|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Traditional African tool resembles a stone axe |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
Anew 36 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 18:58
|
||
|
Here's something interesting, flickr member Eric Lafforgue has posted a photo of a traditional African man holding a stone which i'm certain in any European archaeological context would be called a stone axe . But within this African context it is a shaping tool for the horns of the tribe's cattle, and believed as such to have magical properties . Through its use, the tribespeople can bring the curvature of the horns to what they believe is optimum . Here is a link : http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/7751356968 That cattle were of significant importance in the British Stone Age is (to me) well established by such things as the, (for many years prior), curated skull found in the ditch at Stonehenge and what i take to be ancient peckings of bucrania, (the symbol of a horned cattle-skull), in one of the stones; the tooth and caudal vertebra found beneath Silbury Hill by Dean Merewether ; a site in Scotland, news of which is available through the following link, http://www.stonepages.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3095, of which it is said : "the discovery of what archaeologists believe to be the ritually deposited skulls of 10 cattle built into the wall of a Neolithic structure that may have been attached to the main farmhouse . Some of the skulls are interlocking and all appear to be positioned upside down, with horns sticking into the ground." . And in particular, by Julian Thomas's book Understanding the Neolithic, (ISBN 0-415-20767-3), where in figure 2.5 (p.27) he shows the ratio of (mostly) domestic cattle, pig and sheep bone finds . In the early Neolithic, finds tend to be weighted (significantly) toward cattle and sheep, both herd animals . The later Neolithic sees a sharp rise in the frequency of pig bones, (pigs are not considered a good herd animal) . The case he makes, and which i find persuasive, is that in many places the transition from hunter-gatherer to sedentary farming societies included a period of pastoralism in which cattle were held in an esteem comparable to that of people . Traditional African societies today are said in some cases to name their cattle and sing to them, (whom they seldom kill, preferring to drink their milk and blood for nourishment), so this is demonstratedly within the compass of human behavior . They also risk their lives to steal them from other tribes... Within this context one might want to reconsider the finding of a jadeite axe head, http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/j/jadeite_axe-head.aspx, by the Sweet Track in Somerset (England) in connection with the folk tradition of bathing cattle once a year in a bog and leaving butter behind as an offering, http://www.stonepages.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3098 . If shaping cattle horns with tools resembling an axe was in that region a ritual which accompanied a bath for them in that bog, the axe might have been left ~ in a known place ~ to gather its magic for use next time, and to be available to the bog faeries (or those in the upside down world) for their use in between . Within this hypothetical, at some point the knowledge was lost and it remained where it was until modern times . That particular axe is so immaculate a piece that there is question whether it was ever used ; it may also be significantly sharper than is desired for the task of shaping horns, (i don't know) . Whether horn is as taxing a material as wood and would have left indelible signs of use in the manner prescribed, i am unable to say. I do not argue that axes found in British/Irish/European contexts generally were not used to cut and shape wood . But it seems a possibility that some had or had also a use as described above . Whether the same tool would have served for both purposes, one ritual the other generally secular, may have depended on the relative wealth of those involved ... but i imagine were the need to be perceived, some rehoning/reshaping of the edge (to what sharpness was desired) and polishing of the faces might have accompanied a ritual cleansing. This post is based upon one i made as 'Anew' to the 'Alternative Theories' forum of stonepages.com.
|
|||
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Dec 06, 2012, 15:46
|
||
|
Thank you. I've just finished reading "People of the Long Barrows" with its discussions of human skulls and rereading descriptions of the Herto skulls. What is it with skulls? Animal and human? The paleolithic antlered "shaman"? Fascinating bit of ethnology you've dug up!
|
|||
|
Anew 36 posts |
Dec 06, 2012, 23:28
|
||
|
Thanks for the response . Ethnology is fascinating and this piece was completely unexpected. I had not heard of the Herto skulls, but looked them up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herto_Man I don't know quite where to place that at this point. Skulls are the most expressive of bones, and the most characteristic . That would be my guess as to why they were curated . Curation of long-bones besides is something of a puzzle to me ...
|
|||
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Dec 07, 2012, 06:07
|
||
|
I definitely don't know enough about this to be dependable, but... It's beginning to seem to me that there are two very different concepts involved. Or perhaps, not VERY different to modern minds, but at least discriminatable to the ancients. Skulls/heads are referenced in dozens of ancient traditions. Here's a few off the top of my head (so to speak, "ouch"). 1. Human/animal hybribs: Paleolithic up through historic: the Lion Man; the antlered shaman; the Khorsabad winged human headed bulls; a dozen Egyptian hybrid gods. 2. Skulls/heads: Herto skulls (assuming they weren't anomalies); Catal Huyuk bucrania and headless figures under vultures; Natufian decorated skulls from Jordan; "Celtic heads" in hundreds of sculptures, Celtic heads as war trophies; possible discriminations of skulls in English Neolithic barrows. On the other hand, as you reference, there are probably just as many instances of long bone discrimination/organizing and whole skeleton interments in at least the English/western Mediterranean traditions. Not to mention the instances of seemingly indiscriminate cremated remains. So it seems to me there must have been, almost right from the start, some kind of recognition/imagination that the head has/had a special significance as opposed to the rest of the body. The sub-skull body still had significance, in certain times and places, but its meaning must have been different. Holy Toledo, there have to be a dozen PhD theses here. Databases, databases!
|
|||
|
Anew 36 posts |
Dec 08, 2012, 21:44
|
||
|
Here's something to consider : http://www.flickr.com/photos/mytripsmypics/6114956627/in/set-72157608644175542/ This tribe made sport of their dead enemy's tibias . Good reason to protect those of one's own dead i suppose . Keep 'em in the barrow where they're safe .
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |
