Comments on: 100,000 Year-Old Incised Ochre Found At Blombos Cave

By: just86

just86 — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:22:56 +0000

There’s a larger image of the lighter ochre with a braid-like pattern at this address

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iRlaVQLFd_Q/SYLyXWKrnJI/AAAAAAAABrs/RXrwDPE7fss/s1600-h/Blombos+2.jpg

By: just86

just86 — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:39:35 +0000

The larger lighter piece of ochre on top has a braid-like pattern that looks bit too complex to be scoring (if you can find a larger image of it). It almost looks like it could be figurative.

By: Rahim

Rahim — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:08:13 +0000

I think these finds are great, but I wish all the symbolic and what people think it means would stop. One thing is it proves Africa is the mother of all civilizations and not so Caucasian Europeans as taught in school. Herodotus is not the father of African’s civilization, he is the father of Caucasian’s civilization because Herod stumbled upon Egypt/Kemet and was taught the mysteries and sciences they use to this very day.

By: catnipcalgary

catnipcalgary — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:28:49 +0000

While I am also no anthropologist or stone mason, I am familiar with the cave drawings at Lascaux, France, and have been to South Africa and local N. American Native sites where there are etchings, drawings and other symbolic markings. As with any science that incorporates ‘theory’, there are many theories or suggestions as to what certain things were used for, meant, or are. Since the only ones who could answer these questions are extinct, we have only our own experience, history and imagination to rely on for answers.

I, for one, think we need to keep an open mind as to what these artifacts are, and what they were used for, as it has been proven time and time again – we keep getting it wrong, or at least new information is added to change the prevailing theories. Like how old homo sapiens are, or whether or not Neanderthals were capable of speech. I like it that we can interpret these things many ways, and according to our own biases, we will believe whatever proves OUR points. Just as the anthropologists are human and base their ideas and theories on more than just the artifact at hand. They are guessing, but at least they are giving us some novel ideas to ponder.

We will continue to find items that throw older theories onto the scrap heap, and so whatever is known NOW is but the latest. Technology also adds to the equation of what we do and don’t know, or can prove.

I recently saw this program on local public t.v. and found it all very fascinating. I am not religious, yet think that many people have always felt a need to believe in something, so artifacts can symbolize these belief systems. Be they the sun, a bird, or ‘god’. I guess it’s just a human trait that some have, and some don’t. Just like modern societies.

By: Boogliodemus

Boogliodemus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:54:53 +0000

While I ‘m not a stone mason or an Anthrpologist, it seems to me that by scoring or incising the soft rock, it would make it easier to grind it down to make the powdered rock. It also says that these areas had been ground down. Why do Anthropologists always try to attach symbolic, religious or ritual to things like this? For example, the female figurines found in Germany. It may very well have been something other than making it easier to reduce to powder, but that information is not in the article. It seems like fanciful exaggeration in order to get attention from outlets like Discovery or the BBC, to maximize exposure and by inference, reputation.