I raise my glass for him.

First and foremost, as I type this I received an e-mail informing me of the passing of Dave Golub.  My sympathys go to all his friends and family.  My prayers are with you.

(moment of silence)

I think that the differences between the Indian mounds and the Lascaux cave shows an important distinction we have to make:  art is not always religious.  While much of the old art is religious in nature, there is a fine line we have to walk.  While the art in Lascaux cave is very much commemorating something, it is not overtly religious, whereas the Indian mounds are obviously symbolic for something of larger importance.  Collin said it well when he said "These could be drawings/paintings of an example like Mickey Mouse: they could be just pictures, no real significance.".  There are many symbols that are important, but not religious.  The Lascaux caves would have to fall in to that category.

I'm not even sure how the argument that the Lascaux caves are religious can even be made.  Using the definition of religion that we came up with in class, it doesn't really meet any of the criteria.  One of the biggest things we came up with was that religion was a social thing, and Lascaux doesn't have that.  The only psuedo-religious picture in the caves was in a room that was scarcely used.  Also, there is no set of symbols.  There is one picture.  No repeated patterns, no nothing.  Finally, and most tellingly, there is no evidence of a system of belief that gave them a view of the world.  And even if they did have the other two things, if the third part is not in there, then it is not a religion.  Lascaux can't really account for any of the major things needed to be a religion.

And so we conclude the fourth posting.  It's not so difficult to write, once you really know what you're writing.  On a side note, I'm quite curious as to how many people read this.  But, eh, I doesn't really matter.

Have a pleasant end to your weekend.