‘Landmark paper’ shows why ice age Europeans wore jewelry

[dlamberth]

Human migration I find very interesting.

"Pendants and beads reveal nine cultures living across the continent 30,000 years ago"

https://www.science.org/content/article/landmark-paper-shows-why-ice-age-europeans-wore-jewelry

 

[Tuur]

The article is interesting and does seem to show different cultures. But defining cultures by the jewelry and knowing why it was worn are two different things. Without a written record, there's no way of knowing. The one thing not mentioned in the article is maybe the biggest reason people wear jewelry now: style. It could simply be from a desire to look good.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The article is interesting and does seem to show different cultures. But defining cultures by the jewelry and knowing why it was worn are two different things. Without a written record, there's no way of knowing. The one thing not mentioned in the article is maybe the biggest reason people wear jewelry now: style. It could simply be from a desire to look good.

I was going to say: as much as can be said about anything cultural or whatever, at the end of the day, throughout human history... we like the opportunity to look nice.

 

[dlamberth]

It's the sub-cultures and how they are identified that found interesting in the article. One of the ways is through adornment which is seems to be a basic human trait that can be followed through cultures.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's the sub-cultures and how they are identified that found interesting in the article. One of the ways is through adornment which is seems to be a basic human trait that can be followed through cultures.

Oh, that reminded of when I went to an outdoor exhibition at one of the Bronze Age barrows on Anglesey. One of the people there was giving a talk about artefacts found across Britain, especially Wales, and he mentioned amber. Now amber is not really a common find in Britain, at least in the Bronze Age, but it was very common in the Baltic's, so any amber we find in the British sites would be few and far between. But any we do find would be found in the graves of people of importance.

 

[Tuur]

It's the sub-cultures and how they are identified that found interesting in the article.

Me, too. It would be interesting to see if jewelry correlates with types of pottery. What if it turns out that the bell beakers found in Europe are also found with two different cultures of pottery?

 

[Chesterton]

Human migration I find very interesting.

"Pendants and beads reveal nine cultures living across the continent 30,000 years ago"

https://www.science.org/content/article/landmark-paper-shows-why-ice-age-europeans-wore-jewelry

While I find the article interesting, I take exception to science claiming to answer a "why" question like this. Why one life form made and wore jewelry when others like giraffes and bears didn't, or why one life form made representative art on cave walls when others like monkeys and wolves didn't, is a religious/philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

While I find the article interesting, I take exception to science claiming to answer a "why" question like this. Why one life form made and wore jewelry when others like giraffes and bears didn't, or why one life form made representative art on cave walls when others like monkeys and wolves didn't, is a religious/philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Why exactly is it a religious/philosophical question?

 

[Chesterton]

Why exactly is it a religious/philosophical question?

I think the burden may be on you to tell me if you think it's a scientific question. The reason being - I clicked on this thread because of the title "Landmark paper shows why..." and it came from a site called science.org. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm gullible, but I read the article only to find that the title is clickbait. The article says nothing about why humans wear jewelry or make art other than one or two sentences of speculation. Speculation is not "doing science".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think the burden may be on you to tell me if you think it's a scientific question. The reason being - I clicked on this thread because of the title "Landmark paper shows why..." and it came from a site called science.org. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm gullible, but I read the article only to find that the title is clickbait. The article says nothing about why humans wear jewelry or make art other than one or two sentences of speculation. Speculation is not "doing science".

No, the burden is on you: why is it a religious/philosophical question? How is the making of and the wearing of jewellery a religious and/or philosophical question and not a question for the sciences?

Humans have the intelligence and manual dexterity to make jewellery, same with cave art. Humans are the only creatures who can do that. The day a giraffe makes a necklace from stones, it'll be world wide news.

 

[Chesterton]

Humans are the only creatures who can do that.

You answered your own question. Science studies nature, and does so in accordance with methodological naturalism. Humans do things which uniquely occur outside of nature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You answered your own question. Science studies nature, and does so in accordance with methodological naturalism. Humans do things which uniquely occur outside of nature.

And how is archaeology, the subheading and subdivision that the article is in, not counted as science?

 

[Chesterton]

And how is archaeology, the subheading and subdivision that the article is in, not counted as science?

I didn't say archaeology isn't science. It is. My problem is that, as described in the title, the archaeology in this case doesn't provide the answer that the title of the article indicates that it provides.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't say archaeology isn't science. It is. My problem is that, as described in the title, the archaeology in this case doesn't provide the answer that the title of the article indicates that it provides.

Your entire argument is nonsensical.

 

[Chesterton]

Your entire argument is nonsensical.

Okay, then can you please copy and paste the section of the article which explains why ice age Europeans wore jewelry? Maybe I missed it. And by "explain", I mean a scientific explanation, not a speculation which any layperson can make.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay, then can you please copy and paste the section of the article which explains why ice age Europeans wore jewelry? Maybe I missed it. And by "explain", I mean a scientific explanation, not a speculation which any layperson can make.

Tuur said it himself in the second post: without a written records, we have no way of knowing. BUT since humans, while different in cultures, share many common factors, two of which are the desire to look good if the situation allows (heck, we can even call this one natural since all animals like to look good during mating season and humans have the horrible biological fact of being almost always in season when we reach a certain age) and also to just do and create things since we have the intelligence level to actually get bored and ask things like "What would it look like if I put a string of sinew through this brightly coloured stone/shell?"

Also, the post you'll actually want to read is in here, which is the actual paper the article is talking about, but sadly it's paywalled which is such a crime since I do want to read it too.

Your idea that we need a 100% verifiable certainty before we say anything about the past is laughably worthless it's sad.

 

[Chesterton]

Tuur said it himself in the second post: without a written records, we have no way of knowing.

Yes, and you might notice I agreed with his post.

BUT since humans, while different in cultures, share many common factors, two of which are the desire to look good if the situation allows (heck, we can even call this one natural since all animals like to look good during mating season and humans have the horrible biological fact of being almost always in season when we reach a certain age) and also to just do and create things since we have the intelligence level to actually get bored and ask things like "What would it look like if I put a string of sinew through this brightly coloured stone/shell?"

Yes, and a 14 year old girl with virtually no science education could tell us the same.

Also, the post you'll actually want to read is in here, which is the actual paper the article is talking about, but sadly it's paywalled which is such a crime since I do want to read it too.

It may sound like I'm harping on the article title, but I don't think I need to read the actual paper. If science.org writes an article about a paper, and doesn't include the sensational information which the article title suggests is in the paper, it's a safe bet that the information is also not in the actual paper. You know the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Your idea that we need a 100% verifiable certainty before we say anything about the past is laughably worthless it's sad.

This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. You shouldn't do that to people.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, and you might notice I agreed with his post

So what's your problem?

Yes, and a 14 year old girl with virtually no science education could tell us the same.

So what's your problem?

It may sound like I'm harping on the article title, but I don't think I need to read the actual paper. If science.org writes an article about a paper, and doesn't include the sensational information which the article title suggests is in the paper, it's a safe bet that the information is also not in the actual paper. You know the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Except that you have no way of saying that unless you actually go and look for it yourself. Which I doubt you will.

This is the second time you've put words in my mouth. You shouldn't do that to people.

I am curious, what was the first?

 

[Chesterton]

So what's your problem?

No problem.

So what's your problem?

That simply making observations about human behavior is not science. I mean, a lot of stand up comedians make a living doing that.

Except that you have no way of saying that unless you actually go and look for it yourself. Which I doubt you will.

If you came across an article about a scientific paper, with a title claiming marine biologists have discovered mermaids, yet the article actually says nothing about mermaids, would you pay to read the paper, or would you realize you've been clickbaited?

I am curious, what was the first?

You indicated that I said archaeology isn't a science when I never said that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No problem.

Except that you do have a problem.

That simply making observations about human behavior is not science. I mean, a lot of stand up comedians make a living doing that.

You've never heard of behavioural science then? Really?

If you came across an article about a scientific paper, with a title claiming marine biologists have discovered mermaids, yet the article actually says nothing about mermaids, would you pay to read the paper, or would you realize you've been clickbaited?

Well, first I'd check what the name of the website was, that would be a big indicator of whether the article would be genuine or not, and secondly I'd also see if other sites are running the same story before I even considered looking at it.

It's not clickbaiting if Science.org does not go into the absolute minutia of detail that the all powerful Chesterton from Christian Forums desires for him to take an article seriously or not. Because what you're doing is called being a pedant. If you want to find out the info, then you can actually make the effort to look for it yourself instead of insisting on being spoonfed the info then complaining that you're not getting a full course meal.

You indicated that I said archaeology isn't a science when I never said that.

Your wording indicated to me that you do not consider archaeology a science in the context given. I would not call that putting words in your mouth, that's just me making an assumption.