Comments on: Damien Hirst’s diamond encrusted Skull & Jeweled Skulls in Archaeology

By: shannon

shannon — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:48:27 +0000

Some of my friends call the art of encrusting skulls ‘distastfully mideval,’ I beg to differ. However excrusiating it must have been getting de-fleshed, it’s a tradition dating back thousands of years, as long as mankind has making shrunkin heads.

By: onix

onix — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:12:42 +0000

they are defleshed when still alive, ofcourse. i think you seek arguments not to take me serious and i dont have time to waste it like that.

By: Kambiz Kamrani

Kambiz Kamrani — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:32:33 +0000

Onix, early hominids fossils are fossils. There isn’t any flesh on a fossil.

Your argument that skulls have been remembered as a significant structure for millions of years is also horribly flawed. What do you even mean?

By: onix

onix — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:02:45 +0000

want to point out many many early hominid skull finds are suggestively stored away safely, treated, defleshed, and often found deeper in the caves then the habitation layers. the markapansgat pebble also suggests skulls were a familiar sight.
i think it is underresearched, tho i know of some (even older) attempts of compilation. the idea skulls served a memorial function for millions of years has been in the mind of more then one famous anthropologist. Also i think a comprising statistical research remains undone, the last attempt to extrapolation being from i think the 1960s.

By: A Arte de Amy Sarkisian | CURIOSIDADES NA NET

A Arte de Amy Sarkisian | CURIOSIDADES NA NET — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:11:59 +0000

[...] já é uma coisa antiga. Pesquisando pela internet encontrei um artista que simplesmente cobriu um crânio com diamantes. Amy Sarkisian não utiliza de materiais tão valiosos, mas suas obras, mesmo de valor inferior [...]

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:41:40 +0000

When chimpanzees stumble upon bones of other large animals on there foraging
trips they largely ignored them. And yet, it was noted, a chimp would pick up a scull once in a wile, and examined closely. We, as homo sapiens always have been fascinated by sculls in general and specifically with sculls of our fellow humans. From a Scythian Chieftain who would diligently work on the scull of his enemy, till the scull would be turned into a very elaborate and artfully decorated goblet, to my roommate Patrick who kept 2 crystal sculls by his bedside ( he claimed he dreams of chicks then), every culture and every people held scull
in high regard. Probably, because it is most recognizable part of the human skeleton and let’s face it, as a conversation piece on your coffee table, scull
looks much better then a shoulder plate or a hip.

By: FreeToThink

FreeToThink — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:54:32 +0000

I still think it’s dangerous to use the word ritual unless you are further describing which ritual. The jade encrusted teeth was only used because it fit the story. It raised my ire when I read of the “ritual” deaths in Mayan Caves in Belize….there were 14 skeletons with blunt force trauma to the head. That is 14 bodies. If it’s really ritual and not punishment (or justice) then I would like to know what ritual. It has been said that the deaths might be associated with the mayan moon god. Did the deaths correspond to some lunar eclipse or something? My point is…when I read an article it only say’s “ritual”…ok…what ritual…provide insight.

On the worship front. If these cultures practiced ancestor worship then why are there community gods too. How does that fit into their belief system to have a god they all believe in and a god only a few believe in?

By: Kambiz Kamrani

Kambiz Kamrani — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:00:26 +0000

FreeToThink,

I see you’re raising a very subjective argument.

Ladening a skull with jewels and precious stones is not just caring or showing interest in the skull. If your friend’s large mouth bass, and various stuffed deer hanging on his wall, were jewel encrusted, I would side on the notion that an archaeologist may interpret this as some sort of value-inscribed item. That’s because every culture that I know of, that use jewels and precious stones, have used them in context of showing value.

On that note, ritual is not an everyday thing as you imply it. Ritual is an action with symbolic meaning. Embedding jade in teeth in Mesoamerican cultures were rituals, they were symbolic representations of nobility and class.

Kambiz

By: FreeToThink

FreeToThink — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:03:46 +0000

I get so frustrated when I hear the term “ancestor worship.” Exactly how do people know that based off one piece of evidence? Yes, we humans have gone through great change over a long period of time but not really that much in some cases. My friend has a large mouth bass, and various stuffed deer hanging on his wall. Suppose for a moment in 2,000 years from now no written (or other) record survives…will future archeologist dig up his home and assume he worshipped bass and deer? When I think of the word “worship” (or ritual for that matter) I think of a much more intimate relationship than just encrusting a skull. If ancestor worship is going on then there would be much more evidence of it than one piece. I am more willing to believe that it could just be a loved one that is cared for, that is in no way an indication of worship. Caring for something/someone and worshipping something/someone are totally different all together. Indications of worship would be present in abundance in common areas shared by ALL members of that culture. That is what worship is, right? If this were a single solitary group who cut themselves off from others then I would be more willing to believe it. Just like the bass and the deer on my friends wall it could also be the head of your proud kill that someone is putting on display…could it not? I’m new to Anthropology but from what I have read so far just doesn’t satisfy me. I was under the understanding that in order to solve a problem in science you keep going until you are 100% satisfied with the results. I guess I am a cynic but just because one person said it and everyone else repeats it doesn’t satisfy me. If I am wrong in my summary then by all means point me in the direction of a report that does a better job explaining it than just calling it this and offering no real explanation. That is slippery science in my opinion!

Same goes for the use of the word “ritual.” I ritually celebrate my birthday with family and friends every year. During this ritual I get gifts etc. Recently I heard that there was a ritual use of jade in skulls in Meso America. Really? Does every skull found have jade encrusted on it. I’m not talking about some skulls with jade encrusted teeth being ritual unless all or almost all skulls are found that way. If it’s not then how is that ritual? It tells me that jade encrusted teeth were from someone of nobility or powerful etc.

I guess I am trying to say the words in my opinion are overused and therefor cheapened. It takes away from the actual meaning when you do run across it because almost everyone claims it in their work. I need to be more convinced by evidence and not just claims of it. A majority of these cultures are very advanced in various aspects of their life. To pass it off without a better explanation does not do that culture justice or give them very much credit.

By: doug l

doug l — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:02:16 +0000

Correct, a cast was made of the skull, but the teeth in the artwork are the actual human material. I presume that the original skull resides with the artist and is now wearing platinum teeth cast from its originals.