Don't forget, they look so eroded because the sculptures have been eroding for 8,000+ years.
Also, the original article (original with regard the this HN thread, not the older article you linked to) talked about examining the tool marks. It's not just examining the large shape, it's about seeing the method of construction on a smaller scale.
It’s annoying that an article with this title has such a poor picture, even though much better ones are a quick search away. They talk about mind-boggling realism, but you would not believe it just from this photo. Thanks for the link!
I never realized that camels originated in the Americas
In contrast to popular wisdom, the camel did not originate in the Sahel or Levant. They apparently evolved in North America around 45 million years ago. From there they spread to South America (becoming alpacas, llamas and so on), Asia, and Africa some time in the Pleistocene, say the archaeologists. That isn't saying much, as the Pleistocene spans about 2.5 million years to 11,000 years ago.
Anyway, based on camel remains, it seems the splay-footed quadrupeds reached Arabia in the Holocene, at least 7,000 years ago. (Camels are believed to have reached ancient Israel only about 3,000 years ago.)
I wonder how many places have the geology for these massive stone walls that can be carved and ... folks saw it and thought "Man we should make this really big sculpture!".
My imagination makes me think that it's a pretty obvious thing to do for any number of reasons and that there have been quite a few that have been lost to time.
As evidenced by the amount of grafitti in public places, people just really like leaving their mark wherever they can. There's grafitti in ancient ruins that (aside from the language) could be mistaken for grafitti in a bathroom stall. People are just gonna people.
This is exactly the example I was trying to remember. I love things like this because it helps take the past off a pedestal. We've been the same raunchy species from the beginning.
This is exactly why I doubt all the expert opinions on cave art. "This undoubtedly had ritual significance." BS. It was probably just some teenagers screwing around.
I wouldn't go too far in the opposite direction though. Teenagers screwing around is more likely to be lewd carvings than life-size carvings of a camel.
A rule of thumb I've heard is that "ritual significance" is code for either "we have no idea" or "probably a sex toy", depending on context. In cases like this, I think the default assumption should be "probably art".
"ritual" is a pretty general term that doesn't quite match its colloquial meaning and generally doesn't have anything to do with sex toys. Imagine you find an old PCB that you weren't quite sure the purpose of. Is it unfair to call it "electronic" when there's a more specific term that could be applied if you knew what its purpose was? The same objection applies equally to "art".
Much of the cave art required people to go deep into hard to access areas of caves. People created the art over long periods of time. Many of the pieces incorporated elements of the cave wall to enhance the 3D realism of the figures. These were not simple scratching done at random, they were done with care and intent by people with skill.
It sounds like you only skim read the first paragraph.
The article says they were thought to be 2000 years old but have recently been found to be 6000 years older than that. The second paragraph makes the new dating range explicit.
They didn't miss the article you were referring to, they were just assuming you had read the topic article as well.
The article your read refers to 2,000 year old sculptures because it was written years before the research that added 6,000 years, not because they're different camels.
I read both, and they have different pictures. The original article, with the older time estimate, had a much more worn camel pic than the other one with the 2000 year estimate. Hence my wondering if that maybe means something.
Unfortunately it's vague whether or not the different pictures are from different time periods, different sites, or what exactly.
Wow, that sounds like something right out of the Babylon Bee. I really don't envy the folks at the Bee - it's hard to make up satire that's weirder and more outrageous than the actual truth!
