« Bigfoot and Bison Hair
Main
Where is the Public Outrage? »
July 29, 2005
Scroll Fragments, S536 and Ice Age Phalluses
I take this occasion to update three unrelated items in the general category of archaeology on which I have previously commented.
First, Tyler Williams of Codex has a new picture of the Leviticus scroll fragments and a list of his excellent posts on the subject. The picture is very clear. Nothing earth shaking in the new post but interesting none-the-less. I wrote about this here.
Second, Progressive Reaction has a blow by blow update of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee Hearing on S536. This is the bill that would, among other things, greatly extend Native American rights to skeletal remains even if they can't prove that the remains belong to any tribe. If the proposed language stands, scientists would not be able to study future Kennewick Man like finds. The proposed language, in fact the whole issue of who has rights to the remains of humans found in the U. S. , is a example of government involving itself in creationist religious views. The fact that they are Indian creationist views makes them no more worthy than any others. Progressive Reaction provides suggestions for how you can help the Senate do the right thing. You can find my comments on this here.
Finally, Alun (who I seem to be citing fairly often, he is that abnormal) has a long and thoughtful essay on the 28,000 year old phallus that I mentioned the other day and the whole issue of sexuality among the ancients. He makes several very good points,
Despite the wails of those who would lament the increasing visibility of sexuality in the modern era, we probably live in a much less sexed era than antiquity.
He even notes that we cannot be sure of the sex of the user of the phallus. He does indicate that finding what appears to be a male sexual object provides some balance against the more common (or more commonly found) female sexual representations from the Ice Age.
So at the moment there’s not a lot that can be said about this latest discovery. Certainly it helps balance out the current inequality in representations of male and female sexuality in the Ice Age, but what it tells us about sex in the Ice Age is harder to say. Most confusingly it is unlikely to have had just one use. As the press release . . . states, it also appears to have been used for flint-knapping, which would suggest that it had at least two uses.
My original comments are here.
Posted by Duane Smith at July 29, 2005 3:40 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1288