Hi Ed, (KH) >> I can't help but chuckle at some of the interpretations made by some of >the >> more refined anthropologists (such as museum curators). For example, the >> drawings in the Lascaux caves are often considered to be proof of man's >> religious instincts. Why can't they simply be drawings that they made in >> order to teach their teenage sons various hunting strategies during the >> dark winter evenings? (I'm not suggesting that early man didn't have >> religious instincts -- far from it, I'm sure he did.) (EW) >My personal opinion is that they are works of art in the purest sense, but >with religious significance, much like, say, a Botticelli Madonna. And as >works of art, some of them are truly superb, ranking with the best graphic >art anyone has ever produced. Hunters and gatherers did not teach their >young by using diagrams or drawings. They took them hunting and gathering.
They are indeed superb drawings, but I find it significant that they were all of animals they hunted and with, occasionally, hunters themselves. I've often wished that someone might find just one cave with a drawing of a human face. Now that would be something! I can't buy your Botticelli analogy. But I don't think we need to quarrel about this one. It's unlikely we'll ever find out what was in the mind of the artists. Keith __________________________________________________________ �Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
