Porn sure has improved over the millenia.
Though Unk was a big hit at parties with his collection of shells.
The oldest example of our ancestors' artistic talents has been unearthed, after spending over a century hiding in plain view. Early art on mussel shell Primitive doodle by primitive The artifact in question is a mussel shell found near the bones of a member of the species Homo Erectus in the 1890s by Dutch paleontologist …
> Though Unk was a big hit at parties with his collection of shells.
Until the Tribal Elders, spurred on after a campaign by the Daily News Rock (Prop: Murr Dok) outlawed this shell art as it was corrupting the minds of youngsters, proven after a series of incidents involving the new discovery of fire (resulting from the excessive rubbing of sticks)
How do they know that this particular shell wasn't actually eaten, or at least rolled around in a shark's mouth,hence causing the scratches and was later picked up by Homo Erectus as he strolled along the beach looking for shiny things.
The story does appear to be a little bit far fetched.
well... you mean besides the fact that mollusc-eating species of shark simply crush the shell, and don't even have the teeth to make this kind of impression?
The shell in question shows the specific type of tool use described in the article to get it to open ( easily done with a shark tooth, if you've got an opposable tumb..), and is scratched on the inside in a way that takes several passes to get even that shallow identation, showing clear intent ( or casual boredom...) Calling it "art" is stretching things a bit though.
>not been to a gallery lately then?
In that case, and since it's Friday, it might actually be the very first represention of the PHB, quickly scribbled down by the PFY as he awaited the BOFH to finish telling the local police that he had seen someone sodomising a wooly mammoth and that they had managed to do a quick artists impression on this inside of a shell.
not been to a gallery lately then?
Tom 7,
Why yes. I have been. I decided to shelve my prejudices and go to Tate Modern. Rather than getting my opinions of modern art from the press and TV, I decided it was better to give it a fair crack of the whip.
After a couple of hours, I found myself in one particular gallery full of crap paintings and I heard somenone say (rather loudly), "this is all utter bollocks!" I must say I found myself in full agreement with their opinion, and looked round to see who this perceptive individual was.
Only to see everyone else looking around too, and at me. On replaying the voice in my head, I realised that the person speaking had been me. And decided that this was a good time to beat a tactical retreat to the cafe, and consume a pot of tea, and a very large cake. Modern art and I seemingly don't get on...
I'm with you, I Ain't Spartacus. SWMBO dragged me round the Hepworth. After I'd restrained myself suitably, I was rewarded with tea and cake in the cafe which overlooks the river. There was a small whirlpool directly under where we sat and it had attracted a collection of flotsam.
"That's rather ugly", she said, "They could have cleared that up."
"No!", I replied, "That's an installation! It's called 'The Journey My Heart Took". The artist has collected a naturally wind-fallen branch from everywhere she has ever lived and trapped them in a cage hidden under the surface of the water to circle endlessly without ever repeating the exact sequence of events."
"Oh, is it?"
"No, of course it bloody isn't but the fact that you could think it might be, even for an instant, should tell you a lot about the other 'art' we've seen tonight!"
"Perhaps Unk did it while he waited for his elder sister...."
Is that the brother and sister who were taught by their mum? A renowned landscape artist who specialised photo-realistic landscape watercolours on large sheets of bleached paper, which were burned after a week in homage to the gods?.
I think that given it's 500,000 years old, it doesn't really matter a bugger what it means. Just the fact of it alone is awesome.
For my part, I think it reflects the existence of commerce at the time. The engravings probably translate into Best before ...
If I was in any way a Homo type thing, would I bother to take a long time to make a neat little hole at the bottom of a shell followed by fiddling around with a sharp stick to cut the muscle to open it? I'd just smack the hinge with a small stone or perhaps put it in the embers of the fire ...
Looks like an 'adornment' piece to me like a bangle or necklace - the hole is for a cord of some kind. Perhaps it is some kind inscription - could be Erectus for 'Ug's necklace', or may even be the Homo version of a Rosetta shirt ...
O.K. they can age the shell but how do they know when the marks were made?
If they'd been made say 100,000 years ago would they look any different now?
I expect the experts have worked this one out, its just a pity that this vital bit is missing from the article. (It's also missing from the fuller story on nature.com.