple of European groups) who were already fully developed. Which means that there American natives don't exist because humans never really developed here, so the whole "native-american" concept is bullshit.

It may, or it may depict how early artists didn't have a sense of scale. They didn't in the medieval era.
1646954473579.png

Some ancient cave paintings are still very impressive in the sense that humans have always had the ability to create expressive works of art.

Wyświetl załącznik 3061106
Rather see stuff like this than what's hanging in museums.
Same. I'm not impressed by some big ass artist who's been trained by some Master to paint portraits so realistic that look like a picture. This does. Look at this:
1646955206212.png
Some human (or non yet human) who didn't know how to write, perhaps not even speak, who had no idea of the concept of physics, anatomy, medicine, chemistry, anything... did this.


Also, lmao:
1646957013856.png 1646956849205.png
 
Humans had essentially all the capabilities they have now minus some technology. But of course the answer is aliens.
Aliens aside, I'd really like to time travel just to see how ancient peoples were able to achieve some of their really spectacular architech. The Giza pyramids are aboslutely breathtaking to see in person. No photo or movie can do them justice.

I feel like we've lost some really valuable tools and techniques (and general sense of ourselves) along the way to the technological singularity.
 
It may, or it may depict how early artists didn't have a sense of scale. They didn't in the medieval era.
You bring up a good point, and to expand on that, i'll also point out how medieval and renaissance artists would frequently depict people in artistic representations of ancient greece and rome wearing medieval and renaissance era clothing. If you knew little of the ancient world you might think thats how they actually dressed. By the same token most people today hear the phrase 'roman legion' and immediately think of a soldier in lorica segmentata, not realizing that it was a fairly short period in roman history that they actually looked like that. Really just the late republic era. If you showed the average person a roman soldier of 100 or 200AD, or later they likely wouldn't even recognize him as a roman soldier

The point is, people should be very careful about reading too much into artistic depictions of anything
 
There was an historian talking about this topic, so reading this sounds very misleading and I think they do it in purpose:

This isn't technically wrong as America was colonized by Homo Sapiens, but it wasn't the people straight from Africa the ones who came here, but rather Asians (and a couple of European groups) who were already fully developed. Which means that there American natives don't exist because humans never really developed here, so the whole "native-american" concept is bullshit.


Wyświetl załącznik 3061853


Same. I'm not impressed by some big ass artist who's been trained by some Master to paint portraits so realistic that look like a picture. This does. Look at this:
Wyświetl załącznik 3061887
Some human (or non yet human) who didn't know how to write, perhaps not even speak, who had no idea of the concept of physics, anatomy, medicine, chemistry, anything... did this.


Also, lmao:
Wyświetl załącznik 3061951Wyświetl załącznik 3061944
A lot of animals in Medieval art are drawn based off descriptions alone, they hadn't actually seen them, which explains why they look so off (like how people used to draw dinosaurs based on the skeleton and where the organs would be). Is that supposed tiger confirmed to be a tiger? I ask because of the spots and even though the lion lacks a mane, its head has the shape of the mane.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole