• Dogyote@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s been called out for decades now. Explaining the situation every time a non-European site predates a European site of the same type would be beating a dead horse.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      But without that explanation, the claim that the Indonesia site supports the Africa hypothesis isn’t true—and it actually reinforces the same Eurocentrism that motivates hypothesis 2.

      On the face of it, the claim that representational art originated wherever we find the earliest evidence of it seems innocent enough. And if you really believe it innocently, the Indonesia site doesn’t affect your belief one way or the other. It’s only if you had an underlying Eurocentric motive for believing the earliest-evidence theory that the Indonesia site motivates you to switch to the alternative theory (which at least still credits the direct ancestors of Europeans with the invention of art). So saying the new site supports the Africa theory is taking for granted the Eurocentric worldview that would motivate that switch.

      • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I do not follow your logic at all. It seems like you’re trying really hard to find some racism that just isn’t there.