Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

A40 t1_jef2f05 wrote

Thanks for that, Chet. And our next item features other wild speculations...

34

ryschwith t1_jeggy3q wrote

I don’t know, the paper has some pretty compelling data. Certainly not a slam dunk—I’d like to see the symbols interpreted/recorded by someone not directly associated with the study to remove possible bias from that process, for example—but solid enough to be worth getting more eyes on it.

11

A40 t1_jeghjr2 wrote

The 'symbols' look like this (make them bigger/smearier): . . .

(They might be mosquitoes. Or spits. Or signatures.)

−2

Muroid t1_jegky7a wrote

What they look like is kind of irrelevant. If they’re consistent, they’re consistent. If they’re not, they’re not.

15

ryschwith t1_jegkyqu wrote

If they were random splotches they wouldn’t fit well to the expected patterns.

9

F_L_A_youknowit t1_jefan0k wrote

"The research paper by Bacon, Freeth, and University of Durham professors Paul Pettitt and Robert Kentridge, as well as independent researchers Azadeh Khatiri and James Palmer, was published on January 5 in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal."

Very interesting and intuitive study. The way I work it is how the manner, means, and conclusion hit my senses. As in, you can smell the truth of a matter.

Many of these drawings show such distinctive artistic abilities. Paleo minds should have had similar capabilities across disciplines with limitations.

I like it and think there are merits in their work. Hopefully, more research will follow to prove/disprove. Robust skepticism is the basis of scientific research.

8

skedeebs t1_jef5xzq wrote

The state of animal husbandry many moons ago.

3