Glenn wrote:
> There was apparently an altar in Chauvet Cave(dated 31,000
> years ago[Balter,
> 1996, p. 449). A bear skull was precariously placed on a flat
> topped stone
> and fire was burned just behind the skull. Chauvet et al, write:
>
> "A little further on we were deeply impressed by what we
> discovered. In the
> middle of the chamber, on a block of grey stone of regular
> shape that had
> fallen from the ceiling, the skull of a bear was placed as if
> on an altar.
> The animal's fangs projected beyond it into the air. On top
> of the stone
> there were still pieces of charcoal, the remains of a
> fireplace. All around,
> on the floor, there were more than thirty bear skulls; now
> covered in a
> frosting of amber-coloured calcite, they were purposely set out on the
> earth. There were no traces of skeletons. This intentional arrangement
> troubled us because of its solemn peculiarity." (Chauvet et
> al, 1996, p. 50)
>
> The lack of bear skeletal parts proves that these were not
> stray bears that
> got trapped and died in the cave. Their heads were removed
> elsewhere and
> brought into the cave. [this is evidence of bear sacrifice--grm]
Certainly this arrangement of skulls could be evidence of religious
activity, but it could also be simply an ancient show-and-tell, a game, or
whatever. Don't you think it is uncomfortably speculative to readily
conclude that this was an altar? Perhaps there needs to be a clearly defined
(a priori of course) set of criteria that have to be met in order to for any
structure or arrangements to be considered evidence of religious activity,
but even so, I can imagine that a critic would always be able to find some
other plausible explanation for them other than religious.
> Neanderthals at Nahr Ibrahim, Lebanon, appear to have
> ritually sacrificed a
> deer. Marshack writes:
>
> "In the Mousterian cave shelter of Nahr Ibrahim in Lebanon
> the bones of a
> fallow deer (Dama mesopotamia) were gathered in a pile and
> topped by the
> skull cap. Many of the bones were unbroken and still
> articulated. Around the
> animal were bits of red ochre. While red ochre was common in
> the area and so
> may have been introduced inadvertently, the arrangement of the largely
> unbroken bones suggests a ritual use of parts of the animal."
> (Marschack
> 1990, p. 481)
Or it could be the creative play of an imaginative mind. Children make
interesting arrangements with objects without any concern for the spiritual,
and so do some adults. I am just wondering if we may be reading too much
into these events through modern 21st century eyes.
> There is an even earlier altar, which is not controversial, found at
> Bilzingsleben, Germany. The excavators, Dietrich and Ursula
> Mania have found
> a 27-foot-diameter paved area that they say was used for
> "special cultural
> activities" (Mania et al,1994, p. 124; See also Mania and
> Mania, 1988, p.
> 92). Gore writes:
>
> "But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective
> shed. As he opens
> the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and
> pieces of bone
> that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a
> 27-foot-wide circle.
> "'They intentionally paved this area for cultural
> activities,' says Mania.
> 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the
> horns of a huge
> bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'" (1997,p. 110)
>
> I would contend that the symbolism here, if found in a modern
> village, would
> be enough to cause one to turn and flee for his life. Such an
> arrangement of
> objects would immediately be interpreted as evidence of
> religion, and a
> hostile religion at that.
Yes, but that is only because we know so well modern religious activities,
and have something to compare to. But again, a modern-day sculpture may
easily be mistaken for a religious symbol by some future anthropologists who
knows little about our civilizations and cultural activities. Since we in
fact know so little about the cultures of these ancient hominids (especially
those dating before the advent of symbolic representation), we have to
entertain the possibility that we could be dead wrong in our conclusions.
There is a high degree of uncertainty in these conclusions.
I realize that I may be seen as being overly skeptical here, but I am making
these objections in the name of scientific rigor. I do not in any way intend
to discount the expert views of these fine researchers (Glenn included), but
simply to call for a careful examination of the underlying assumptions that
may have biased the conclusions.
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 19 2002 - 17:33:17 EDT