8 comments

  • amatecha 1 hour ago
    The X's on the animal forms (Fig. 1B) ... isn't that likely to be "hit here" type markings, for hunting reference? Shoulder, side, stomach... surprised this wasn't really touched on in the paper, since it seems really likely. Though, the paper doesn't seem to care so much about the actual meanings, seemingly just narrowing down the number of possible interpretations /shrug
    • shimman 47 minutes ago
      Interesting comment, I remember something similar about how researchers thought hairstyles depicted in paintings or statues were unrealistic but it wasn't until a hairstylist pointed out that you can sew the hair together:

      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-woman-is-a-ha...

      I've also heard similar stories about people working with leather recognizing some set of artifacts as being more useful for work rather than ceremonial.

      Here's of video of creating a roman Vestal Virgins hairstyle:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9JYWh1r7U

      I bet there are many more similar stories yet to be told.

  • kazinator 47 minutes ago
    > Humans have carved visual signs into the surfaces of mobile artifacts [...]

    And, undoubtedly, while doing so, some of them walked into something and got hurt.

  • WalterBright 2 hours ago
    They could also be simply idle doodling or decorations.
    • bryanlarsen 2 hours ago
      Too bad we don't have a paper that applies information theory techniques to answer that question. Oh wait...
      • WalterBright 2 hours ago
        I remain skeptical. Pictures in clouds.
    • KevinMS 1 hour ago
      considering there are so many of them I think you are right.
  • bikenaga 8 hours ago
    [dead]
  • truhistory 3 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • baxtr 2 hours ago
      Created two new accounts to push your narrative?
      • truhistory 2 hours ago
        .
        • CupricTea 2 hours ago
          Artifacts from 700kya were not left by anatomically modern humans.
        • lovich 2 hours ago
          Oh good, is Jesus part of this narrative too I assume given the 2000 years reference?

          Edit: he deleted his comments, he mentioned something about a Waterford axe and every conflict for the past 2000 years being to hide this information. Also something about going to war for gods

    • SetTheorist 2 hours ago
      https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35863186

      12,500 years ago seems to be a more sensible and evidence-based estimate.

    • mikert89 3 hours ago
      Its wild how far off a lot of the mainstream "consensus" takes on this are.
    • mcswell 2 hours ago
      I think some responders have been misled here, falling victim to Poe's Law. Because you are joking, right? Right?
  • ponklife 3 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • iberator 2 hours ago
    Ha! And someone today at HN laughed at the research of monkeys playing with crystals...

    Maybe one day we could communicate with monkeys with marbles and crystals and stuff as SIGN language.

    Imagine monkey soldiers becoming reality in AI WARS.

    • citizenpaul 1 hour ago
      Sorry to be the wet blanket. However research on monkeys/apes has for the most part proven that their intelligence is at a dead end and never can progress past what is basically around human 2yo level.
      • Xss3 4 minutes ago
        That really depends how you measure and define intelligence and does a disservice to them.

        Toddlers for example dont tend to have gang wars for territories and certainly couldnt do battle outcome predictions from a glance at a group across thick canopy and the sounds of branches and hollering.

      • keeganpoppen 1 hour ago
        well that surely seems to be empirically true...