Re: The Dawn of Art: a preview

On Aug 27, 5:18 pm, "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1188247215.541357.151080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 27, 3:50 pm, "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:1188164944.022590.95830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>
The flute is unimportant except as frosting on the cake.

No, it isn't unimportant. It's firmly dated, AFAICT.
It's the oldest flute of the world now.

Conard is trying to sell this site as the precursor of all modern culture.

Nope. Not all modern culture. Things like music and figurative art, eg.
He also states that the people back then had a modern mindset.

The article tells the dating story and shows the art in six magazine pages
with photographs. I am not sure if Archaeology will put the entire
story on line but this is in the September/October 2007 issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/17/coolsc.ancientart/index.html
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/qvo/pm/pm342-02.html
http://www.urgeschichte.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/downloads/Conard/M....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm

I can find no hints of dating problems or wrong C14 dates in any of those
articles.
Except that Conard himself gives a little history about the excavations.

So he is partly correct : Music and figurative art were first developed here.
Until we find older instruments elsewhere.
Whether it _originated_ from here or if there was independent invention
elsewhere
in another question.

Conclusio : Apart from the hype in press releases, Conard has an argument.

Jack :
-----------------------
"While most arcaheologists think the Aurignacian began about 36,000
years ago, Conard is convinced that the Swabian Aurignacian began
thousands of years before it emerged elsewhere in Europe--perhaps even
10,000 years before." from Archaeology

http://www.the-conference.com/JConfAbs/6/BG03.pdf

------------------------

This link states exactly what I've said.
The earliest instruments come from that area (Geißenklösterle, Vogelherd,
Sirgenstein, etc).
It also states that the best evidence of Aurignacian points to 40 kya.
So what's the problem ?

Jack :
------------------------
"In some cases these production spikes can lead to younger dates
stratigraphically, underlying older dates from secure contexts" Conard
------------------------
Yep. So what ?
That statement is correct.

Jack :
------------------------
"There are dozens of dates in Europe for the Aurignacian nothing older
that 36,000 (years). This is the only case with a date of 40,000. It
seems unlikely that people bearing the same culture were at
Geiszenkloesterle 4,000 years ahead of the rest of Europe" Francesco
d'Errico, University of Bordeaux. Stratigraphically you come up with
the same dates as the rest of Europe.
-------------------------

Ah, Bordeaux - La Grande Nation (ptui).
d'Errico seems to be in controverse with the link you posted which also
claims 40 kya. for Schwäbische Alp and the other sites...

Jack :
--------------------------
Conard started out using Accelrated Mass Spectronomy and still swears
by it. "Yet many colleagues feel Conard's faith in radio carbon dating
is too strong".
--------------------------

And the lurkers support him by email ?

Jack :
------------------------
A sample paper from d'Errico

Journal of World Prehistory
Publisher Springer Netherlands

Issue Volume 13, Number 1 / March, 1999

The Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian and Its
Implications for the Understanding of Neandertal Extinction
------------------------------------

Please note the term "extinction" and the date of his paper.

If we stop here and sum up :
d'Errico has a dog in this fight.
The newer consensus seems to be against him.
We see an on-going struggle here.

<snip>
Jack :
------------------------
Abstract The view that the Châtelperronian is the acculturation of
late Neandertals brought about by contact with nearby moderns assumes
an age of ca. 40,000 years ago for the earliest Aurignacian. However,
the cultural meaning of the dated samples is dubious, either because
they were collected from palimpsests containing other archaeological
components or because the definition of the associated artifact suites
as Aurignacian is not warranted.
<snip>
-------------------------

That is a rather dubious statement.
Excavations at Geißenklösterle have been going on for a long time.
All wrong ?
I doubt it.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

Tend to agree but it is somewhat similar to the fight that the Monte
Verde site had to put up with from the Clovis people. I think the
shore migration people still have a long ways to go to convince the
inland passageway people that the two ideas are at the least equal.
The usual problem of new ideas meeting "not discovered here".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Dawn of Art: a preview
    ... Not all modern culture. ... Apart from the hype in press releases, Conard has an argument. ... "While most arcaheologists think the Aurignacian began about 36,000 ... Jack: ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Do you want it?
    ... You should snip that line from your sig file. ... Twice used by Jack the OP. ... You're ignoring my questions. ... by Afonso and others, you'll be treated equally, in order for the ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Irish archaeology
    ... Ale, brewing and fulacht fiadh ... Come on, Jack. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: usenet anonymity
    ... Pretty big snip there, Jack. ... You chose to inject irrelevant material. ... Stupid is as stupid does. ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)
  • Re: Do you want it?
    ... alter the fact that they are all called "sample variance", ... You should snip that line from your sig file. ... Twice used by Jack the OP. ... by Afonso and others, you'll be treated equally, in order for the ...
    (sci.stat.math)