What really happened there, Veeky Forums?

It represents loss

it said "42"

Looks like a piece of salmon to me tho

...

...

What really happened in this runic poem, Veeky Forums?

Continuation.

It's meme magic

Is this language or symbology at all? I've drawn shit like this out of boredom. I could see some bored caveman just chisling this because they had nothing else to do.
Still important nonetheless. The tales of the everyday man are pretty much lost to history.

Then why would it be so rare. If boredom would be the reason, you'd have dozens just as old...

...

...

there are a lot of rocks out there, its not like we've inspected them all

speak for yourself

have you found the biggest rock yet

The engraved pattern consists of two sets of superimposed oblique lines crossed and framed by three horizontal lines.
Analysis of the lines indicates that the oblique lines were first cut in sequence from top right to bottom left and that each line was cut with multiple strokes. Evidence for the initial point of an incision and its terminus was determined by examining the morphology of the line, as the striking point has a rounded shape and at the point of exit the line thins. The second set of incised lines was cut from top left to bottom right. Each line in this set is also made up of multiple strokes with the exception of the three on the right. These were made in a single stroke. Two single stroke lines, oriented as in the first set, were then engraved over these last three.
Finally, the horizontal lines crossing and framing the sets of oblique lines were incised moving the tool from the left to the right. This
was done by joining and partially superimposing, in each case, three to four short incisions.

yes

kek

And what are you supposed to make out of all this?

The first intent to represent some personal shared, abstract, or figurative concept.
In others words, to create abstract culture, ie, History.

A bored caveman?

I never understand why so much significance and meaning is searched for on these things.

Yeah, well i guess that's debatable.
But has anyone ever tried to find some meaning in this?

>A bored caveman?
>I never understand why so much significance and meaning is searched for on these things.
We know that at some point in our relatively recent past our mind underwent some sort of revolution. Some people have hypothesized that it has to do with the invention of language (I personally ally think language is much older but it may have been a "big update" in language) - that's how big the change in our behavior was. You start to see evidence of ritual, painting, jewelry making, and general symbolic meaning that didn't exist before. This revolution is really what separates us from other homonids.

Blombos cave represents a wealth of evidence across the spectrum for new behaviors. That's why it's important. They didn't just find a single rock with scratching but rather, a lot of evidence for other new behaviors as well.

Would you concede it could be the very beginning of history?

And is it this "Logos" that came to us these days and how did it awake?...

>Would you concede it could be the very beginning of history?
Not really. Ultimately it depends on your definition of history but really, homonids had been around doing stuff for like 8 millions years. And then you have all the time before that where interesting stuff is happening too.

>And is it this "Logos" that came to us these days and how did it awake?...
Your use of the word logos gives me a pretty good idea of where this is heading but I'll humor you. Ultimately I think this human revolution actually occured over a few tens of thousands of years rather than overnight. Basically, the brain became advanced enough, and enough ideas began to spread that we hit a sort of "cultural critical mass" that "set" itself into humanity during (approximately) the time period of 100k-60k years ago. The revolution didn't occur overnight but by the time it ended humans had cross a barrier between "modern" and "archaic" in some way that isn't particularly well defined yet. Neanderthals probably had language too, they learned to create jewelry as well, they used paunts, etc... we just did it better. It could simply be that humans had larger social networks with which to share information, we don't really know yet. The next couple decades of research should be really interesting now that we know we genetically inbred with many pre-Sapien populations.

I agreed you continuous processes, especially in course of the development of language. I would still argue, though, that specific leaps in the learning process could have came to us in a flash-instant "eureka", and the reflexive self-conscious Logos could be one of them.

>I would still argue, though, that specific leaps in the learning process could have came to us in a flash-instant "eureka"

Perhaps some of it did. One idea I've always been a little fond of but we have no evidence for (nor will we ever) is that maybe language changed in a significant way overnight. For example, we gained the ability to speak about things not directly in front of us (that tree, a mile down the road rather than only a tree we could see) or speak about things in the past or future tense. Whatever it was, it allowed us to develop multi step technologies and ideas we'd never had before.

>and the reflexive self-conscious Logos could be one of them.
Not impossible but I doubt it. Self-conscious thought is likely a continuum just like language. I think that given what know about dolphins and their communication ability (they all literally have unique names) and chimpanzees social structure it's likely we developed self conscious thought in some capacity well before 100k years ago.

Ok, so you agree that abstract thought could have come in a leap.
From that to a conception of the Logos in man that would imply abstract thought, means that it also could have appeared in a leap.

...

Care to explain that?

It's like a comic with 4 panels. In the first panel, you can clearly see a figure coming in (from somewhere, to somewhere). In the second panel, you can see it facing another figure, pointing to its left. In the third panel, you can see it talking to another figure. And in the final panel, the original figure is standing, looking at another figure who is lying down.

So the beggining of written history was basically a meme?

Jews

> You start to see evidence of ritual, painting, jewelry making, and general symbolic meaning that didn't exist before. This revolution is really what separates us from other homonids.

Doubtful

telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/10945821/Chimps-develop-bizarre-trend-of-sticking-grass-in-ear.html

Far more likely that we were just slightly better at it to begin with, but just better enough to start some feedback loops.

reality is a meme

It says "jet fuel can't melt steel beams"

It's a heavily eroded Hwan general's plee to be evacuated along with his 30,000 proto-ninjas at the battle of the Crimea.

how do you even carbon date rocks?

I dont get the blombos cave rock because all the earliest drawings/mark-makings are from Europe around 50000 BP, but suddenly this one rock in South Africa is suddenly 80000 old(how convenient, it started in Africa! We really are all africans!)

...

it said shiggy diggy

While that guy texts like a retard, he has a point, you cannot carbon date rocks, thats for organic stuff, you need other system to measure rocks, usually measuring sediments and so.

How do I 'text' like a retard? I'm just a little hungover.

But seriously though, the blombos cave rock is too convenient to explain away art originating in Europe. Why just this one rock that supposedly almost twice as old as anything in Europe? Why have there been no more discoveries from this time period in Africa, while there are hundreds from 50,000 BP in Europe.

The Khoi/San drawings in South Africa, similar to ones in Europe from 50,000 BP, are only around 200 years old, why would they have art thats 80,000 years old?

It's not just one rock, but many with intended engravings, along with engravings in ostrich eggs, marine shell beads and an ochre processing workshop.
And there's no big deal that modern human behavior started in Africa, unless you have some archaic bias against that.

The first trussed bridge.

Except it was used as shoring for the tunnel burrowing into the cave, and all hands passed away when their first earthquake struck, burying evidence of their ingenuity as well.

>bored caveboy decided to literally scribble triangles on a rock because it looked aesthetic
>trillions of years later this is discovered and taken as language
Some pranks taken too far

>Why have there been no more discoveries from this time period in Africa, while there are hundreds from 50,000 BP in Europe.
Maybe it's similar to why very few skeletons from prehistoric Japan and the earliest cultures there even though we know for a fact that people did live there at those times.

>(how convenient, it started in Africa! We really are all africans!)
Yeah man it's a conspiracy by da joos to discredit da european achievements.

What the hell is D and E in that image?

Early Proto-Plane Scene.

D is very early beads (jewellery) and I'm not sure about E, looks like it's indicating use, I think there was something used to grind ochre found at that site, so it might be that.

>Yeah man it's a conspiracy by da joos to discredit da european achievements.

or you know, it could be anthropology is a science prone (the most prone) to human fashions and ideas of the time, as well as science time and time again being proven wrong later because 'discoveries' were made that fit with the era's preconceived notions.

You people are fine with accepting "scientific racism" and its bias within anthropology 100 years ago, but you can't believe there would be a humanist, egalitarian bias today?

Nothing to do with the jews

There were literally no modern humans in Europe at the time this ochre was engraved.

So modern humans bred with Neanderthals (who have estimated to have been in Europe from 600,000 to 250,000), in Europe around 100,000 years ago but they don't get to be classified as modern humans?

>they're another species!
>oh, but they can have fertile offspring with humans...

seems pretty racist to me....

Tigers, leopards, and lions can all interbreed as well. As can horse, donkeys, and zebras. Occasionally they can produce viable, fertile young.

Different human human species weren't any different.

Only modern humans are left, our cousins the Neanderthal were in Europe at the time, we were and are related still.

I understand that, I'm trying to point out the susceptibility of anthropology to cultural mores and fashions, which was my main point.

As in, if Aborigines were extinct, we wouldn't have a problem classifying them as a different human species, but we all lump everyone together now because a vague sense of humanistic naivete.

It should be Homo Europa/Asia ("modern humans aka common ancestor mixing with Neanderthals), Homo Africanus (common ancestor), and Homo Polynesia/whatever (common ancestor mixing with denisovians)

Your divisions are arbitrary.

>As in, if Aborigines were extinct, we wouldn't have a problem classifying them as a different human species, but we all lump everyone together now because a vague sense of humanistic naivete.
Except Neanderthals are much more genetically distant from humans than Eurasians are from Aborigines. And the fact that Eurasians and Aborigines are able to interbreed perfectly fine as well, while this clearly wasn't true with Neanderthals and Sapiens.

Nice try though.

>It should be Homo Europa/Asia ("modern humans aka common ancestor mixing with Neanderthals)
All non-Africans, and many Africans, have Neanderthal ancestry.

yes because in the magical world of PC anthropology, a different species mixing with each group equals the same species.

>Red=red
>red+blue=red
>red+green=red

in the world of anthropology.

Many species distinctions are arbitrary, if life had one origin (abiogenisis) then all life is literally related (distant cousins).

the DNA we have from Neanderthals is really low though, 6% or something

What color is this?

>Except Neanderthals are much more genetically distant from humans than Eurasians are from Aborigines

source?

...

all colors come from white, and therefore have a common ancestor. So I don't differentiate.

There are different african groups who have a common ancestor reaching further back from each other than most white/asians have with africans.

if I put a single drop of blue paint in my red paint isn't it still basically red paint?

Well all those populations also mutated and evolved on their own in 80,000 years since they separated into different environments, the change didn't only come from inter-breeding.

Pretty shit tier logic there, friendo. We do actually have empirical ways to test the "sameness" of humans through gene sequencing. We're all very, very, very similar. The amount of statistical genetic variation among every single human being on earth is less than that of chimpanzees in different communities. We're really weird.

There is no set time for speciation to occur, see Homo erectus.

ok? doesn't mean shit. If you don't have a need for evolution, you won't evolve.

Just because they have share a common ancestor but have stayed in the same environment, doesn't mean other populations can't evolve almost to the point of another species in a totally different environment. Alligators havent evolved for millions of years.

>tfw the Toba Eruption actually happened.

>The amount of statistical genetic variation among every single human being on earth is less than that of chimpanzees in different communities. We're really weird.

you don't know how genes work. We also share 50% genes of a banana, did you know that?

>Alligators havent evolved for millions of years.
Holy shit, graduate high school before posting.

80,000 years isn't that long though in terms of evolution

wut m8? that's a completely unrelated fact

I dont see your point. see if you don't have a need for evolution (i.e. stay in same environment, stable climate) you wont evolve. Speciation occurs when groups diverge into different locations (like...how the asians europeans and africans are on different continents). 80,000 years is more than enough time to speciate.

All you people pointing out genetics, you realize the man who discovered DNA, James D Watson said

>there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"

you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution is relative to lifespan, and bottleneck occurrences can greatly mutate entire populations.

>powers of reason

>Speciation occurs when groups diverge into different locations (like...how the asians europeans and africans are on different continents). 80,000 years is more than enough time to speciate.
yet you don't have actual data showing that there is speciation. like another user has said genetic testing has shown that humans are all extremely closely related. more so than most other species

Can I ask? Wuhhhhhh??? What am I missing here

>yet you don't have actual data showing that there is speciation

you're right, except for cranial capacity, skull shape, skeleton shape, fast-twitch musculature organization, hair texture, skin color, written language, large-scale social organization, use of the wheel, prevalence to certain diseases, you know basically everything we us to classify species.

Btw, we share 65% of our DNA with crows (making them by and whole more related to humans than you are to your own grandmother!) and they have been known to use tools. Maybe we should say 'fuck it' and classify them as humans?

source
>cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/gould-science.pdf

and

>Odokuma, et al. (2010) found a mean cranial volume of 1271; they conclude the following:

>The findings in this study are similar to previous studies (Morton, 1839) where the mean cranial volume of the skulls of whites was 1,425 cm3, while that of the Blacks was 1,278 cm3. Based on the measurement of 144 skulls of Native Americans, Morton (1839) reported a figure of 1,344 cm3.

I was just talking about this today. humans when intermixed blend together yet most animals dont do this you will get some offspring that have the coloration of the mother and some that have the coloration of the father. Humans are really weird.

>brain size is more important than structures

>All hail the whale Übermensch.

>some offspring that have the coloration of the mother and some that have the coloration of the father. Humans are really weird.

see mendelian genetics

neat, I didn't think about including whales as humans too. Then maybe you'd have a point, because brain size definitely matters in similar species.

have a source

darkwing.uoregon.edu/~tasa/Anthropology 362 - Week X.pdf

birds on the other hand do blend together over time. I'm guessing it has to do with the time span of their evolution and being mammalian.

>Flynn Effect

>Intergenerational IQ level increases with continued residence in the US and acculturation

>Is Intelligence a Single Thing That Is Intelligence a Single Thing That Can Be Measured by an IQ Test Can Be Measured by an IQ Test?

>Some say yes, others note that there are many different types of Some say yes, others note that there are many different types of intelligence, some of which intelligence, some of which may not be assessed as well by conventional IQ tests may not be assessed as well by conventional IQ tests

>80,000 years is more than enough time to speciate.
Very very few human populations have been really isolated for that long. FST distance between populations is less than 0.12

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

You're more genetically different from a woman from your own race than a man of say, the Black race. It's meaningless. Dogs come in all shapes and sizes and still interbreed. Mutts are typically healthier because pure breeds tend to develop defects from inbreeding. Why does anyone care? What do you gain from judging people based on statistics? Does carrying hate around in your heart make you happy?