Bands, tribes, totem animals, symbolic language
darth_versive
("Hominid band sizes")
Date: 2003-06-30 09:15:09 PST
NA Sides <n...@sonic.net> wrote
>Spiznet (ma...@spiznet.com) wrote
<snip>
>>But the concept that the higher primates only have the band, yet all
>>h/g cultures bands exist in the "tribe" matrix, should raise
>>interesting questions:
>>
>>at what point did the hominid "tribe" concept evolve,
>>is it significant in the 2mya erectus radiation
>>is it tied to "language"
>>etc.
>
>Yep. Here's a few more. Is the evolution of the family connected with
>evolution of the tribe? Did tribes evolve as coalitions of closely
>related families? Since a totem clan is essentially a small tribe
>unified by a mythical affiliation with a totem animal or other
symbol,
>did totemism play a role in tribal development and perhaps in the
>development of symbolic language? Are sports teams today, which are
>typically named after animals or mythical creatures, displaying an
>ancient psychosocial dynamic that extends back to the beginnings of
>our species or before?
It seems that this thread may have some relevance to a post in a more
recent thread, where the issue under discussion is the cohesion of
bands into tribes, what role myth, ritual and symbolic language may
have played in this, and whether different capacities for this type of
thought and behavior may have had anything to do with the extinction
of the Neanderthals.
("Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?")
Date: 2003-08-07 09:01:19 PST
DV wrote:
<snip>
>When we're talking about the use of facial expressions, hand
>jestures, etc., as the primary means of communication, absent
>the kind of complex symbol-based language we have today, that
>may involve a simpler level of symbolic communication--a level
>that we might share with other hominid species, like Neanderthal
>or Homo erectus, etc., but to which we have grafted
>on a higher level of thinking and symbolic-language communication.
>Such a simpler level of symbolic thinking as expressed by such means
>as facial expressions, hand jestures, and even simple words (without
>modern syntax or grammar), might be enough to hold various bands
>together, but not enough to hold different bands themselves together
>into cohesive tribes. For that, I think, you need to have more
>complex symbolic thinking and expression, at the level of art, myth,
>ritual, and the like. And I'm very skeptical of the notion that such
>complex symbolic ideas can be communicated merely by facial
>expressions or hand jestures, etc., or by those whose minds are
>incapable of higher-level symbolic thinking. For this level of
>communication, I think we need to postulate the kind of symbolic
>thinking that modern humans engage in, and the sorts of artifacts
>(magical/ritualistic objects, etc.) and behavior patterns (sacred
>dances, etc.), and complex symbol-based language systems which we use
>today to express these ideas.
Would anyone like to discuss this issue of how bands got together and
formed tribes? And what may have held them together?
DV
Spiznet
> >Spiznet (ma...@spiznet.com) wrote
> <snip>
> >>But the concept that the higher primates only have the band, yet all
> >>h/g cultures bands exist in the "tribe" matrix, should raise
> >>interesting questions:
> >>at what point did the hominid "tribe" concept evolve,
> >>is it significant in the 2mya erectus radiation
> >>is it tied to "language"
> >>etc.
> >
> >Yep. Here's a few more. Is the evolution of the family connected with
> >evolution of the tribe? Did tribes evolve as coalitions of closely
> >related families?
> It seems that this thread may have some relevance to a post in a more
> recent thread, where the issue under discussion is the cohesion of
> bands into tribes, what role myth, ritual and symbolic language may
> have played in this, and whether different capacities for this type of
> thought and behavior may have had anything to do with the extinction
> of the Neanderthals.
> DV
The interesting thing about the last couple of weeks is the new study
claiming that a.afarensis bands were not organized like gorilla
(harem) or chimp (promiscuous) based on the 20% level of sexual
dimorphism. Instead, monogamous groupings are extrapolated, way back
further than anyone has ever before claimed or evidenced.
If this is the case, we need to build a vision of the early hominid
(at least afarensis, if not LCA) band based on studies of other
primate bands of monogamous nature, rather than chimps, which is what
we are doing in a couple of other threads. Does anyone know other
monogamous primates? I know orangs don't have bands...
Once it is determined what kind of early band structure might have
been in place (avg number of indv (20? 100? 20-100?could dramatically
change the dynamic)); paternalist or matriarchal; division of labor
(sic), etc))...
...we might be ready to see how these bands could link up together
into the larger tribal units.
Also: I'm reading that it may not be too farfetched to put language
back at least as far as the neanderthal/H.s.s. LCA (H. heidelber??) so
this would allow both H.n & H.s to have language skills.
This may hurt your "cognitive threshold" theory for Neanderthal
extinction...
-Mark
John Wilkins
Cite please? I really want to read this.
>
> If this is the case, we need to build a vision of the early hominid
> (at least afarensis, if not LCA) band based on studies of other
> primate bands of monogamous nature, rather than chimps, which is what
> we are doing in a couple of other threads. Does anyone know other
> monogamous primates? I know orangs don't have bands...
>
> Once it is determined what kind of early band structure might have
> been in place (avg number of indv (20? 100? 20-100?could dramatically
> change the dynamic)); paternalist or matriarchal; division of labor
> (sic), etc))...
>
> ...we might be ready to see how these bands could link up together
> into the larger tribal units.
>
> Also: I'm reading that it may not be too farfetched to put language
> back at least as far as the neanderthal/H.s.s. LCA (H. heidelber??) so
> this would allow both H.n & H.s to have language skills.
>
> This may hurt your "cognitive threshold" theory for Neanderthal
> extinction...
>
> -Mark
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Ross Macfarlane
...
> > The interesting thing about the last couple of weeks is the new study
> > claiming that a.afarensis bands were not organized like gorilla
> > (harem) or chimp (promiscuous) based on the 20% level of sexual
> > dimorphism. Instead, monogamous groupings are extrapolated, way back
> > further than anyone has ever before claimed or evidenced.
>
> Cite please? I really want to read this.
Copy available at this location:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/files/Papers/PDF/
Filename is "Sexual dimorphism in A afarensis similar to AMH.pdf".
If you're not already, you'll have to register as a Yahoo user & a
paleoanthro member, but if you're into the subject of PA you'll get
much better quality dialogue than you do on SAP (no wet apes, nor
seasonally dry ones either).
There are a couple of other PA groups on Yahoo but this 1 in my
opinion is the best (kudos to Mikey Brass, the moderator)...
Ross Macfarlane
Spiznet
>
> > The interesting thing about the last couple of weeks is the new study
> > claiming that a.afarensis bands were not organized like gorilla
> > (harem) or chimp (promiscuous) based on the 20% level of sexual
> > further than anyone has ever before claimed or evidenced.
>
> Cite please? I really want to read this.
> >
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of
modern humans.
Reno, Meindl, McCollum, Lovejoy(2003)
ABSTRACT excerpts: The substantial fossil record for A.afarensis
includes both an adult partial skeleton ("Lucy") and a large
simultaneous death assemblage (A.L. 333). Here we optimize data
derived from both to more accurately estimate skeletal size
dimorphism...
<snip>...These data eliminate some apparent discrepancies between
canine and skeletal size dimorphism in hominoids, imply that the
species was not characterized by substantial sexual bimaturation, and
greatly increase the probability that the reproductive strategy of A.
afarensis was principally monogamy.
Spiznet
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans
Reno, et. al. 2003
PNAS v100.16 9404-9409 8/5/03
John Wilkins
darth_versive
<snip>
> Also: I'm reading that it may not be too farfetched to put language
> back at least as far as the neanderthal/H.s.s. LCA (H. heidelber??) so
> this would allow both H.n & H.s to have language skills.
>
> This may hurt your "cognitive threshold" theory for Neanderthal
> extinction...
>
> -Mark
Mark,
You raised this same issue in an earlier post:
(Re: Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?
Date: 2003-08-06 09:32:45 PST)
Where you wrote:
<snip>
> So maybe you are suggesting that Neanderthals only had bands, but amHs
> had moved to tribal associations. This way, the actual size of the
> bands in both groups could be identical, but the larger loose
> "organization" would be missing from H.n.
>
> This position will cause disagreement from those who give Neandethal
> language skills, it would be hard to believe that each little family
> has their own unique language...
>
> Just a thought...
To which I replied:
<snip>
"Not that HSN were necessarily
completely void of these thought and behavior patterns, but it's just
that HSS were able to form more stable tribal groupings, based on a
better biological capacity to think in symbolic terms. When you think
about them, hunter-gatherer myths and rituals are really complex
affairs, as antiquated as they may seem today to some people. It's
easy to see how a species that couldn't think well in symbolic terms
couldn't handle them.
And I'm not sure that the issue of a *common* language was a critical
factor. That is, HSN could have had a common language over a wide
territory, but without the capacity to think in symbolic terms, the
language would have been very simple by comparison to that of HSS. I
think the critical factor was the ability to develop and use culture
in a modern sense. And so, modern language *skills*, incorporating
the use of symbolic thinking, made the difference, rather than whether
there was a common language or not."
So, my "cognitive threshold" theory is compatible with HSN having
language skills. It's just that there is proposed to be a
*differential* between the language skills of HSN and HSS, with HSS
having a greater capacity for symbolic thinking, and incorporating
that symbolic thinking ability into a more complex, more
symbolically-rich language, one capable of better handling the sorts
of mythological and ritualistic thinking and behavior patterns which I
postulate may have helped bands cohere into tribes.
You never responded to this Aug. 6 post of mine. Did you overlook it?
That would be no problem, since sometimes I miss responses to my
posts too.
So, what do you think of the "differential symbolic thinking" aspect
of the "cognitive threshold" theory? Does it meet your objection that
HSN may also have possessed language?
DV
Spiznet
> Spiznet <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote:
etc.
...just not very often when God asks you for a reference.
John Wilkins
Spiznet
> > back at least as far as the neanderthal/H.s.s. LCA (H. heidelber??) so
> > this would allow both H.n & H.s to have language skills.
> > This may hurt your "cognitive threshold" theory for Neanderthal
> > extinction...
> > -Mark
>
> Mark, You raised this same issue in an earlier post:
DV-
I only mentioned the possibility of LCA knowing language, but offered
no evidence. (I know, I *still* have no citation, but I will find
them.) Also we had 3 scenarios Neanderthal no language, Neanderthal
independant language, or LCA language. Now I am asking about the 3rd
of these options.
> Where you wrote:
> > So maybe you are suggesting that Neanderthals only had bands, but amHs
> > had moved to tribal associations. This way, the actual size of the
> > bands in both groups could be identical, but the larger loose
> > "organization" would be missing from H.n.
> > This position will cause disagreement from those who give Neanderthal
> > language skills, it would be hard to believe that each little family
> > has their own unique language...
> > Just a thought...
>
> To which I replied:
<snip>
> So, my "cognitive threshold" theory is compatible with HSN having
> language skills. It's just that there is proposed to be a
> *differential* between the language skills of HSN and HSS, with HSS
> having a greater capacity for symbolic thinking, and incorporating
> that symbolic thinking ability into a more complex, more
> symbolically-rich language, one capable of better handling the sorts
> of mythological and ritualistic thinking and behavior patterns which I
> postulate may have helped bands cohere into tribes."
> You never responded to this Aug. 6 post of mine. Did you overlook it?
> That would be no problem, since sometimes I miss responses to my
> posts too.
> So, what do you think of the "differential symbolic thinking" aspect
> of the "cognitive threshold" theory? Does it meet your objection that
> HSN may also have possessed language?
> DV
Well, I definitely read it, I just didn't pursue it at the time. I was
investigating additional evidence, but I also assumed someone would
pose counter arguments to the "cognitive threshold" theory. (Maybe
there aren't as many Neanderthal fans up here...)
So are you saying that language could develop without symbolic
thinking? Are there qualitatitive differences between varieties of
language, or varieties of symbolic thinking? Lets outline these,
otherwise if LCA had language, amHs and Neanderthal are equivelant.
-Mark
darth_versive
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
> > ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message
<snip>
> > So, what do you think of the "differential symbolic thinking" aspect
> > of the "cognitive threshold" theory? Does it meet your objection that
> > HSN may also have possessed language?
> > DV
>
> Well, I definitely read it, I just didn't pursue it at the time. I was
> investigating additional evidence, but I also assumed someone would
> pose counter arguments to the "cognitive threshold" theory. (Maybe
> there aren't as many Neanderthal fans up here...)
>
> So are you saying that language could develop without symbolic
> thinking? Are there qualitatitive differences between varieties of
> language, or varieties of symbolic thinking? Lets outline these,
> otherwise if LCA had language, amHs and Neanderthal are equivelant.
>
> -Mark
There are different levels of symbolic communication. Chimps have a
sort of language, don't they? Some calls they make stand for
"predator" (like a cheetah), while others stand for "food" etc. Same
for many other species.
Like I said in:
(Re: Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?
Date: 2003-08-07 09:01:19 PST)
"When we're talking about the use of facial
expressions, hand gestures, etc., as the primary means of
communication, absent the kind of complex symbol-based language we
have today, that may involve a simpler level of symbolic
communication--a level that we might share with other hominid species,
like Neanderthal or Homo erectus, etc., but to which we have grafted
on a higher level of thinking and symbolic-language communication.
Such a simpler level of symbolic thinking as expressed by such means
as facial expressions, hand gestures, and even simple words (without
modern syntax or grammar), might be enough to hold various bands
together, but not enough to hold different bands themselves together
into cohesive tribes. For that, I think, you need to have more
complex symbolic thinking and expression, at the level of art, myth,
ritual, and the like. And I'm very skeptical of the notion that such
complex symbolic ideas can be communicated merely by facial
expressions or hand gestures, etc., or by those whose minds are
incapable of higher-level symbolic thinking. For this level of
communication, I think we need to postulate the kind of symbolic
thinking that modern humans engage in, and the sorts of artifacts
(magical/ritualistic objects, etc.) and behavior patterns (sacred
dances, etc.), and complex symbol-based language systems which we use
today to express these ideas. If Neanderthals were capable of this,
who knows? But based upon the artifacts we've recovered so far, it
seems that they were not."
So it's a *differential* capacity, not the complete absense of any
ability for symbolic thinking, which I'm talking about.
And the "threshold" in question is the one between the ability to
develop and use culture in the modern human sense, and the inability
to do it. Chimps have their own type of culture, but nobody would say
that it's at the same level as modern human culture, with art, myth,
ritual, and the like.
That's all I'm saying with regard to the Neanderthals: that they may
have had a form of language, maybe even with some type of grammar and
syntax. They definitely did use tools, and they were able to think in
symbolic terms at a certain level, etc. (even the Chimps think
symbolically at *some* level). But, according to this theory, they
didn't reach the "critical threshold" in their capacity for symbolic
thinking that would have enabled them to handle the sort of art, myth,
ritual, etc. that we see today in human hunter-gatherer tribes, and so
therefore, they never got past the "band" level of organization, and
this put them at a competitive disadvantage in evolutionary terms.
This is what the "cognitive threshold" theory is all about: a
*differential* capacity, not an "all-or-nothing" capacity. So, to
answer your question: Yes, there are definitely qualitatitive
differences between varieties of language, or varieties of symbolic
thinking. This is what I've been talking about all along.
DV
Spiznet
> > > So, what do you think of the "differential symbolic thinking" aspect
> > > of the "cognitive threshold" theory? Does it meet your objection that
> > > HSN may also have possessed language?
> > > DV
> >
> > language, or varieties of symbolic thinking? Lets outline these,
> > otherwise if LCA had language, amHs and Neanderthal are equivelant.
> > -Mark
>
> There are different levels of symbolic communication. Chimps have a
> sort of language, don't they? Some calls they make stand for
> "predator" (like a cheetah), while others stand for "food" etc. Same
> for many other species.
>
> Like I said in:
Well, I'm just saying that its easy to be vague but when push comes to
shove people point to specific (certainly some of which is debatable)
evidence of Neanderthal art, music, advanced thought, culture &
advanced toolmaking.
Also, you don't need to posit a mental disparity if the amHs had
1) even marginally better "technology" (which it actually doesn't look
like they did right away)
2) higher population even without better cultural organization
3) or some kind of disease scenario (like those brought to the
Americas by the Europeans in 15th-17th centuries.)
I think your cognitive approach is valuable to all stages of hominid
development.
It would be useful to try to identify those things that the
"conciousness" needs to have in place along the way. You are right,
chimps could be said to be concious (but do they really have symbolic
thought?)
What are the specific steps along the way from non-verbal primate
language to spoken language to advanced "culture".
To be devil's advocate, I am skeptical that there are going to be
significant qualitative differences once spoken language is achieved.
What if our tribes (meta-bands) existed before or specifically because
of spoken language, and did not arise later, as you are conjecturing.
-Mark
darth_versive
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<
<snip>
> > This is what the "cognitive threshold" theory is all about: a
> > *differential* capacity, not an "all-or-nothing" capacity. So, to
> > answer your question: Yes, there are definitely qualitatitive
> > differences between varieties of language, or varieties of symbolic
> > thinking. This is what I've been talking about all along.
> >
> > DV
>
> Well, I'm just saying that its easy to be vague but when push comes to
> shove people point to specific (certainly some of which is debatable)
> evidence of Neanderthal art, music, advanced thought, culture &
> advanced toolmaking.
I wasn't being vague. Just go back to my original post in the thread,
"Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?"
I cited a specific _Science_ article, which talks about evidence of
behavioral differences based on specific evidence in the form of art,
jewelry, burial ritual, toolmaking, artifact assemblage, etc. I asked
for comments on this article citing recent research disputing this
evidence. I'm still waiting.
> Also, you don't need to posit a mental disparity if the amHs had
>
> 1) even marginally better "technology" (which it actually doesn't look
> like they did right away)
Whether the technological disparity was "marginal" or not depends upon
your criteria. My interest in the technological differences as shown
by the artifact record is in what it can tell us about the relative
capacities for innovation and symbolic thinking, which is critical for
the "cognitive threshold" theory.
And the way I interpret the evidence is that it points to the
conclusion of a cognitive disparity. The problem I've been having
lately is that nobody who has disputed this conclusion has really
shown much of an interest in discussing the evidence in the _Science_
article in any depth, or discussing evidence from some other recent
article in some other journal which disputes this evidence.
> 2) higher population even without better cultural organization
This is for someone else to propose: Someone who can think of another
mechanism whereby you can get a higher population without better
cultural organization. It's a fundamental part of the theory that it
was *precisely* the better cultural organization which was responsible
for the higher population.
Would you like to propose an alternative mechanism? Or cite one that
has been proposed in the literature? I think the "bands into tribes"
through better symbolic communication is a pretty good mechanism
myself. I can't think of one that's any better. But I would love to
discuss an alternative mechanism.
> 3) or some kind of disease scenario (like those brought to the
> Americas by the Europeans in 15th-17th centuries.)
I can't think of any evidence which would support this hypothesis. At
least the "cognitive threshold" theory has artifact evidence, even if
the interpretation of this evidence can be debated. Has there been
any evidence of relative disease immunity found within the remains of
HSN and HSS of the relevant period of contact between them?
> I think your cognitive approach is valuable to all stages of hominid
> development.
Yes. So do I. We'll see whether and how it will be applied to these
other stages. It should be interesting to watch.
> It would be useful to try to identify those things that the
> "conciousness" needs to have in place along the way. You are right,
> chimps could be said to be concious (but do they really have symbolic
> thought?)
Yes. This would be one of the next logical steps in the development
of the theory. But we'd have to be careful not to define
"consciousness" in a priori terms, and then select only that evidence
which fits our definition. I think it'd be better to start with the
evidence, and see what that tells us about the nature of
"consciousness." That is, we have to start out by admitting that we
really don't know that much about what "consciousness" is, in a
scientific sense, and let the evidence lead the way to discovering
what it is, rather than starting with some philosophical definition of
the term "consciousness" and sticking to our guns, regardless of what
facts come to light.
As for the chimps, I said that chimps in the wild have different calls
to symbolize different things, as do other species. They can also be
taught sign language. So yes. They do have the capacity for symbolic
thought, at some level.
I guess I have to keep stressing that, when it comes to the "cognitive
threshold" theory, I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE in cognitive
capacity for symbolic thought, not an all-or-nothing understanding of
symbolic thought. I had thought that I had made that clear, but I
guess I still have work to do. I apologize if my explanation so far
has been clumsy.
What more could I say to make myself more clear in this matter?
Please tell me.
> What are the specific steps along the way from non-verbal primate
> language to spoken language to advanced "culture".
I don't know exactly what the steps are, as to the first part of your
question. The mechanisms of how language is developed on a
neurological level is not within my area of study.
I *do* think that the step from spoken language to advanced "culture"
involves the use of art, myth, ritual, etc. in order to create a
common subjective framework around which individuals can be organized.
And this is the critical step which requires a certain cognitive
threshold level (note: LEVEL, not an all-or-nothing ability) of
symbolic thinking and communication.
This "final step" is really the aspect that I'm focusing on, rather
than the neurological processes which underlie our capacity for
symbolic thought and language. This latter sort of thing might be
more within the province of the neuroscientist. I do believe that
they *are* working hard on solving this question. I'm just not
familiar enough with their work to comment on it.
> To be devil's advocate, I am skeptical that there are going to be
> significant qualitative differences once spoken language is achieved.
> What if our tribes (meta-bands) existed before or specifically because
> of spoken language, and did not arise later, as you are conjecturing.
>
> -Mark
If you think that all hominid spoken language was equivalent,
regardless of species, I can see how you would be skeptical of my
theory. Would you also think that all non-hominid "language" is the
same too? Like, is there a difference in communication utility
between the calls of wolves, dolphins, gorillas and chimps? Do
differences in cognitive abilities make *any* difference when it comes
to communication skills?
I think such cognitive difference definitely *do* make a difference in
communication skills. Whether hominid or non-hominid, spoken or
non-spoken, the mode of communication a species uses is directly
related to its cognitive abilities.
I really can't see how you could say that all spoken language would
have been equivalent in its utility to communicate, regardless of the
cognitive abilities of the species in question. This makes no sense
to me.
I can easily envision Neanderthals being able to speak certain words
for certain tangible things (axe, antelope, fire, etc.), but not being
able to grasp the concept of integral calculus or even algebra, or to
grasp the concept of Plato's Forms or a transcendent spirit world.
And I can envision their not being able to verbalize concepts which
they cannot grasp. In fact, I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Is the existence of this sort of cognitive differential that hard to
imagine? I don't think so. I think it makes perfect sense, given the
artifact evidence we now have.
I think that the critical difference was in the *level* of language
skills and symbolic thinking. And that the one (symbolic thinking)
has a direct bearing on the other (language skills). You can teach
chimps sign language, after all. But this doesn't mean that their
cognitive abilities or language skill are equivalent to ours, does it?
They don't develop such forms of communication in the wild, do they?
Or advanced cultures with religious artifacts and cave paintings?
This shows that there *is* significant qualitative differences in
symbolic thinking and language skills that can be directly observed.
I'm just proposing that the same was quite possible among different
hominid species. That is, they didn't necessarily all have the same
cognitive abilities.
And I think it's easy to hypothesize how such a difference, albeit a
smaller difference, existed between AMH and Neanderthals.
To say that you're skeptical that there could be significant
qualitative differences once spoken language was achieved is fine, but
to do so, you'd have to say that there were no qualitative differences
in cognitive abilities between AMH and Neanderthals. Or that
cognitive abilities have no bearing on language skills.
If you're saying the former, I'd point to the _Science_ article. If
you're saying the latter, I'd point to the calls of wolves, dolphins,
gorillas and chimps, etc.
But the hypothesis that you cited, that "tribes (meta-bands) existed
before or specifically because of spoken language, and did not arise
later, as you are conjecturing" is a legitimate one.
Can you think of any specific evidence that tribes existed before
language, or arose specificially because of spoken language? The
first case (before language) seems rather problematical to me, but the
latter case (because of language) might be easier to support with
evidence. I think this latter case is somewhat popular among certain
people I've talked to, but I don't know what evidence supports it. Do
you?
DV
Spiznet
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<
> <snip>
> > > > So, what do you think of the "differential symbolic thinking" aspect
> > > > of the "cognitive threshold" theory? Does it meet your objection that
> > > > HSN may also have possessed language?
> > > > DV
My point is that AFAIK, people that talk about Neanderthal/amHs
"cognitive threshold" are talking about a 50kya breakthrough in amHs
(which could have been the invention of language, or
language-related). This is a long way from allowing for 1 to .5mya LCA
language, as you are willing to accept. Thus, the cognitive sequences
and differences would need much more fleshing out, right?
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>I wasn't being vague. Just go back to my original post in the thread,
>"Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?"
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1539335083d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8e0e3045.0307301152.7c579a9a%40posting.google.com
"
On the subject of Neanderthal extinction:
I've heard some people claim that the most likely reason for
Neanderthal extinction was that they had evolved special
physical adaptations to the cold, Ice Age climate of Europe
and south Asia, e.g. large sinus cavities, short, heavy
bones, muscular bodies, plenty of body hair and subcutaneous
fat, which proved to be disadvantageous for them, once the
climate started to get warmer.
"
People say body hair; however proof of body hair and S.C.
fat in Neandertals?
"
I've also heard that they may have been assimilated into the
H. Sapiens Sapiens population by interbreeding.
"
H. sapiens [sapiens] or H. sapiens. Neandertals were
H. neandertalensis.
"
I've also heard that the evidence available today suggests
that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as H. Sapiens
Sapiens (their brains were actually larger than the brains
of modern humans) -- they possessed stone tools, cooked
their food, buried their dead and may have worn clothing and
used language.
From what I've heard so far, I tend to disagree.
"
Good for you, but . . . .
"
I think the most likely reason for Neanderthal (HSN)
extinction was not their physical adaptation for cold which
put them at a disadvantage when the climate changed, but
that H. Sapiens [Sapiens] (HSS) developed better cognitive
abilities (especially for symbolic thinking) and the better
language skills that went with this.
"
Proof? Certainly click speakers differ from non-click
speakers and the ability to expand; and if click speaking is
ancestral then Neandertals did not likely speak like
non-click speakers. But other than that we have no proof
that Neandertals had a functionally different form of spoken
language. I suspect they did have language; however given
the MRCA of certain langauge genes I suspect their ability
was different. Better or worse is unclear. I think by the
way humans define language in a human context it would
neccesarily be worse, but that would be subjectively
defined. Based on certain linguistic theories of language
language 'popped' into existance. However these theories are
proving themselves to be wrong as we subtle genes which
specifically affect language appeared to have evolved over
time. Simply because humans have language genes that MRCA
into the constriction timeframe does not mean that only the
human/hominid lines developed language increasing
capabilities. Until they show a strong relationship between
the evolution of language genes in humans and the expansion
of the human population, this remains controversial. Certain
language theorist would like you to beleive that the
expansion begins with FOX. . . gene, and even as I look at
the genetic studies I see a small expansion followed by a
bigger one, but aligning the onset of the small expansion
with the MRCA of a language gene is not something that is
possible at present, and these language theorist may have
massaged their MRCA to coincide with where they think the
expansion began.
"
I think the evidence available today does *not* support the
idea that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as HSS.
I think the reverse is true.
See _Science_, 7 March 2003 (vol. 299, No. 5612), p. 1526
("Whither the Neanderthals?"). It goes into specifics on
the issues of:
1) art, jewelry and burial ritual (much less of it among
HSN), indicating, to me, a lesser capacity for
mythological/ritualistic thinking and behavior, and the
associated tendency for complex social organization,
"
Yes, this was a good peice, however I have to point out that
when humans first arrive in eurasia Neandertal appear to
have a more complex culture than humans. Thus one has to
condition the argument.
I was reading another post that referenced a paper about
Japan I found fascinating. While there is evidence of shell
culture in Japan and evidence of mesolithic culture in Japan
early as 45 kya, there are relatively few shell middens. The
author went on to state that this could be due to the fact
that most of early occupation of Japan was coastal. I have
posited the same for europe. I think the early european
humans were coastal and settled earlier than 40 kya, that
culture may be even more sophisticate than early neandertals
but remained close to the coastline as Neandertals were
INITIALLY more adaptive inland. It is not until those
cultures themselves adapt that they could move inland also.
Certain signs ellude to this. The oldest diversity in
western europe appears in iberia and sardinia; however the
earliest archaeological signs appear coming up the danube
river. From a molecular standpoint the evidence of
migrations from the east are weak relative to evidence for
direct migration from africa.
"
2) tool-making skills (much less innovation among HSN),
"
Neandertals dissappeared before the major innovations in Hs
stone tools occur. There are questions whether Hs and Hn had
the share culture in certain areas.
"
3) general artifact assemblage (much less varied among HSN),
"
Because they went extinct and were in numeric decline from
40 kya to 28 kya.
"
4) interbreeding (little evidence for it).
"
Interbreeding has no bearing on intelligence. The
interspecific barrier may have been to biologically
(physiologically) great for small amounts of hybrids to make
a difference.
"
So, it seems to me, based on this type of evidence, that the
inferred intelligence/language-skills/symbolic-thinking
disparity between HSS and HSN was the most likely reason for
Neanderthal extinction.
"
I look at this differently. Based on what is known, I would
argue that humans could come into an area with little
culture and improvise quickly. This means that humans can
survive in a 'culture-lite' scenario long enough to build
sophisticated cultures. How language plays into their
ability to reinvent the wheel is unknown. We have seen this
before however. In the US me left farms and townships to
become mountain men and trappers and live with few
'neccesities' than their urban equivilants. One thing it
seems that humans have to have had and port with them is the
ability to travel over water. This could mean that once they
established camps or settlements they were capable of going
to other places to learn or import culture from other
places, allowing them to beef up and existing culture.
Danube river is one place this might have been useful,
iberia and sardinia also. Any coastal or riparian motif
might have allowed them to reach into and area. So the human
factor may have been as simple as a proficiency or
facilities to make dugouts and to use them wherever
possible. The ability to travel.
"
I think that our capacity for symbolic thinking is the
foundation of modern human culture,
"
I think Neandertals had some capacity for symbolic thinking.
" and that this type of culture, with its associated larger
group size and more tightly-organized social
structure, was the main thing that gave our ancestors the
selective advantage over the Neanderthals.
"
I would argue this. I think that humans have had access to
europe for the period from 100-120 kya to 35 kya. however
they did not appear to be immensely successful in europe
until after 35 kya. Neandertal were a formidable competitor
that kept humans out. The distance from africa to europe is
measurable in miles. The distance between africa and Japan
is measurable in 1000s of miles. Yet it takes the same time
for humans to reach Japan as it does for them to settle up
the Danube river. Iberia is a more pleasant place than Japan
during an iceage. Most of Japan is damn cold in the winter
time, and the sea of Japan is mostly dried out and iced
over. Therefore Iberia, southern italy and the aegean region
would have been more hospitable to humans than Japan. Thus
why does it take humans so long to occupy europe. The only
reasonable explanation is that they were dealing with fierce
competition that kept them on islands and remote seashore
regions, areas where the climate might have kept Neandertals
at a distance.
"
Does this hypothesis sound reasonable, or has the evidence
mentioned in the _Science_ article I cited been rebutted by
some other recent journal article? I haven't spotted any
rebuttal articles or even letters to the editor in _Science_
itself, though I might have missed them.
"
It is reasonable but over simplified.
>Whether the technological disparity was "marginal" or not depends upon
>your criteria.
The why place the big inferance on it.
Two facts.
1. Neanderthals (classics) and humans appeared not to have
produced fertile xprogeny.
2. Neandertal are extinct.
3. Humans drove hundreds of less competitive animals to
extinction.
4. Probably humans drove Neanderthals to extinctions.
5. Contemporarily comparable cultural evidence in ambiguous
as to who was more advanced.
6. Symbolic evidence suggested Neandertals did engage in
limited symbolic thinking.
7. Worldwide it appear early exo-african humans were coastal
dwellers so cultural evidence would be along the coast of
the mediterranean (submerged)
8. Thus it is hard to compare Contemporary Neandertal and
human cultural abilities based on a probable incompete and
non-interpretable data set. Certainly humans engaged in
symbolic thinking, most evident after Neandertals are
extinct. DO we conclude that Neandertal extinction induced
sybolic thinking in humans or that simply there is not
enough evidence. I think we lack sufficient evidence in some
areas.
> My interest in the technological differences as shown
>by the artifact record is in what it can tell us about the relative
>capacities for innovation and symbolic thinking, which is critical for
>the "cognitive threshold" theory.
Travel ability, ability to travel river systems and possibly
trade or get new cultural skills, possibly bring skilled
individuals that are in abundance in other places to
pristine sites.
>And the way I interpret the evidence is that it points to the
>conclusion of a cognitive disparity.
Adventuresome, wanderlust . . . . . .
> The problem I've been having
>lately is that nobody who has disputed this conclusion has really
>shown much of an interest in discussing the evidence in the _Science_
>article in any depth, or discussing evidence from some other recent
>article in some other journal which disputes this evidence.
I think you need to think in terms of what abilities humans
clearly demostrated that other groups seem not to
demostrate. Each of the things you hit upon as being human,
Neandertals appear to have some skill at. What is clear
however is given the same relative opportunity to expand,
humans did and Neandertals did not. Not only this if one
looks globally humans are expanding into places whereby we
did not expect them to have the technologies to do so early
in human evolution. As a result these are the human things
we can focus on.
1. The ability to exploit maritime travel over great
distances. Proof- ryukyu chain, eastern indonesia, solomon
islands.
2. The ability to access more exploitable hunting grounds on
isolated islands, the ability to exploit fisheries and
coastal resources. The ability to move into an area and
avoid direct confrontation of like competitors by simply
selecting areas they lack access to.
3. The ability to move when faced with climate change.
The ability to move rapidly and over great distances.
>> 2) higher population even without better cultural organization
>
>This is for someone else to propose: Someone who can think of another
>mechanism whereby you can get a higher population without better
>cultural organization. It's a fundamental part of the theory that it
>was *precisely* the better cultural organization which was responsible
>for the higher population.
I think higher population can result from flux, not
neccesarily more intelligent but more exploitative of
previously unexplotied or under exploited resources.
The ability to exploit and hold areas least susceptable to
recession as a result of climate change.
>Would you like to propose an alternative mechanism? Or cite one that
>has been proposed in the literature? I think the "bands into tribes"
>through better symbolic communication is a pretty good mechanism
>myself. I can't think of one that's any better. But I would love to
>discuss an alternative mechanism.
See above.
>I can't think of any evidence which would support this hypothesis. At
>least the "cognitive threshold" theory has artifact evidence, even if
>the interpretation of this evidence can be debated. Has there been
>any evidence of relative disease immunity found within the remains of
>HSN and HSS of the relevant period of contact between them?
Right, almost all diseases pass quickly and variety in the
HLA would have prevented wipeouts.
>> I think your cognitive approach is valuable to all stages of hominid
>> development.
>
>Yes. So do I. We'll see whether and how it will be applied to these
>other stages. It should be interesting to watch.
It did not seem to be to valuable when humans were bottled
up in central africa did it. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating. As humans expand their expansion is evidence
that something changed; however the qualities of the
expansion voice more than are predisposition to think we are
somehow better quality than Neandertals. We appear to have
driven Neandertals to extinction. The mechanism is not
clear.
>Yes. This would be one of the next logical steps in the development
>of the theory. But we'd have to be careful not to define
>"consciousness" in apriori terms, and then select only that evidence
>which fits our definition.
Thats called leading the data, and while scientist and
particularly anthropologist do this I don't think this is
scientifically valid. Your conclusions should be lead by the
data, and the fair (statistical) analysis of the data.
Questions
Q1.Is the current data set sufficient to answer the
question.
A1. Apparently not. What one sees is a period in which human
occupation of europe is not statistically clear, was likely
earlier than archaeologist decreed. Also Neandertals
probably persisted later than archaeologist have decreed.
The statistics suggest that the samples in the 50 to 25 kya
range are inadequate.
A2. The cultural artefacts and the arguement over culture
are not decisive when chronology is taken into account. Are
we comparing 'early settling humans' with 'established
neandertal encampments"? What about perishable evidence,
wood, bone and other materials?
Q2. If the current data set was sufficient would it argue
for cognative differences.
A2. Not objectively, human culture appears to reflect
population size, versus time, versus proximity to globally
important trade routes. Neandertals may have been isolated
from major material cultural trade routes or places where
diverse cultures came together. There numbers may have been
smaller because of breeding dynamics. And they may have
lacked the facilities or opportunities to engage in maritime
or riparian based travel and/or trading opportunities as
humans. Within the human context there are culture that have
become isolated and devolved as a result. We cannot rule
this out with respect to neandertals. Neandertal may have
lived in a world previous to humans occupied by many
species, non-interbreeding hominids in which intellectual
accomplishements would have been selectively propriety to a
species and thus trade selected against, thus selection
against long range travels. The very origin of human may
have undergone selection for broader range transport and
trade, not as a matter of intelligence but survival. In this
respect interspecies contact may have been less important
than the perceived neccesity to travel and explore to find
new food sources. Humans are loaded with ubiquitous
behavioral diseases like manic depression, chronic anxioty,
paranoid schizophrenic and every human group seemed to have
its crazy man (medicine man)whatever. These mental illnesse
variants may have driven humans outward against better sense
and occasionally hit pay dirt, advantageous to the group.
Not saying this is true but an alternative to the cognative
superiority.
> I think it'd be better to start with the
>evidence, and see what that tells us about the nature of
>"consciousness." That is, we have to start out by admitting that we
>really don't know that much about what "consciousness" is, in a
>scientific sense, and let the evidence lead the way to discovering
>what it is, rather than starting with some philosophical definition of
>the term "consciousness" and sticking to our guns, regardless of what
>facts come to light.
huh? If this is a definition of the problem its not very
well defined.
>As for the chimps, I said that chimps in the wild have different calls
>to symbolize different things, as do other species. They can also be
>taught sign language. So yes. They do have the capacity for symbolic
>thought, at some level.
Good, now Neandertals are 80 to 90% more like us than they
are like chimps. Thus Ns are 80% more like us in terms of
symbolic thinking than they are like chimpanzee.
>I guess I have to keep stressing that, when it comes to the "cognitive
>threshold" theory, I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE in cognitive
>capacity for symbolic thought, not an all-or-nothing understanding of
>symbolic thought. I had thought that I had made that clear, but I
>guess I still have work to do. I apologize if my explanation so far
>has been clumsy.
You seem to be getting more clumsy. I sense this is a result
of your own internal confusion on the issues. Let me confuse
you even more. There are some that argue that the brain does
not develope in a vacuum but cranial development is the
result of both gene and stimulation. According to this
arguement for Neandertals to have had the size of cranial
vault as humans some would argue that they were using there
brains as early in life as humans do, stimulating growth of
the crania. In fact when we take into account comparative
robusticity of Neandertals and humans, and robust human
cranial capacity versus LBM and Neandertals, neandertal
cranial capacity is probably larger than the human average.
Add to this that selection is againts cranial capacity
unless it is functionally (versus a waste of calories
opperating an expensive brain), one has to conclude that
neandertal cranial capacity was function and the result of
stimulation of the human-like level. With all kinds of
processing going on.
If, in fact, compensating for robusticity, Neandertal
cranial capacity was greater than the current human average
and that this had to be a functional increase. Given the
fact that Neandertals did not have sonar or other peripheral
reasons, what else where Neandertals doing with said brains
if they were not engages in language and symbolic thought?
You need to address reasons why they were not using this for
language and cognition before you can argue why humans were
better at this.
>> What are the specific steps along the way from non-verbal primate
>> language to spoken language to advanced "culture".
>
>I don't know exactly what the steps are, as to the first part of your
>question. The mechanisms of how language is developed on a
>neurological level is not within my area of study.
Culture and language evolve hand in hand (or hand and
brain). Some of the areas used in handiness are shared in
language. Early on there was alot of overlap in handiness
and increase sophistry in communication. As each developed
there were probably specializations in both articulated
culture predispositions and verbal predispositions.
>I *do* think that the step from spoken language to advanced "culture"
>involves the use of art, myth, ritual, etc. in order to create a
>common subjective framework around which individuals can be organized.
>And this is the critical step which requires a certain cognitive
>threshold level (note: LEVEL, not an all-or-nothing ability) of
>symbolic thinking and communication.
Yes, but could there be other, non-intelligence based
drives. What if humans had an avidity to wanderlust and
Neandertals were more fearful of traveling. Not all things
that advance culture have to be from intelligence. Think in
terms of Nazi germany. Nazi's had the drive to create the
'super' human, that drive was based in intelligencia of the
time, however they sacrificed cultural elements in their
societies, created themselves as a danger to the rest of the
world and were eventually destroyed as a group. One has to
think more broadly in terms of behavior, facilities and
predispositions if one is not to be trapped by leading ones
conclusions by ones apriori beliefs.
>This "final step" is really the aspect that I'm focusing on, rather
>than the neurological processes which underlie our capacity for
>symbolic thought and language. This latter sort of thing might be
>more within the province of the neuroscientist. I do believe that
>they *are* working hard on solving this question. I'm just not
>familiar enough with their work to comment on it.
We may be able to reconstruct the path by which humans
developed certain genes, and we may also be able to show
that important steps within the language/logic path
developed once interNeandertal interbreeding was no longer
possible, but given the fact that there are measurable
increases in human cranial capacity that are probably
affected by the appearance of these traits and that
Neandertals had a measurable increases it is impossible to
say that Neandertals did not develope similar styled genes.
It will eventually come down to this. We will eventually
be able to narrow down the human relative time of expansion
of our population within africa. And we will eventually find
a set of genes that MRCA closely to that time, and from
within that set of genes we will find 1 or a number of genes
that appear manifested in the expansive behavior of humans
based on improved archaeological evidence. Right now there
is not alot of certainty.
>> To be devil's advocate, I am skeptical that there are going to be
>> significant qualitative differences once spoken language is achieved.
>> What if our tribes (meta-bands) existed before or specifically because
>> of spoken language, and did not arise later, as you are conjecturing.
I can assure you that there are differences, there are
probably differences since the click/non-click divide
occurred that are functional, but not noticable without
refined testing. In fact we see some variation in language
skills in modern humans and this has given rise to several
putative genes that subtly affect language skills. Most of
what we see in moderns can be classified as refining
abilities, and suggest evolution over the last 150 ky.
Therefore given a path from Neandertals to humans from 1 my
to 3 my (.5 to 1.5 my to MRCA) and given the bilateral
'lineage' expansion of the cranial capacity I would argue
that language abilities not only evolved recently but for a
longer period and on both sides and thus specific language
abilities were likely different. Did this make human ability
'better'. Better in what context. If neandertal body had
human language would they have gone extinct, who knows.
This theory put forth by Klien that language suddenly
comes into existence is based on a very narrow definition of
language. Most of what Klien proports will eventually be
falsified as most of it has been brought to question based
on critique and recent finds. Get rid of the notion that
language is +/-, it is false. I was affiliated with a group
in which we had a number of families with inherited language
defects that lacked subtle skills. Probably as a result of
loss of function of some 'language' gene.
>I think such cognitive difference definitely *do* make a difference in
>communication skills.
There are defects that do not affect cognition that do
affect communication skill. Again how do you address the
question I posed above. What was the Neandertal brain doing
if it was not engaged in cognition and symbolic reasoning.
The brain is not a space filling piece of meat, it grows
based on components stimulated in early growth. Do you
proposed that the language/logic portion was innoperative
and replaced by brute force memory likened to the way we
spew out second languages.
> Whether hominid or non-hominid, spoken or
>non-spoken, the mode of communication a species uses is directly
>related to its cognitive abilities.
Probably, but you haven't disproven an appreciable langauge
skill in Neandertals.
>I can easily envision Neanderthals being able to speak certain words
>for certain tangible things (axe, antelope, fire, etc.), but not being
>able to grasp the concept of integral calculus or even algebra, or to
>grasp the concept of Plato's Forms or a transcendent spirit world.
>And I can envision their not being able to verbalize concepts which
>they cannot grasp. In fact, I don't see how it could be otherwise.
So what where these oversized 'wasteful' brains being used
for?
>Is the existence of this sort of cognitive differential that hard to
>imagine? I don't think so. I think it makes perfect sense, given the
>artifact evidence we now have.
Proof?
Spiznet
> > Well, I'm just saying that its easy to be vague but when push comes to
> > shove people point to specific (certainly some of which is debatable)
> > evidence of Neanderthal art, music, advanced thought, culture &
> > advanced toolmaking.
>
> I wasn't being vague. Just go back to my original post in the thread,
> "Neanderthal extinction and cognitive abilities?"
> I cited a specific _Science_ article, which talks about evidence of
> behavioral differences based on specific evidence in the form of art,
> jewelry, burial ritual, toolmaking, artifact assemblage, etc. I asked
> for comments on this article citing recent research disputing this
> evidence. I'm still waiting.
> DV-
Your cognitive threshold scenario is a mainstream, older view (not to
say it is incorrect) but much research has been coming down against
it. Here are some specific references:
Recent, revisionist:
Neanderthal Archaeology- Implications for Our Origins
G.A. Clark
American Anthropologist 104(1) 50-67 © 2002
Quote from abstract:
"Because the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is thought
by many to correspond to the biological replacement of Neanderthals by
modern humans over the ten ky bracketing 40kyr BP, generalizations
about the archaeological transition invoked in support of biological
replacement are examined and found to lack empirical support."
Also:
The cultural capacities of Neanderthals: a review and re-evaluation
Brian Hayden
Journal of Human Evolution (1993) 24, 113-146 © 1993 Academic Press
Quote from abstract:
"Numerous articles have appeared in the past decade that have
portrayed Neanderthals in a dehumanized, almost non-cultural fashion.
…a model is proposed capable of explaining differences between Middle
and Upper Paleolithic art in technological and economic rather than
biological terms."
The Accretion Model of Neanderthal Evolution
John Hawks (U of Utah) & Milford Wolpoff (U of Michigan)
Evolution 55(7) ,2001, pp. 1474-1485 © The Society for the Study of
Evolution
This paper is part of corpus of MREH (multi-regional evolution
hypothesis), and posits significant genetic flow between Neanderthal
and amHs. But, relating to our topic, it also does not support amHs
"superiority".
Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and
Music- An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective
D'Errico, et.al
Journal of World Prehistory, Vol 17, No. 1, March 2003 (© 2003)
This is possibly THE paper we should read before continuing our
discussion…
And last but not least:
The Upper Paleolithic Revolution
Ofer Bar-Yosef Harvard U.
Annual Rev. Anthropology 2002. 31:363-93 © 2002
This is an excellent overview of our topic, it also references other
significant papers we could round out with:
"The nature of the Upper Paleolithic revolution is at the center of
current debates (e.g., White 1982, 1997; Mellars 1989, 1996a, 2000;
Straus 1996; Gibson 1996; Bar-Yosef 1998; Zilhao & D'Errico 1999;
Wadley 2001; Clark 1997a; Klein 1995, 1999; McBrearty & Brooks 2000;
Churchill & Smith 2000; Hublin 2000)…"
Add these perspectives to the one presented in your article from
Science.
In the earlier posts I was just trying to tell you that this is not a
casual topic and has been thoroughly researched from many sides. The
debate is still ongoing: whether you want to declare victory is up to
you.
I suspect that everyone on this message board is staying off this
thread because they are too scarred from previous battles exactly
along these lines… some topics are too painful and emotionally
expensive to re-invest in… choke…
…but I'm a newbie, so I'm just happy to be soaking all this up!
Cheers! I'm off to the beach for the weekend.
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>I suspect that everyone on this message board is staying off this
>thread because they are too scarred from previous battles exactly
>along these lines… some topics are too painful and emotionally
>expensive to re-invest in… choke…
I'm not, but I will agree with you, it appears that alot
more needs to be learned about this transitional period,
from ~40 kya to 28 kya.
darth_versive
<snip>
DV:
The evidence for better language skills is the evidence for greater
ability for symbolic thinking which I interpret from the content of
this _Science_ article, and other various articles and documentaries
I've seen of a similar vein. If you interpret this sort of evidence
differently, as *not* demonstrating any difference in behavioral
characteristics or cognitive abilities, then I guess that's that. The
evidence seems pretty clear to me, though.
> "
> I think the evidence available today does *not* support the
> idea that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as HSS.
> I think the reverse is true.
>
> See _Science_, 7 March 2003 (vol. 299, No. 5612), p. 1526
> ("Whither the Neanderthals?"). It goes into specifics on
> the issues of:
>
> 1) art, jewelry and burial ritual (much less of it among
> HSN), indicating, to me, a lesser capacity for
> mythological/ritualistic thinking and behavior, and the
> associated tendency for complex social organization,
> "
>
> Yes, this was a good peice, however I have to point out that
> when humans first arrive in eurasia Neandertal appear to
> have a more complex culture than humans. Thus one has to
> condition the argument.
I think it's talking about a more complex human culture in the later
stages, when they coexisted in Europe with HSN. If at some time
before that, humans may have been cognitively *inferior* to
Neanderthals, that wouldn't affect the "cognitive threshold" theory of
Neanderthal extinction. It would just mean that the "threshold" event
could have happened sometime after they left Africa, but before they
got to Europe. The result would be the same.
<snip>
>
> "
> 2) tool-making skills (much less innovation among HSN),
> "
>
> Neandertals dissappeared before the major innovations in Hs
> stone tools occur. There are questions whether Hs and Hn had
> the share culture in certain areas.
As with the case above, this wouldn't affect the theory. Whenever the
main period of Hs innovation occurred is beside the point. The point
is whether Hs had a greater cognitive capacity for symbolic thinking
and any associated language skills during the time when they were in
contact. If the main phase of stone tool innovation occured later,
that can point to such a disparity which existed earlier. The main
phase of human agricultural innovation, and the invention of a written
language, occurred after Hn were extinct. That doesn't affect the
theory either.
As for shared culture, the _Science_ article mentions one place where
there was thought to have been cultural sharing. I interpret this as
imitation by Hn. But if you interpret it as evidence for Hs and Hn
cognitive equality, that's ok.
> "
> 3) general artifact assemblage (much less varied among HSN),
> "
>
> Because they went extinct and were in numeric decline from
> 40 kya to 28 kya.
No, they were comparing later Hs assemblages with earlier Hn
assemblages, which I see as evidence of a cognitive disparity. Maybe
Hn caught up with Hs in their last days. I don't think so.
> "
> 4) interbreeding (little evidence for it).
> "
>
> Interbreeding has no bearing on intelligence. The
> interspecific barrier may have been to biologically
> (physiologically) great for small amounts of hybrids to make
> a difference.
I didn't cite this as evidence with a bearing on the issue of
intelligence, but as evidence with a bearing on a rival theory of
Neanderthal extinction, the "interbreeding" hypothesis (that Hs and Hn
merged into one species, and Hs didn't replace Hn).
> "
> So, it seems to me, based on this type of evidence, that the
> inferred intelligence/language-skills/symbolic-thinking
> disparity between HSS and HSN was the most likely reason for
> Neanderthal extinction.
> "
>
> I look at this differently. Based on what is known, I would
> argue that humans could come into an area with little
> culture and improvise quickly. This means that humans can
> survive in a 'culture-lite' scenario long enough to build
> sophisticated cultures.
If this is the way you see it, then maybe we really don't see it that
differently after all. In the "cognitive threshold" theory, the
"threshold" in question is the ability to develop and use culture in a
modern human sense better than Hn.
> How language plays into their
> ability to reinvent the wheel is unknown.
I propose that a greater capacity for symbolic thinking "bled over"
into our ancestor's language skills, and enabled them to develop such
aspects of modern human culture as art, myth, ritual, and the like,
and that these sorts of thought and behavior patterns are what enabled
Hs to achieve a greater level of social organization (bands into
tribes, etc.), and a tighter discipline and control over the members
of particular bands (warrior class, etc. guided by shamans and elders,
using totem animals, rites of passage, etc.). All this would be
heavily dependent on the species' ability to engage in highly symbolic
thinking. If Hn wasn't able to comprehend transcendent,
"otherworldly" symbolism on the level that modern human hunter-gathers
do today, they would not have been able to develop this kind of
shamanistic animist culture, and they would have suffered from a
comparative lack of social organization.
> We have seen this
> before however. In the US me left farms and townships to
> become mountain men and trappers and live with few
> 'neccesities' than their urban equivilants. One thing it
> seems that humans have to have had and port with them is the
> ability to travel over water. This could mean that once they
> established camps or settlements they were capable of going
> to other places to learn or import culture from other
> places, allowing them to beef up and existing culture.
> Danube river is one place this might have been useful,
> iberia and sardinia also. Any coastal or riparian motif
> might have allowed them to reach into and area. So the human
> factor may have been as simple as a proficiency or
> facilities to make dugouts and to use them wherever
> possible. The ability to travel.
Yes. The ability to develop and use culture in a modern human sense
makes Hs more adaptable than Hn was. This is the essence of the
"cognitive threshold" theory of Neanderthal extinction. The
"threshold" was over into the ability to use modern human culture.
> "
> I think that our capacity for symbolic thinking is the
> foundation of modern human culture,
> "
>
> I think Neandertals had some capacity for symbolic thinking.
Yes. As I've already said. And chimps have some capacity for
symbolic thinking as well. The key factor is the difference between
them, and whether the capacity for symbolic thinking reaches that
"critical threshold" I spoke of, where such things as art, myth,
ritual, etc. can come into play.
> " and that this type of culture, with its associated larger
> group size and more tightly-organized social
> structure, was the main thing that gave our ancestors the
> selective advantage over the Neanderthals.
> "
>
> I would argue this. I think that humans have had access to
> europe for the period from 100-120 kya to 35 kya. however
> they did not appear to be immensely successful in europe
> until after 35 kya. Neandertal were a formidable competitor
> that kept humans out. The distance from africa to europe is
> measurable in miles. The distance between africa and Japan
> is measurable in 1000s of miles. Yet it takes the same time
> for humans to reach Japan as it does for them to settle up
> the Danube river. Iberia is a more pleasant place than Japan
> during an iceage. Most of Japan is damn cold in the winter
> time, and the sea of Japan is mostly dried out and iced
> over. Therefore Iberia, southern italy and the aegean region
> would have been more hospitable to humans than Japan. Thus
> why does it take humans so long to occupy europe. The only
> reasonable explanation is that they were dealing with fierce
> competition that kept them on islands and remote seashore
> regions, areas where the climate might have kept Neandertals
> at a distance.
I have no problem with the idea that it took Hs longer to take over in
Europe than Japan because the Hn were more fierce competitors than
those they found in Japan (who was there? H. erectus? H. ergaster?
any hominid? I don't know), and so they slowed them down for a long
time. And there's no way to tell just when the Hs advance in
cognitive capacity occurred. The _Science_ article seems to indicate
that the FOXP2 may have been associated with this transition, and that
it may have happened rather late, about 50K years ago. If this is so,
it could explain a lot.
> "
> Does this hypothesis sound reasonable, or has the evidence
> mentioned in the _Science_ article I cited been rebutted by
> some other recent journal article? I haven't spotted any
> rebuttal articles or even letters to the editor in _Science_
> itself, though I might have missed them.
> "
>
> It is reasonable but over simplified.
Well, gotta start somewhere. Better an oversimplifed theory that's on
the right track than a very sophisticated one that's on the wrong
track, I always say.
Have you ever heard of a similar theory to explain the extinction of
the Neanderthals, which links the artifact record with symbolic
thinking, and with art, myth, ritual, etc., and with the capacity for
using modern human culture?
I'm not much up on the literature in this field. I'd like to read
more about it if there's something similar out there.
No, I think that it's the reverse: that greater symbolic thinking in
humans induced extinction in Neanderthals. And yes, we lack
conclusive evidence. But I think what evidence we have is very
suggestive.
I'm running out of memory for my post. I'll have to reply to the rest
of it in another post.
DV
darth_versive
> (darth_versive) wrote:
<snip>
This is part two of my reply:
> > My interest in the technological differences as shown
> >by the artifact record is in what it can tell us about the relative
> >capacities for innovation and symbolic thinking, which is critical for
> >the "cognitive threshold" theory.
>
> Travel ability, ability to travel river systems and possibly
> trade or get new cultural skills, possibly bring skilled
> individuals that are in abundance in other places to
> pristine sites.
>
> >And the way I interpret the evidence is that it points to the
> >conclusion of a cognitive disparity.
>
> Adventuresome, wanderlust . . . . . .
Being adventurous and having wanderlust seems to me to be in keeping
with modern human culture. Therefore, this observation is compatible
with the "cognitive threshold" theory.
> > The problem I've been having
> >lately is that nobody who has disputed this conclusion has really
> >shown much of an interest in discussing the evidence in the _Science_
> >article in any depth, or discussing evidence from some other recent
> >article in some other journal which disputes this evidence.
>
> I think you need to think in terms of what abilities humans
> clearly demostrated that other groups seem not to
> demostrate. Each of the things you hit upon as being human,
> Neandertals appear to have some skill at. What is clear
> however is given the same relative opportunity to expand,
> humans did and Neandertals did not. Not only this if one
> looks globally humans are expanding into places whereby we
> did not expect them to have the technologies to do so early
> in human evolution. As a result these are the human things
> we can focus on.
No, I don't think so. I haven't seen much evidence so far for
Neanderthals having a capacity for developing a highly-symbolic
religion. Humans clearly do. As I said in the first part of my
reply, this is a key aspect of human behavior which gave them a
selective advantage, according to the theory.
> 1. The ability to exploit maritime travel over great
> distances. Proof- ryukyu chain, eastern indonesia, solomon
> islands.
>
> 2. The ability to access more exploitable hunting grounds on
> isolated islands, the ability to exploit fisheries and
> coastal resources. The ability to move into an area and
> avoid direct confrontation of like competitors by simply
> selecting areas they lack access to.
>
> 3. The ability to move when faced with climate change.
> The ability to move rapidly and over great distances.
These are all behaviors that one might expect from a species able to
develop and use culture in a modern human sense. It all fits into the
"cognitive threshold" theory.
> >> 2) higher population even without better cultural organization
> >
> >This is for someone else to propose: Someone who can think of another
> >mechanism whereby you can get a higher population without better
> >cultural organization. It's a fundamental part of the theory that it
> >was *precisely* the better cultural organization which was responsible
> >for the higher population.
>
> I think higher population can result from flux, not
> neccesarily more intelligent but more exploitative of
> previously unexplotied or under exploited resources.
> The ability to exploit and hold areas least susceptable to
> recession as a result of climate change.
I'm not talking about average population density numbers, but the
average size of organized groups. If a Hn band of 30 encounters a Hs
tribe of 300, which is going to win out? Over a given territory, the
average population density of Hs and Hn may have been exactly the
same. For purposes of organized warfare, hunting, etc., the size of
organized groups matters, not average population density, when one
species is competing with another.
> >Would you like to propose an alternative mechanism? Or cite one that
> >has been proposed in the literature? I think the "bands into tribes"
> >through better symbolic communication is a pretty good mechanism
> >myself. I can't think of one that's any better. But I would love to
> >discuss an alternative mechanism.
>
> See above.
Ditto. :)
> >I can't think of any evidence which would support this hypothesis. At
> >least the "cognitive threshold" theory has artifact evidence, even if
> >the interpretation of this evidence can be debated. Has there been
> >any evidence of relative disease immunity found within the remains of
> >HSN and HSS of the relevant period of contact between them?
>
> Right, almost all diseases pass quickly and variety in the
> HLA would have prevented wipeouts.
>
> >> I think your cognitive approach is valuable to all stages of hominid
> >> development.
> >
> >Yes. So do I. We'll see whether and how it will be applied to these
> >other stages. It should be interesting to watch.
>
> It did not seem to be to valuable when humans were bottled
> up in central africa did it. The proof of the pudding is in
> the eating. As humans expand their expansion is evidence
> that something changed; however the qualities of the
> expansion voice more than are predisposition to think we are
> somehow better quality than Neandertals. We appear to have
> driven Neandertals to extinction. The mechanism is not
> clear.
And like I said in part 1, the "cognitive threshold" event may have
happened relatively late (50K years ago), after we left Africa, but
before we got to Europe.
And you're right. We can't be absolutely clear about the mechanism,
based on the evidence we now have. But I think the one I've proposed
seems pretty reasonable. I think it fits not only the artifact
evidence, but also what we know about how human hunter-gatherer tribes
are organized, and how modern human culture operates.
I think it's certainly worth further study, both by its sympathizers,
and by critics who would look for ways to refute it. I wish them both
luck. :)
> >Yes. This would be one of the next logical steps in the development
> >of the theory. But we'd have to be careful not to define
> >"consciousness" in apriori terms, and then select only that evidence
> >which fits our definition.
>
> Thats called leading the data, and while scientist and
> particularly anthropologist do this I don't think this is
> scientifically valid. Your conclusions should be lead by the
> data, and the fair (statistical) analysis of the data.
Which is why I propose that we don't do it, but rather keep an open
mind regarding just what "consciousness" is until we have enough data
to do the job right.
> Questions
> Q1.Is the current data set sufficient to answer the
> question.
> A1. Apparently not. What one sees is a period in which human
> occupation of europe is not statistically clear, was likely
> earlier than archaeologist decreed. Also Neandertals
> probably persisted later than archaeologist have decreed.
> The statistics suggest that the samples in the 50 to 25 kya
> range are inadequate.
> A2. The cultural artefacts and the arguement over culture
> are not decisive when chronology is taken into account. Are
> we comparing 'early settling humans' with 'established
> neandertal encampments"? What about perishable evidence,
> wood, bone and other materials?
No problem. I didn't say that the evidence was conclusive. But it is
highly suggestive. At least to me.
I'm beginning to see a problem here. What I see as an integral part
of human cognition, one which played a major role in giving us our
selective evolutionary advantage (crazy medicine-man thinking), you
seem to see as a mental *defect*.
Far from being a "mental illness" that "may have driven humans outward
against better sense and occasionally hit pay dirt, advantageous to
the group," such a mode of thinking and behavior as manifested in
shamanistic animism is a key part of the "cognitive threshold" theory.
That is, it is precisely *this* pattern of thinking and behavior
which is what our symbolic thinking abilities enabled us to engage in,
and which gave us our selective advantage over Hn.
It was the key to our survival as a species, and the lack of it was
the primary cause of the extinction of Hn, according to the theory.
If you don't understand this point, you're missing the essence of the
theory.
DV
darth_versive
Yes. It certainly needs more fleshing out.
DV
Richard Wagler
Spiznet wrote:
An interesting counterpoint to the above is
Hoffecker, John F. (2002) Desolate landscapes : Ice-Age
settlement in Eastern Europe
New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press
in which he argues that AMHs were able to occupy
wide swaths of Europe that Ns found completely
uninhabitable because of superiour technologies
especially with regard to clothing
>
>
> In the earlier posts I was just trying to tell you that this is not a
> casual topic and has been thoroughly researched from many sides. The
> debate is still ongoing: whether you want to declare victory is up to
> you.
>
> I suspect that everyone on this message board is staying off this
> thread because they are too scarred from previous battles exactly
> along these lines… some topics are too painful and emotionally
> expensive to re-invest in… choke…
The problem with this topic is that a very vocal
group of the usenet PA community has decided
that Ns = AMHs is the only ethical position one can
take and the debate becomes not about the
evidence but about the moral character of people
who argue that Ns may not have been the
cognitive equals of AMHs. Very frustrating.
The poor buggers have been pushing up the
daisies for 30 millenia but the defence of their
reputations continues....and we don't even have
to get into the natural assumption of the moral
superiority of modern humans despite 4000
years of recorded human history that make this
a very dubious proposition.
Just from an emotive standpoint I find the proposition
that Ns were just like us to be, well, bloody boring.
In any event the replacement period may have lasted
for up to 10 millenia so I don't think a dramatic single
thing is going to be found or is even needed to explain
it. Competition between two closely related species
with one winning out over time due to the accumulative
effect of a trivial advantage. If tribes were confronting
bands it would have been over very quickly.
Rick Wagler
deowll
> >Is the existence of this sort of cognitive differential that hard to
> >imagine? I don't think so. I think it makes perfect sense, given the
> >artifact evidence we now have.
>
> Proof?
>
>
The problem is that if two runners run side by side for many miles before
one finally pulls ahead the idea that one was in some regard vastly superior
to the other is hard to swallow unless you are claiming both had major
defects that one overcame at the last moment? The evidence for major genetic
advances in modern humans at the time of European expansion is so for as I
know lacking.
HSN had large brains that were doing something. That they differed in some
ways from HS is likely to obvious but what those differences were in mental
ability is still being defined. Evidence that contemporay HS had major
cognitive or languistic advantages over HSN is lacking. That such would
provide a very solid reason for the replacement of HSN is undoubted.
What it fails to explain is why the two coexisted for so long. References to
cultural advances that occured after one group was completely marginalized
or extinct doesn't prove anything.
HS culture is has changed vastly over the last 10,000 years and many HS
groups have suffered because of the expansion of others even though no
cognative advantage is no believed to exist that favored the groups that
expanded.What allowed one population to expand at the expense of another is
often not clear. Even when we think we know we may well be wrong.
deowll
"darth_versive" <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.03081...@posting.google.com...
Nothing that we have achieved after the HSN population reduction proves any
advantage in abilities over them.
> > "
> > I think the evidence available today does *not* support the
> > idea that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as HSS.
> > I think the reverse is true.
> >
> > See _Science_, 7 March 2003 (vol. 299, No. 5612), p. 1526
> > ("Whither the Neanderthals?"). It goes into specifics on
> > the issues of:
> >
> > 1) art, jewelry and burial ritual (much less of it among
> > HSN), indicating, to me, a lesser capacity for
> > mythological/ritualistic thinking and behavior, and the
> > associated tendency for complex social organization,
> > "
> >
> > Yes, this was a good peice, however I have to point out that
> > when humans first arrive in eurasia Neandertal appear to
> > have a more complex culture than humans. Thus one has to
> > condition the argument.
>
> I think it's talking about a more complex human culture in the later
> stages, when they coexisted in Europe with HSN. If at some time
> before that, humans may have been cognitively *inferior* to
> Neanderthals, that wouldn't affect the "cognitive threshold" theory of
> Neanderthal extinction. It would just mean that the "threshold" event
> could have happened sometime after they left Africa, but before they
> got to Europe. The result would be the same.
>
So these people expanded and replaced the Africans who lacked this
advantage? No.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > "
> > 2) tool-making skills (much less innovation among HSN),
> > "
> >
> > Neandertals dissappeared before the major innovations in Hs
> > stone tools occur. There are questions whether Hs and Hn had
> > the share culture in certain areas.
>
> As with the case above, this wouldn't affect the theory. Whenever the
> main period of Hs innovation occurred is beside the point. The point
> is whether Hs had a greater cognitive capacity for symbolic thinking
> and any associated language skills during the time when they were in
> contact. If the main phase of stone tool innovation occured later,
> that can point to such a disparity which existed earlier. The main
> phase of human agricultural innovation, and the invention of a written
> language, occurred after Hn were extinct. That doesn't affect the
> theory either.
>
It doesn't affect the hypothesis? If evidence doesn't affect your hypothesis
we are talking walking by faith rather than science.
Let me see If I can make this clear. NOTHING that we have accomplished after
the reduction in population proves anything about the abilities of live Hsn!
The point is the only evidence of advantage must come from the time when the
two constestants competed. Maybe if we could get enough genetic data on them
and on us we could say more.
> As for shared culture, the _Science_ article mentions one place where
> there was thought to have been cultural sharing. I interpret this as
> imitation by Hn. But if you interpret it as evidence for Hs and Hn
> cognitive equality, that's ok.
>
> > "
> > 3) general artifact assemblage (much less varied among HSN),
> > "
> >
> > Because they went extinct and were in numeric decline from
> > 40 kya to 28 kya.
>
> No, they were comparing later Hs assemblages with earlier Hn
> assemblages, which I see as evidence of a cognitive disparity. Maybe
> Hn caught up with Hs in their last days. I don't think so.
>
Well gee whiz! Modern Americans are much smarter than the ones that lived
100 years ago. That is a reasonable assumption based on comparing our tech
to their tech and your line of reasoning.
> > "
> > 4) interbreeding (little evidence for it).
> > "
> >
> > Interbreeding has no bearing on intelligence. The
> > interspecific barrier may have been to biologically
> > (physiologically) great for small amounts of hybrids to make
> > a difference.
>
> I didn't cite this as evidence with a bearing on the issue of
> intelligence, but as evidence with a bearing on a rival theory of
> Neanderthal extinction, the "interbreeding" hypothesis (that Hs and Hn
> merged into one species, and Hs didn't replace Hn).
>
> > "
> > So, it seems to me, based on this type of evidence, that the
> > inferred intelligence/language-skills/symbolic-thinking
> > disparity between HSS and HSN was the most likely reason for
> > Neanderthal extinction.
> > "
> >
> > I look at this differently. Based on what is known, I would
> > argue that humans could come into an area with little
> > culture and improvise quickly. This means that humans can
> > survive in a 'culture-lite' scenario long enough to build
> > sophisticated cultures.
>
> If this is the way you see it, then maybe we really don't see it that
> differently after all. In the "cognitive threshold" theory, the
> "threshold" in question is the ability to develop and use culture in a
> modern human sense better than Hn.
>
I doubt that. Being able to get along on a lite culture is not what most
people mean by a cognitive threshold of creativity.
> > How language plays into their
> > ability to reinvent the wheel is unknown.
>
> I propose that a greater capacity for symbolic thinking "bled over"
> into our ancestor's language skills, and enabled them to develop such
> aspects of modern human culture as art, myth, ritual, and the like,
> and that these sorts of thought and behavior patterns are what enabled
> Hs to achieve a greater level of social organization (bands into
> tribes, etc.), and a tighter discipline and control over the members
> of particular bands (warrior class, etc. guided by shamans and elders,
> using totem animals, rites of passage, etc.). All this would be
> heavily dependent on the species' ability to engage in highly symbolic
> thinking. If Hn wasn't able to comprehend transcendent,
> "otherworldly" symbolism on the level that modern human hunter-gathers
> do today, they would not have been able to develop this kind of
> shamanistic animist culture, and they would have suffered from a
> comparative lack of social organization.
>
They seem to have had the bear cult to name a few things that imply you are
overlooking the evidence in favor of a hypothesis.
> > We have seen this
> > before however. In the US me left farms and townships to
> > become mountain men and trappers and live with few
> > 'neccesities' than their urban equivilants. One thing it
> > seems that humans have to have had and port with them is the
> > ability to travel over water. This could mean that once they
> > established camps or settlements they were capable of going
> > to other places to learn or import culture from other
> > places, allowing them to beef up and existing culture.
> > Danube river is one place this might have been useful,
> > iberia and sardinia also. Any coastal or riparian motif
> > might have allowed them to reach into and area. So the human
> > factor may have been as simple as a proficiency or
> > facilities to make dugouts and to use them wherever
> > possible. The ability to travel.
>
> Yes. The ability to develop and use culture in a modern human sense
> makes Hs more adaptable than Hn was. This is the essence of the
> "cognitive threshold" theory of Neanderthal extinction. The
> "threshold" was over into the ability to use modern human culture.
>
Only modern humans use modern human culture. This doesn't actually prove
they are any smarter than people who used early human culture. The idea of
some sort of cognitive threshold seems to catch a lot of people but then so
does Atlantis and Moo. All three ideas have the same problem. A lack of
evidence. That our abilities aren't based on a continium without a clean
line drawn in the sand is going to take proving.
> > "
> > I think that our capacity for symbolic thinking is the
> > foundation of modern human culture,
> > "
> >
> > I think Neandertals had some capacity for symbolic thinking.
>
> Yes. As I've already said. And chimps have some capacity for
> symbolic thinking as well. The key factor is the difference between
> them, and whether the capacity for symbolic thinking reaches that
> "critical threshold" I spoke of, where such things as art, myth,
> ritual, etc. can come into play.
>
In that case I'd say iron clad evidence exists that both groups crossed it.
The Hsn weren't collecting cave bear skulls to make tools out of and they
skulls hadn't been processed for food.
You are aware that not all humans out of Africa 50K ago vanished root and
stem and that the African groups seem to have been solid long before 50K?
> > "
> > Does this hypothesis sound reasonable, or has the evidence
> > mentioned in the _Science_ article I cited been rebutted by
> > some other recent journal article? I haven't spotted any
> > rebuttal articles or even letters to the editor in _Science_
> > itself, though I might have missed them.
> > "
> >
> > It is reasonable but over simplified.
>
> Well, gotta start somewhere. Better an oversimplifed theory that's on
> the right track than a very sophisticated one that's on the wrong
> track, I always say.
>
This one is a train wreck with the evidence.
> Have you ever heard of a similar theory to explain the extinction of
> the Neanderthals, which links the artifact record with symbolic
> thinking, and with art, myth, ritual, etc., and with the capacity for
> using modern human culture?
>
Sure. They all have the same problem. They don't fit the evidence.
> I'm not much up on the literature in this field. I'd like to read
> more about it if there's something similar out there.
>
Do a search. There is tons of this stuff in print. It doesn't match the
evidence.
I would say it absolutely negates some of what you have said and is very
suggestive that at the time the two groups coexisted they were very similiar
in abilities.
darth_versive
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
> > ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message
<snip>
> > I cited a specific _Science_ article, which talks about evidence of
> > behavioral differences based on specific evidence in the form of art,
> > jewelry, burial ritual, toolmaking, artifact assemblage, etc. I asked
> > for comments on this article citing recent research disputing this
> > evidence. I'm still waiting.
> > DV-
>
> Your cognitive threshold scenario is a mainstream, older view (not to
> say it is incorrect) but much research has been coming down against
> it. Here are some specific references:
Thanks for the references. I'll look them up when I have a chance.
You wouldn't happen to know if any of them are available online, would
you?
> Recent, revisionist:
> Neanderthal Archaeology- Implications for Our Origins
> G.A. Clark
> American Anthropologist 104(1) 50-67 © 2002
> Quote from abstract:
> "Because the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is thought
> by many to correspond to the biological replacement of Neanderthals by
> modern humans over the ten ky bracketing 40kyr BP, generalizations
> about the archaeological transition invoked in support of biological
> replacement are examined and found to lack empirical support."
Note: I haven't made generalizations about the archaeological
transitions involved, so much as I've made generalizations about
relative cognitive capacities based on those artifacts which I know
about. Exactly what the particular archaeological transitions may
have been which support the particular theory of biological
replacement to which this article is responding, and what level of
empirical support these generalizations may have, I wouldn't know.
Therefore, the focus of this article you cite may not really be that
germane to the particular "cognitive threshold" theory that I'm
proposing.
Do you know of any recent article that directly addresses the artifact
evidence that the author of the _Science_ article I cited mentions,
which he seems to interpret as meaning that Hs had a greater cognitive
capacity for symbolic thinking, and greater capacity for innovation?
I'm basing my theory on the notion that this view is correct, and if
it's not, I'd like to know that. But I'm not willing to just go on
the say-so of somebody who posts here regarding which research is good
and which is bad. I'd like to find something written in a prestigious
peer-reviewed journal like _Science_ or _Nature_, etc.
> Also:
> The cultural capacities of Neanderthals: a review and re-evaluation
> Brian Hayden
> Journal of Human Evolution (1993) 24, 113-146 © 1993 Academic Press
> Quote from abstract:
> "Numerous articles have appeared in the past decade that have
> portrayed Neanderthals in a dehumanized, almost non-cultural fashion.
> ?a model is proposed capable of explaining differences between Middle
> and Upper Paleolithic art in technological and economic rather than
> biological terms."
Note: I don't portray Neanderthals in such a way. I believe they were
quite intelligent, and *did* have a culture of sorts. I think it was
*way* more advanced than chimp culture, and I have a lot of respect
even for that. I have a lot of respect for *all* hominids and their
cultures. But that doesn't mean that I see them as all having
cultures of equal complexity or utility.
The "cognitive threshold" theory, as I've proposed it, isn't really
involved so much in "explaining" the differences between Middle and
Upper Paleolitic art, but instead in using the differences that have
been noted in Hs and Hn art as evidence for a cognitive disparity.
And then building upon that.
I'm sure that technological and economic factors, as well as
biological ones (the biology of Hs and Hn cognitive architecture,
etc.) were both involved in the production of art, so I would see
playing the one off against the other as a form of the false dichotomy
of nature vs. nurture. Plus, the way I see it, both technological and
economic factors themselves have to do with culture, and the
relationship between culture and cognitive capacity (biology) is the
key nexus of the theory I'm proposing, and so putting the one off
against the other makes no sense to me.
> The Accretion Model of Neanderthal Evolution
> John Hawks (U of Utah) & Milford Wolpoff (U of Michigan)
> Evolution 55(7) ,2001, pp. 1474-1485 © The Society for the Study of
> Evolution
> This paper is part of corpus of MREH (multi-regional evolution
> hypothesis), and posits significant genetic flow between Neanderthal
> and amHs. But, relating to our topic, it also does not support amHs
> "superiority".
>
> Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and
> Music- An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective
> D'Errico, et.al
> Journal of World Prehistory, Vol 17, No. 1, March 2003 (© 2003)
> This is possibly THE paper we should read before continuing our
> discussion?
>
> And last but not least:
> The Upper Paleolithic Revolution
> Ofer Bar-Yosef Harvard U.
> Annual Rev. Anthropology 2002. 31:363-93 © 2002
> This is an excellent overview of our topic, it also references other
> significant papers we could round out with:
> "The nature of the Upper Paleolithic revolution is at the center of
> current debates (e.g., White 1982, 1997; Mellars 1989, 1996a, 2000;
> Straus 1996; Gibson 1996; Bar-Yosef 1998; Zilhao & D'Errico 1999;
> Wadley 2001; Clark 1997a; Klein 1995, 1999; McBrearty & Brooks 2000;
> Churchill & Smith 2000; Hublin 2000)?"
>
> Add these perspectives to the one presented in your article from
> Science.
Again, thanks for the citations. I don't doubt that a number of
people have written various books and articles disputing the viewpoint
presented in the _Science_ article. Just like I'm aware of people who
write books and articles affirming the memetics or sociobiological
viewpoints (views which I disagree with). So the fact that there may
be a number of books and articles out there, while informative, is not
really what I was asking for.
I was really hoping to find something written in direct response to
this evidence I cited in the _Science_ article that has been published
in an equally prestigious journal (like Nature, etc.). That is, I
want to find something that has already been vetted by well-respected
academics in their field. I want the peer review system to work the
way it's supposed to. I don't really want to have to become an expert
in this field myself (I'm been studying comparative cognitive schema,
cognitive theory, and history of ideas for many years, not
paleoanthropology or archaeology).
I haven't noticed that there's been a response in _Science_ itself. I
would think that if there's a good, solid, academic debate going on
out there, there would have been at least a few letters to the editor
or something.
> In the earlier posts I was just trying to tell you that this is not a
> casual topic and has been thoroughly researched from many sides. The
> debate is still ongoing: whether you want to declare victory is up to
> you.
I'm not declaring victory. Declaring victory would be pointless in a
science NG. "Victory" for any hypothesis depends on what the academic
community concludes over time, not on some debate in a usenet usegroup
or a private discussion. But asking for a serious scientific
discussion here doesn't seem pointless, as a way to get some
information regarding the ideas that are circulating around. I was
mainly trying to find out from people who were following this issue in
more detail than I am whether the viewpoint represented by the
_Science_ article was the mainstream view. Or if not, whether there
were any conflicting views expressed in other prestigious, peer
reviewed journals. Given that, so far, those who have been studying
this topic in detail have not been able to cite such articles, I tend
to draw the conclusion from this that it *does* represent the
mainstream view. This conclusion is based upon my own education in
science, and my knowledge of how the peer review system works.
But I've also gotten a lot of specific objections to my proposed
theory from various posters here, along with the lack of such
citations. And I've been responding to these as best I can. Like I
said, I've mainly been interested in topics outside the field of
paleoanthropology, and I'm interested to see if these topics have a
bearing on the issue of the extinction of the Neanderthals.
> I suspect that everyone on this message board is staying off this
> thread because they are too scarred from previous battles exactly
> along these lines? some topics are too painful and emotionally
> expensive to re-invest in? choke?
Well, I don't mean to open old wounds. But for those who are honestly
curious about such things, and are interested in a scientific
discussion of these matters, I'd like to have a discussion with them.
I would assume that those with a genuine scientific mindset would be
very hard to scar by a genuine scientific discussion, even if it
involves a theoretical viewpoint which they disagree with; in fact,
these can be the most productive discussions, for each side. And I
also assume that someone who would find these topic to be too
emotionally painful to discuss is really not the kind of
scientifically-minded person that I'm really looking for to have a
serious discussion with. So I guess that those who are staying off
this thread for this reason are doing us both a favor by doing so.
> ?but I'm a newbie, so I'm just happy to be soaking all this up!
> Cheers! I'm off to the beach for the weekend.
>
> -Mark
You actually seem to be a pretty reasonable, scientifically-detached,
empirically-grounded person, from what I've experienced so far.
DV
darth_versive
<snip>
> The problem with this topic is that a very vocal
> group of the usenet PA community has decided
> that Ns = AMHs is the only ethical position one can
> take and the debate becomes not about the
> evidence but about the moral character of people
> who argue that Ns may not have been the
> cognitive equals of AMHs. Very frustrating.
> The poor buggers have been pushing up the
> daisies for 30 millenia but the defence of their
> reputations continues....and we don't even have
> to get into the natural assumption of the moral
> superiority of modern humans despite 4000
> years of recorded human history that make this
> a very dubious proposition.
If this is true then these people are not very scientifically-minded,
and not the kind of people I would care to discuss the topic with.
And not, I might add, the kind of people who are likely to influence
the genuine scientific discussion, in the same way that critics of
"Social Darwinism" were unable to influence the genuine scientific
discussion of evolution.
> Just from an emotive standpoint I find the proposition
> that Ns were just like us to be, well, bloody boring.
>
> In any event the replacement period may have lasted
> for up to 10 millenia so I don't think a dramatic single
> thing is going to be found or is even needed to explain
> it. Competition between two closely related species
> with one winning out over time due to the accumulative
> effect of a trivial advantage. If tribes were confronting
> bands it would have been over very quickly.
>
> Rick Wagler
Maybe, maybe not. There was a lot of territory to cover, and the
advantages may not have been so great that they could slam-dunk the Hn
in a few seasons. In fact, organized interspecies conflict might have
been quite rare, and the main advantage to greater group size may have
been manifested in better hunting abilities and better adapation to
ecological stress (drought or blizzards, etc.)
We just don't know. But a "cognitive threshold" theory of some sort
would give us a way forward to test different versions of what could
have happened. It would make testable predictions which would give us
indications of its worth, and guide research forward into productive
areas, if it were correct.
DV
Bob Keeter
"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:78y%a.10511$f44....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> news:gteqjv426bg8cbafi...@4ax.com...
> > On 15 Aug 2003 12:17:39 -0700, darth_...@yahoo.com
> > (darth_versive) wrote:
> >
> snip________________-
> > >Is the existence of this sort of cognitive differential that hard to
> > >imagine? I don't think so. I think it makes perfect sense, given the
> > >artifact evidence we now have.
> >
> > Proof?
> >
> >
> Giving a little agreement to what Philip said.
ROTFL!
> The problem is that if two runners run side by side for many miles before
> one finally pulls ahead the idea that one was in some regard vastly
superior
> to the other is hard to swallow unless you are claiming both had major
> defects that one overcame at the last moment? The evidence for major
genetic
> advances in modern humans at the time of European expansion is so for as I
> know lacking.
Yep. Betcha it aint genetic then! ;-)
> HSN had large brains that were doing something. That they differed in some
> ways from HS is likely to obvious but what those differences were in
mental
> ability is still being defined. Evidence that contemporay HS had major
> cognitive or languistic advantages over HSN is lacking. That such would
> provide a very solid reason for the replacement of HSN is undoubted.
>
Not so sure about that last statement.
> What it fails to explain is why the two coexisted for so long. References
to
> cultural advances that occured after one group was completely marginalized
> or extinct doesn't prove anything.
Not only did they co-exist, but the HN made it through some pretty traumatic
times all on their own, and did so for several hundred thousand years.
> HS culture is has changed vastly over the last 10,000 years and many HS
> groups have suffered because of the expansion of others even though no
> cognative advantage is no believed to exist that favored the groups that
> expanded.What allowed one population to expand at the expense of another
is
> often not clear. Even when we think we know we may well be wrong.
If you look at "meetings" of HS cultures, I would offer that there are two
fairly consistent reasons for one culture to "succeed" and outcompete the
other. Again assuming that all HS have more or less the same "cognitive
abilities" of course.
Think in terms of technology and disease. And also think about HS
technology during the times of coexistence. If the HS technology was more
or less the same as HN and they coexisted. . . . did it change radically
just before HS won the competition? Did some new group of HS come busting
up out of the tropics and wipe out their 1st cousin HS as well as the second
cousin HN with some new disease? Could a greater cognitive capability have
explained why the HS ended up with better tools and weapons, sure, but its
just not needed as the HSvHS clashes in more modern times, clearly show.
Regards
bk
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>The evidence for better language skills is the evidence for greater
>ability for symbolic thinking which I interpret from the content of
>this _Science_ article, and other various articles and documentaries
>I've seen of a similar vein. If you interpret this sort of evidence
>differently, as *not* demonstrating any difference in behavioral
>characteristics or cognitive abilities, then I guess that's that. The
>evidence seems pretty clear to me, though.
The type of science articles which you speak are often more
editorials and popular science than real science.
>> Yes, this was a good peice, however I have to point out that
>> when humans first arrive in eurasia Neandertal appear to
>> have a more complex culture than humans. Thus one has to
>> condition the argument.
>
>I think it's talking about a more complex human culture in the later
>stages, when they coexisted in Europe with HSN. If at some time
>before that, humans may have been cognitively *inferior* to
>Neanderthals, that wouldn't affect the "cognitive threshold" theory of
>Neanderthal extinction. It would just mean that the "threshold" event
>could have happened sometime after they left Africa, but before they
>got to Europe. The result would be the same.
I seriously doubt they were cognatively inferior and then
got superior. Early humans in europe suffered from
diminuitive numbers until their culture caught up.
From my point of veiw genetic predisposition to be capable
to build rocket ships, etc. existed the moment humans step
out of africa. What is lacking is the cultural feedback.
When ever you immigrate from a culture where you are getting
feedback to a place distal from that or similar culture you
are going to see stagnation and in some places decline. It
has nothing to do with predispostions.
As the saying goes, man is not an island.
>> Neandertals dissappeared before the major innovations in Hs
>> stone tools occur. There are questions whether Hs and Hn had
>> the share culture in certain areas.
>
>As with the case above, this wouldn't affect the theory. Whenever the
>main period of Hs innovation occurred is beside the point. The point
>is whether Hs had a greater cognitive capacity for symbolic thinking
>and any associated language skills during the time when they were in
>contact. If the main phase of stone tool innovation occured later,
>that can point to such a disparity which existed earlier. The main
>phase of human agricultural innovation, and the invention of a written
>language, occurred after Hn were extinct. That doesn't affect the
>theory either.
I might agree with you but one also has to realize, if your
argument is based on what happens in europe, you cannot use
either of these things as any kind of evidence. Neandertals
went extinct, singling out europe as the container of the
arguement, if they had not gone extinct then they might have
later done all these things humans did. Therefore the answer
is not in the comparative culture of pre-gravettian europe.
One has to look elsewhere.
>As for shared culture, the _Science_ article mentions one place where
>there was thought to have been cultural sharing. I interpret this as
>imitation by Hn. But if you interpret it as evidence for Hs and Hn
>cognitive equality, that's ok.
You are relying to heavily on one bit of press hype. You
know Japan went from a 2 bit island culture, 100s of years
behind the chinese, and in about 200 years became the second
largest economic power in the world, all by iminitating what
others were doing and adding the own subtle innovations. One
could look at the ability of humans to imitate and
reconstitute culture of other hominids as something of
benifit to the copier. I would.
In fact, I would argue it is the eventual ability of
humans to imitate Neandertal adaptations in europe which
eventually allowed them to displace Neanderthals.
>No, they were comparing later Hs assemblages with earlier Hn
>assemblages, which I see as evidence of a cognitive disparity. Maybe
>Hn caught up with Hs in their last days. I don't think so.
Then it was not a valid comparison.
>> Interbreeding has no bearing on intelligence. The
>> interspecific barrier may have been to biologically
>> (physiologically) great for small amounts of hybrids to make
>> a difference.
>
>I didn't cite this as evidence with a bearing on the issue of
>intelligence, but as evidence with a bearing on a rival theory of
>Neanderthal extinction, the "interbreeding" hypothesis (that Hs and Hn
>merged into one species, and Hs didn't replace Hn).
In either case it has no bearing.
According to recent reanalysis of the data, there were
apparently no erectoids living in Japan, Humans would have
been the first.
>Have you ever heard of a similar theory to explain the extinction of
>the Neanderthals, which links the artifact record with symbolic
>thinking, and with art, myth, ritual, etc., and with the capacity for
>using modern human culture?
I have no doubt humans drove neandertals to extinction,
there may have been other factors but humans were at least
50% of the reason. What I doubt is that it was simple
intelligence differences. Sceince has a was of playing
jester to well thought out theories. Often time what ends of
being causal is some unexpected scenario.
>No, I think that it's the reverse: that greater symbolic thinking in
>humans induced extinction in Neanderthals.
Cognition does not induce the extinction of Neandertals.
Violence, Competition, Agression, Predation
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message news:<gteqjv426bg8cbafi...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Aug 2003 12:17:39 -0700, darth_...@yahoo.com
>> (darth_versive) wrote:
>Being adventurous and having wanderlust seems to me to be in keeping
>with modern human culture. Therefore, this observation is compatible
>with the "cognitive threshold" theory.
Vague association, what is your proof.
>> I think you need to think in terms of what abilities humans
>> clearly demostrated that other groups seem not to
>> demostrate. Each of the things you hit upon as being human,
>> Neandertals appear to have some skill at. What is clear
>> however is given the same relative opportunity to expand,
>> humans did and Neandertals did not. Not only this if one
>> looks globally humans are expanding into places whereby we
>> did not expect them to have the technologies to do so early
>> in human evolution. As a result these are the human things
>> we can focus on.
>
>No, I don't think so. I haven't seen much evidence so far for
>Neanderthals having a capacity for developing a highly-symbolic
>religion.
Evidence before 29 kya in humans?
>These are all behaviors that one might expect from a species able to
>develop and use culture in a modern human sense. It all fits into the
>"cognitive threshold" theory.
Vague association. Proof.
>And like I said in part 1, the "cognitive threshold" event may have
>happened relatively late (50K years ago), after we left Africa, but
>before we got to Europe.
Unlikely. Kleinistic.
Richard Wagler
darth_versive wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3F3E68F5...@shaw.ca>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The problem with this topic is that a very vocal
> > group of the usenet PA community has decided
> > that Ns = AMHs is the only ethical position one can
> > take and the debate becomes not about the
> > evidence but about the moral character of people
> > who argue that Ns may not have been the
> > cognitive equals of AMHs. Very frustrating.
> > The poor buggers have been pushing up the
> > daisies for 30 millenia but the defence of their
> > reputations continues....and we don't even have
> > to get into the natural assumption of the moral
> > superiority of modern humans despite 4000
> > years of recorded human history that make this
> > a very dubious proposition.
>
> If this is true then these people are not very scientifically-minded,
> and not the kind of people I would care to discuss the topic with.
Well some pretty well-grounded people do this. People
probably think I've got Anne Gilbert in mind. Not particularly.
For example Richard Klein's ideas are dismissed out of
hand as a 'magic gene' theory without a well-reasoned
refutation ever being put forward.Klein is not some wet
behind the ears newbie new to the PA game.
>
>
> And not, I might add, the kind of people who are likely to influence
> the genuine scientific discussion, in the same way that critics of
> "Social Darwinism" were unable to influence the genuine scientific
> discussion of evolution.
You would be wrong. The issue of the nature of the Neanderthal
relationship to modern humans is a very intense battleground.
>
>
> > Just from an emotive standpoint I find the proposition
> > that Ns were just like us to be, well, bloody boring.
> >
> > In any event the replacement period may have lasted
> > for up to 10 millenia so I don't think a dramatic single
> > thing is going to be found or is even needed to explain
> > it. Competition between two closely related species
> > with one winning out over time due to the accumulative
> > effect of a trivial advantage. If tribes were confronting
> > bands it would have been over very quickly.
> >
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Maybe, maybe not. There was a lot of territory to cover, and the
> advantages may not have been so great that they could slam-dunk the Hn
> in a few seasons.
A few seasons or several millenia are the only
choices?
> In fact, organized interspecies conflict might have
> been quite rare, and the main advantage to greater group size may have
> been manifested in better hunting abilities and better adapation to
> ecological stress (drought or blizzards, etc.)
Sure. But greater group size does not drop
out of the sky nor is it a matter of a choice
Ns chose not to make as some seem to argue.
>
>
> We just don't know. But a "cognitive threshold" theory of some sort
> would give us a way forward to test different versions of what could
> have happened. It would make testable predictions which would give us
> indications of its worth, and guide research forward into productive
> areas, if it were correct.
Absolutely. And this is what seems to get short shrift.
Did modern humans have a cognitive advantage, what
was it, what did it let them do and how would it show
up in the archaeological record? This is just too much
for some people...
Rick Wagler
PS Get that Hoffecker book I mentioned in a previous
post. Fascinating reading and is a worthy target for
those who completely disagree with me. Can't simply
be tossed into the corner with last week's newspapers
Ross Macfarlane
...
> > > The problem with this topic is that a very vocal
> > > group of the usenet PA community has decided
> > > that Ns = AMHs is the only ethical position one can
> > > take and the debate becomes not about the
> > > evidence but about the moral character of people
> > > who argue that Ns may not have been the
> > > cognitive equals of AMHs. Very frustrating.
> > > The poor buggers have been pushing up the
> > > daisies for 30 millenia but the defence of their
> > > reputations continues....and we don't even have
> > > to get into the natural assumption of the moral
> > > superiority of modern humans despite 4000
> > > years of recorded human history that make this
> > > a very dubious proposition.
> >
Good comment. I can't understand the stance of some people who seem to
imply that being a different species would somehow make Neanderthals
less worthy. It would do nothing of the sort, & is the sort of
anthopomorphic wrong-headedness that the science could well do
without.
As far as being another species, or being as intelligent as AMH, or
whatever comparative criteria, well - they either were or they
weren't, but it really doesn't matter. The fact that they were there,
& were different, should be enough to interest & engage us. Let the
evidence for their status stand or fall on its merit, not on some
foolish anthropomorphic dispute about specific or racial status...
Ross Macfarlane
Ross Macfarlane
The thing is though, the idea of a 50KYA cognitive threshold is
rubbish, because anatomically modern humans were around long before
then. Did it never occur in Africa or Australia? A cultural change is
what is recorded in the European archaeological record, not an
evolutionary change...
Ross Macfarlane
Philip Deitiker
(Ross Macfarlane) wrote:
>The thing is though, the idea of a 50KYA cognitive threshold is
>rubbish, because anatomically modern humans were around long before
>then. Did it never occur in Africa or Australia? A cultural change is
>what is recorded in the European archaeological record, not an
>evolutionary change...
Pretty much and that should tells us about the reliability
of all other evidence, since europe, by far, is the most
'well' documented, and still what it documents is hard to
interpret.
darth_versive
> darth_versive wrote:
>
> > Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3F3E68F5...@shaw.ca>...
<snip>
> > If this is true then these people are not very scientifically-minded,
> > and not the kind of people I would care to discuss the topic with.
>
> Well some pretty well-grounded people do this. People
> probably think I've got Anne Gilbert in mind. Not particularly.
> For example Richard Klein's ideas are dismissed out of
> hand as a 'magic gene' theory without a well-reasoned
> refutation ever being put forward.Klein is not some wet
> behind the ears newbie new to the PA game.
Richard Klein wrote the _Science_ article which I cited. I was
looking for someone who might know of any recent rebuttal in some
widely-respected general science magazine like _Science_ or _Nature_.
No luck so far.
> > And not, I might add, the kind of people who are likely to influence
> > the genuine scientific discussion, in the same way that critics of
> > "Social Darwinism" were unable to influence the genuine scientific
> > discussion of evolution.
>
> You would be wrong. The issue of the nature of the Neanderthal
> relationship to modern humans is a very intense battleground.
I was saying that moralistic or emotional arguments would not affect
the genuine scientific discussion, which is instead (to me) based on
empirical evidence, and various hypotheses that try to make sense out
of this evidence.
What you've just said doesn't seem to me to indicate that I'm wrong
about this. In fact, I would *expect* the genuine scientific
discussion to be a very intense battleground. What I was saying is
that what I would call the "genuine" scientific discussion is the one
over evidence and hypotheses, not one driven by moralistic or
emotional consideration.
That moralistic and emotional discussion is a very intense
battleground as well, but it's not what I would consider part of the
"genuine" scientific discussion.
Of course, this is only my opinion of what constitutes the "genuine"
scientific discussion. For others, perhaps, the moralistic and
emotional consequences of some discovery are every bit as much a part
of the genuine scientific discussion as the empirical and theoretical
part.
Just like, for some, the supposed moral and political consequences of
evolution (like Social Darwinism) were a legitimate part of the
genuine scientific discussion over evolution. But I don't see it this
way. Again, just my opinion.
> > > Just from an emotive standpoint I find the proposition
> > > that Ns were just like us to be, well, bloody boring.
> > >
> > > In any event the replacement period may have lasted
> > > for up to 10 millenia so I don't think a dramatic single
> > > thing is going to be found or is even needed to explain
> > > it. Competition between two closely related species
> > > with one winning out over time due to the accumulative
> > > effect of a trivial advantage. If tribes were confronting
> > > bands it would have been over very quickly.
> > >
> > > Rick Wagler
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. There was a lot of territory to cover, and the
> > advantages may not have been so great that they could slam-dunk the Hn
> > in a few seasons.
>
> A few seasons or several millenia are the only
> choices?
I was engaging in a bit of hyberbole, accenting the extreme, to make a
point. Of course they're not the only choices.
> > In fact, organized interspecies conflict might have
> > been quite rare, and the main advantage to greater group size may have
> > been manifested in better hunting abilities and better adapation to
> > ecological stress (drought or blizzards, etc.)
>
> Sure. But greater group size does not drop
> out of the sky nor is it a matter of a choice
> Ns chose not to make as some seem to argue.
I didn't say it dropped out of the sky. I've already outlined my
proposed mechanism as to how Hs groups were organized into tribes.
And I didn't say it was a matter of choice Hn's chose not to make.
Precisely the reverse. They didn't have the choice because they
lacked the cognitive ability, according to the the theory I've
proposed.
> > We just don't know. But a "cognitive threshold" theory of some sort
> > would give us a way forward to test different versions of what could
> > have happened. It would make testable predictions which would give us
> > indications of its worth, and guide research forward into productive
> > areas, if it were correct.
>
> Absolutely. And this is what seems to get short shrift.
> Did modern humans have a cognitive advantage, what
> was it, what did it let them do and how would it show
> up in the archaeological record? This is just too much
> for some people...
>
> Rick Wagler
Right. And I'm not saying that the evidence conclusively proves that
Hs had a cognitive advantage over Hn. I'm saying that this is what
the evidence I've heard about suggests to me, and so I assume it is
correct.
And just in case this assumption *is* correct, I'm proposing a theory
by which such an assumed cognitive advantage could have been
manifested on the ground, and how it could have resulted in Hn
extinction.
And I agree. It's too much for some people to engage in, even as a
thought-experiment. (That is: *If* Hs were able to think better in
symbolic terms, *then* what do you think of this proposed theory of
how that advantage could have resulted in Hn extinction?)
> PS Get that Hoffecker book I mentioned in a previous
> post. Fascinating reading and is a worthy target for
> those who completely disagree with me. Can't simply
> be tossed into the corner with last week's newspapers
Next time I'm in the library I'll look it up.
DV
Bob Keeter
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.03081...@posting.google.com...
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<3F3FFE0A...@shaw.ca>...
> ...
> > > > The problem with this topic is that a very vocal
> > > > group of the usenet PA community has decided
> > > > that Ns = AMHs is the only ethical position one can
> > > > take and the debate becomes not about the
> > > > evidence but about the moral character of people
> > > > who argue that Ns may not have been the
> > > > cognitive equals of AMHs. Very frustrating.
> > > > The poor buggers have been pushing up the
> > > > daisies for 30 millenia but the defence of their
> > > > reputations continues....and we don't even have
> > > > to get into the natural assumption of the moral
> > > > superiority of modern humans despite 4000
> > > > years of recorded human history that make this
> > > > a very dubious proposition.
> > >
>
> Good comment. I can't understand the stance of some people who seem to
> imply that being a different species would somehow make Neanderthals
> less worthy. It would do nothing of the sort, & is the sort of
> anthopomorphic wrong-headedness that the science could well do
> without.
Keep talking like that and you might find the unfortunate circumstance of
having me agree with you far more often than I already do! 8-)
Some people are committed to the point that "different" means that one was
superior and the other inferior. If the truth be known, I would suggest
that for at least 50ky or so (while HS and HN rubbed sholders in the middle
east), it was pretty much a "push" with the HN being "superior" in the
northern regions and HS having the advantage in the southern. Then
"something", you say cultural and I happen to agree, happened and the
advantage shifted towards HS. Not biological or physiological but cultural
(technological?).
> As far as being another species, or being as intelligent as AMH, or
> whatever comparative criteria, well - they either were or they
> weren't, but it really doesn't matter. The fact that they were there,
> & were different, should be enough to interest & engage us. Let the
> evidence for their status stand or fall on its merit, not on some
> foolish anthropomorphic dispute about specific or racial status...
>
And dont forget that at least over that period where there was demonstrable
intermixing, all were as a minimum "equal" in the survival game. Rules
changed and HS ended up occupying the HN range, and then there were rather
suddenly no HN, with no significant physiological or genetic difference in
HS.
Regards
bk
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>What you've just said doesn't seem to me to indicate that I'm wrong
>about this. In fact, I would *expect* the genuine scientific
>discussion to be a very intense battleground. What I was saying is
>that what I would call the "genuine" scientific discussion is the one
>over evidence and hypotheses, not one driven by moralistic or
>emotional consideration.
Your starting to sound very much like Jim McGinn about 3
years ago.
>That moralistic and emotional discussion is a very intense
>battleground as well, but it's not what I would consider part of the
>"genuine" scientific discussion.
Klien and Wolpoff are part of that discussion. Klein is as
emotional about out of africaism as Wolpoff is about MREH.
They are two extremes. There is no middle ground except what
you find here, people without a vested interest in one cause
or the other. You seem to object to a balanced critique.
By pointing out these defects does not mean I agree with
Wolpoff, it simply means that some of these Guru's are
taking extreme stances.
1. Vigilant et al. 1991. The first really definitive paper
on human molecular origins trumps all previous papers. The
finding of this paper is based on the universal reality that
genetic diversity is greatest in africa and diminishes as
one moves away from africa. Autosomal genes recombine
frequently and overtime have few relevant mutations. The
haploid, singles sex passage of mtDNA makes this resistent
to these affects. The MRCA for mtDNA is placed between 150
and 250 ky. And the expansion about 95 kya.
Critiques.
1. Calibration. None Vigilant calls up Sarich, Sarich says 4
to 6 million years C/H LCA, unconfidenced. Current data is
suggesting an older C/H LCA
2. Transition to Transversion ratios. This is critical
because this ratio is used to measure off the distance
between chimp and humans where transitions are useless.
Vigilant uses the estimated 15:1 from primates. However I
used recently derived sequences from chimpanzee and Gorilla
and found that the ts:tv ratio to be around 11:1. Vigilant
couldn't have estimated this since the genetic data was not
available in 1991.
3. Mutation rate variation. Not considered.
4. Variation in substitution rate over the region studied.
5. 1 chimp used as out group.
I reexamined the HRV region over the part with the most
consistent mutation rate, applied the 11:1 ts:tv while
leaving the C/H MRCA alone. I also used the average distance
from chimp to humans and considered the effect of reverse
tranversions based on the abundance detected in gorilla and
chimp lines. I found that the MRCA for humans was earlier
and the confidence interval wider than what vigilant
proposed. In particular I found that explosive radiation in
human lines was about 4 ME deep (looking at thousands of
seuqences) with a ME abing about 34,500 years.
There was very little difference between the intrafrica
explosion and exoafrican explosiion. This suggests that soon
after 138 kya humans begin expanding out of africa.
This date fits both LiuJiang, LM3, and some of the skhul
artifacts. There is no evidence in the data for a secondary
explosion 50 kya.
Following up this Paabo did his study on genomic mtDNA,
about 100 samples, he concluded that humans left africa 52
kya +/- 29,000 years. This confidence interval is more
accurate; however the 52,000 is based on the assumption that
he concludes that all lines left simultaneously. The
reexamination of Indonesian/Australo are already challenging
his assumption, and it is likely that the first humans left
africa considerably earlier. Indeed the recent studies of
andaman islanders suggest that humans had to have left
africa before 65 kya.
Why is the thinking changing?
LiuJiang redated. Originally LiuJiang skull which is a
slightly derived australonegroid morphology was dated to
20 kya based on a favorable comparison with a preJomon
Japanese skull. Dating of LiuJiang reveals that the site is
from 68 to 150 kya with the highest probability of 113 kya.
LM3. Bowler refutes the redating, based largely on very
unreliable C-14 dates of charcoal. Thorne redated LM3 with
several techniques, many relying on material found within
the skeleta itself, found a date of 62,500 years and
suggested 70 kya humans had crossed the flores island divide
and were in the south eastern oceania region. Indeed
correcting the mtDNA dating of solomon islanders for
miscalibration suggests that humans were in the region prior
to 70 kya suggestive that the original branches of mtDNA
occurred 90 kya in the region (probably not solomon itself).
IndoPacific. Original studies of Pebble Tool culture
presumed these tools were left by non-sapien erectoids,
however further studies reveal this was a human culture, the
remains of a pebble tool culture have recently been date to
before the Mt Toba eruption placing them in eastern
indopacific 80 kya. The pebble culture eventually makes it's
way to Japan and to South America, and is also found in
northern china.
Skhul and Qahfez. More controversial. This site has found
the earliest date for Non-neandertals is between 120-130
kya. However some of the skhul samples are controversially
human, with the discovery of Bouri hominids and the hominids
in Morocco it is potentially true that some of the earlies
skhul 'humans' were not humans.
Blombos Cave. Symbolic etchings made in red Ocher dated to
70 to 80 kya.
South America. Again the pebble tool culture appears >13 kya
suggestive that with the fairly simple toolkit that settled
asia 80 kya allowed the immigration of asians to the new
world. I strongly suspect that while this wave of people has
been diluted, the genetic representation in the New world is
either the highest or second highest in terms of allelic
contribution, particularly in south america, central america
and eastern US. Again all this occurs without any of the
Klienistic evidence.
Thus the argument concerning artifacts and mtDNA suggest my
interpretation of the african migration is more accurate
than Paabo's estimation of 52 kya. Will my confidence
interval includes a late date of 52 kya it sets the prime
likelihood for an exodous about 100 to 120 kya. In agreement
with LiuJiang, Pebble tool culture and LM3.
Y-chromosomal studies. The original studies of Y chromosome
were all over the place. The only thing Y chromosomal
studies had in common is that the MRCA was recent, like
mtDNA. However there have been problems interpreting Y.
1. No reliably used loci.
2. Very low rates of mutations relative to mt or Autosomal
DNA.
More recently it has been discovered in a number of regional
Y studies that the effective male size, especially in
melanistic H/G, is much smaller than female effective size.
More recent studies of Y suggest the MRCA of human males is
more recent; however, it seems obvious now that this is not
because of a Y sweep but that male effective size was
smaller in africa, and that after an initial slow radiation
in humans, Y was re-fixed and spread. Y also can be
challenged on the callibration issue and other issues. Thus
it is likely that Y evolution mimics mtDNA evolution, with
the exception that smaller effective Y size allows a more
recent MRCA, even as the human population is expanding.
The 50 kya date for Y is challenged.
1. Suffers pitfalls of Sarich style C/H calibrations.
2. Ineffective number of chimps examined.
3. Lower population size of males.
There is a reasonable probability that the MRCA for Y stands
between 100 and 170 kya. If you will notice the Klienistic
people repeatedly use Y chromosome as evidence. however I
should point out that while mtDNA as well as other loci MRCA
appear to pMRCA in the biaka pygmies, the Y chromosome
pMRCAs in south and eastern africa, what I call the initial
comma shaped expansion in africa. This tells us that even
will the female lines in africa were expanding the culture
of males may have dropped as a result of sharp cultural
shifts during that expansion, shifts that persisted in at
least some of the groups expanding out of africa. Thus the Y
chromosomal data when reexamined does not contest an earlier
african exit; however the possibility does exist that there
was some replacement generated from africa. One has to think
of it like this. While the eastern eurasian population was
cultural evolving they were initially dispersed; whereas
africa populations were growing large enough that within the
feedback loop of culture tools might be developed which
allowed agressive males to expand outward and replace the
reproductive males within other groups. This could have
happened, though I don't think on can argue that it happened
everywhere.
Xlinked studies. It is very difficult to assess that
expansion based on xlinked. Xlinked studies verify that a
constriction existed, x-linked suffers from the same
calibration issues, if not more, since multiple diverse
lines can pass between species with larger ploidy.
On the issue of europe.
CD4-Intron. Tishkoff 1996. This study demonstrates the
degree of homogeneity of exoafricans relative to distance,
with east asians and native americans showing the least
genetic diversity relative to africa. Oddly europeans show
up as the most divers withing the exoafrican population
(excepting recent admixtures)
mtDNA data. There are a number of mtDNA particularly from
western europe that show up in africa, particularly west
africa (niger, nigeria, senegal). One aspect of mtDNA is the
CRS sequence, the number of europeans with CRS or single
position variants suggests that this sequence has not been
in the region a long time. If we use Paabo's calibration we
expect 1/2 to be lost in 9000 years, 3/4 in 18,000 years,
7/8ths in 27,000 years. But 15% of europeans have this
sequence. This suggests that to some degree a majority of
europeans are newcomers. The CRS for HVR1 is also found in
africa. This contradicts the evidence that humans settled
into europe >35 kya. In addition the CRS line is not the
only line that settled into europe. CRS was found in a site
in italy dated to 28 kya, as well as a single position
derivative. This strongly suggests that Paabo's calibration
is WRONG(add a few exclamation points) even if we don't
consider external calibrations. More than likely the CRS
lines are on the order of >>40 kya in age and the mutational
half life for the portion of HVR1 is on the order of 15 to
20 kya.
HLA. The HLA from europeans show a very strong similarity to
various groups in west africa. In fact the similarity to
west africans is much greator than melanesians. One
haplotype A29 CBL B44 appears to have recently come from
africa and is in great abundance in france, the basque and
iberia.
Paabo suggests that europeans came from a core population
between central and south asia that spread in all
directions. I strongly contest this. Some of the europeans
alleles appear to have origins to the east, the majority
however appear to have origins in africa more recently than
the first migratory wave to the east from africa.
This suggests that Paabo's methodology for average the exit
MRCAs for mtDNA is flawed, that some of the lines left early
leaving in africa lines that continued to evolve and left
later to the northwest and north.
Therefore I make the following conclusion. There was no
single technological or linguistic revolution that cause
humans to leave africa, it was a cultural growth in africa
as a result in shifts in predispositions over time. Humans
initially left with meager technology to the east along the
habitat/climate clines that they were used to in africa,
exploiting islands unreachable by other hominids and
generally expanding in small (but genetically significant)
small pockets. Such culture probably made it also to europe
but these were probably so niche (lowland, coastal) adaptive
they could not compete against Neandertals and the climate.
A possible exception was sardinia; however sardinian HLA
haplotypes did not expand agressively into europe. In
western europe the predominant haplotypes trail through
iberia, basque from west africa. Later cultural innovation
in africa allowed large scale migrations into europe,
combined with preexisting human cultures and cultures moving
up from the middle east and the combination of cultures
caused a technological revolution in europe. The
predispositions that gave rise to these cultures however are
10s of 1000s to 100s of thousands years in existence.
Thus Klienistic model is tremendously (Uselessly)
oversimplified. A better model would be that there were
changes in behavioral predispositions in humans however the
direct consequences other than rapid migratory behavior
are not evident until cultures of different origin merge
into each other.
Examples of this are likely:
Transiberian WEA/ME migration.
Evidence-tool culture soluterean appears, travels down
from northern Japan
Genetic-mtDNA, HLA, and Y suggest direct routes from the
middle east to Japan
Likely route, displaced WEA from the LGM travel into the
middle east and mix with middle eastern cultures. having
sone this the culture manages to gain the ability to
'End Run' around the classic circumeurasian route used be
previous peoples to reach the far east, taking 100s of
generations. Likely the source of clovis culture in the New
World.
Consequences. Development of pottery in China (13,000 years
ago), Jomon in japan from 9,500 years ago.
Melanesian/Kofun Builder intermixing.
Evidence-rapid decline of pebble culture, Japan shifts to
the most 'luxurious' H/G culture, exploiting all aspects of
resources from terrestrial hunter gathering to maritime
resource gathering.
Developement of middle eastern culture, the
Mesopotamian/Akkadian/Egyptian/Minoan. Peripheral are
Etruscan/Red Sea/IVC/Black Sea. Where do all the major
modern religions come from?
In the new world as Gisele has mention haplotype A which
appears to be a recent arrival reaches into mesoamerica. One
of the thing about mesoamerican civilization is that culture
has a primative methods but far reaching transportation
chains. The Carribe indians and mesoamericans traveled deep
into the carribean sea. There appears to be communication
between the incan civilization and mesoamerican
civilization. The cultural connect for mesoamerica reaches
far northward into the american southwest. Haplotype A is
also high in the north eastern coastal tribes where large
numbers of individuals were noted by early european
travelers. Also mentioned was cohokia and the
Mississippi/Missouri River.
India. had been culturally evolving in the contiguous with
the middle eastern culture, notable by advances in IVC;
however the movement of peoples through persia toward india
stimulated revolution in religion and culture in india.
Japan. Jomon/Yayoi transition. Once again Japan offers more
evidence of advancement. Jomon japan was an advanced H/G
culture with some reliance on dry rice farming. The Yayio
period transforms the culture from the south, some of the
elements of preYayoi Japan are transformed with an
'experimental' period ending as Asuka and transformed into
the postAsuka Japan we commonly think of when we think of
japan.
Japan. Edo/Meiji, Here again the threat of invasion from the
U.S. ends a period of japanese isolation. Japan at the meiji
era had few things one could characterize as western. In the
matter of a few years Japan developed the largest Navy in
the world, defeated the russians, taken most of northwestern
china, korea, and the coastal regions of southeast asia. Was
the first military power to effectively use carrier based
attack strategy.
And many more.
All these are examples of the revolution of culture when two
cultures collide. While Neandertals and human culture
probably 'collided' the lack of interbreeding probably
modulated the effect, making the initial settlements and
Neandertal culture slow to evolve. Its not until human
cultures from far off regions. Regions in which those people
settled, adapted, came up with their specific solutions and
then expand and overrun each other does the impact of rather
meager cultural evolution in many places start to compound
each other. This is the 'klien'ian revolution. Its not
genetic its going from dispersed/isolated, some marginal
cultures to long tediuous growth, to interisolate contact
to larger regional feedback and things like migratory routes
and trade routes. Then we have the big cultural revolution.
What do all of these have in common and what did Neandertals
seem incapable of doing except in limited capacity?
You can't have evolution of a regional culture if you never
reached that region.
Conclusion.
Paabo and Klien are wrong. Humans did not burst out of
africa as a single group 40 - 50 kya. Instead they migrated
out from a related population in africa on a number of
occasions. The first was rather early and had a fairly
simple culture capable of competition with non-hominids
not leaving any great amount of evidence behind. These
potentially began leaving africa as early as 145 kya;
however more realistically one would place that exit time
between 85 and 130 kya. 2 to 3 times earlier than Paabo and
Klien suggest.
The archaeological evidence in europe is overweighed in
this analysis, europeans are late comers from africa. In
addition there are suggestions that humans arrived earlier
but were not particularly successful competing against
Neandertals.
By the time that Erectoids and Neandertals start
dissappearing from the fossil/archaeological record, it is
apparent that human populations had grown and culture had
evolved markedly, reaching northeast asia, well established
in the proximal south pacific. Marked changes are occuring
in Japan, for instance, prior to 16 kya, and there appears
to be no 40 to 50 kya exoafrican or WEA component. These
changes allow paleoamerind migrations prior to 13 kya.
Assumptions of temproal changes in cultures, for example
the amazonian lowlanders appear to have benifitted very
little by the cultural changes that appear to flow from
WEA/ME to east asia (15 kya) and into the new world (after
13 kya), these societies still hunt with tools crafted from
wood and other forest materials. Certain tribes in africa
appear to maintain their traditions for greater than 40 ky.
If we assume that Paabo's clock is in error, I would suggest
that for at least 70 kya the Kung! established themselves
and maintained a fairly constant means of living in
southwest africa (larger in the past). Thus not everygroup
in the human world is transformed by shifts in the
african/me/wea around 40 kya. One thing also is that the
burial of LM3 (62,500 years according to thorne) was easily
recognizned and confirmed as being male. Local tribes men
noted the hand coupling where the genetalia were, a tribal
tradition to the people of the region to present.
With any period of human existence one can see
revolutions. The post columbian period was a revolution. And
looking backward without the benifit of history we would say
that the entire world underwent genetic replacement and new
culture is the result. However we can still find groups of
people, whose traditions have been europeanized but still
are genetically not european. The assumption that cultural
change is the cause of replacement infers that replacement
must associate with cultural change. In most cases some
partial displacement occurs, but most often there is a
blending of two cultures. Next time you go to europe go to
the supermarket ask which produce was domesticated in the
precolumbian new world?
The appearance of AMH culture is no different. I think it
serves you to think of this in a spiritual manner as such.
Consider humans >100 kya. They are as any other animal that
walks this earth, capable but not fulfilled in that
capacity. They expand with the limited capability that they
have, and then expand again, with each instance they can
compete and grow locally or expand. With each instance the
advantage to the youth is to expand rather than compete with
related humans for survival. Still as animals. When humans
reach the point where they can no longer expand to gain more
fitness then strategy has to change, they have to think in
terms of optimization and exploitation. From this point
instead of the wolf following wild goats; humans are
domesticating themselves into the herder of sheep. (A little
exaggerated). This is part of the technocivil process.
Along the way innovations of culture start popping up, here
and there, which allow migration into competitor domains, as
this occurs new innovations merge and allow more expansions,
creating a domino effect until all the new innovations in a
given region are transformed into new cultures, then the
regional innovation process re-initiates. Each time it
occurs you are going to see the reach of new technologies go
farther, involve more people and result in more exploitive
cultures over a wider region. At some point this innovation
cycle stabs deeply into europe where artifacts pop up on the
backdoor of archaeologist to ponder. The lack of evidence
elsewhere and earlier is not proof that the process was not
going on, since we have history and genetic evidence coupled
with archaeological evidence all over the world telling us
that it must have gone on deeply into humans past.
So I get back to the point of Neandertals. Obviously they
were tool capable, they innovated culture, all by
themselves, thus they were inventive. Given the fact that
their tools appear for a time to be more sophisticated there
seems to be no end in their ability to innovated new useful
tools, if borrowed from humans. But the main issue with
Neandertals, in the time when humans were far away and
localized, what did the Neandertals do that might have
stopped humans from gaining all these cultural feedback
loops in eurasia? The same is true with all other hominids.
Why did not a particular group of east asian erectoids
overrun europe and africa? I think it is reasonable to
surmise that while classic Neandertals appear to be an
innovative hominid, they tended to expand rather slowly
and actually appear to have been been subpartitioned into 2
or 3 groups within europe. This may suggest that they were
more social than we think, that maintaining territorial
boundaries possibly negotiation with adjacent groups and
long term treaties were more important to Neandertals than
humans, not that they are not important to humans, but
frankly humans appear to have a lust for wandering, and
often the desire in more focused on testosterone levels than
intelligence. In modern societies we don't tend to think as
'lone wolf' males, Hobos, Gypsies, Vagabunds, Huns, and the
like as the pinnacle of intelligence; however from a genetic
point of veiw, it does appear that Y success depends on
wanderlusty males. What happens to a male if he wanders off
and finds his utopia lacking of females, he eventually has
to go back and grab a few to take with him.
From a molecular point of view we may have a reason why.
We have an Apparent and probable discrepancy between male
and female effective population size, fewer males are
allowed to breed. In discussions with Lorenzo about recent
work done on the Kung! and other HG groups. It becomes
apparent if a male is eventually given breeding rights, and
he lives long enough he will reallocate to himself new
wifes. In some group taking an old gal and running will get
you in big trouble. In south american the carribe indian
male excesses were expected to leave and go find their
future. In many cultures males are sent into the wilderness
to prove their manliness. One some occasion these males will
find a future some place else. We can combine this with
another observed behavior called wife stealing, whereby
lonely males go out and steal another mans wife (maybe the
wife has an ole geezer she wants to drop anyway). Therefore
when male breeding rights are restricted and females are
encouraged then on expect the male sex drive to have 2
choices.
1. Compete with related males in their group.
2. With limited knowledge that their may be an exploitable
frontier, to escape, explore, and steal.
But consider what is thought of the males. What were
christobal colombo's shipmates thinking about 2/3rds of the
way across the atlantic. Does he have all his rocks arranged
upstairs?
Can you imagine the first journey from old to new world.
Man "I saw alot of big fish over this way"
Wife "Hey those big fish to big for us lets go back"
Man " let me get close enough so I can see them"
Wife [sigh]
Man "You right those were too big to catch and take back"
[Turning around]
"Hey were is the land"
Wife "It dissappeared about 2 hours ago, the current is fast
today"
Man "help me paddle back"
Wife [Singing a tradition song people sing before they die]
One week later.
Woman [Still singing song]
Man "look honey, new land"
Woman "It looks stange"
[hours later]
Man "look at all the animals, easy food"
Woman "I miss my mother, sister, aunt . . . .take me home,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
Man [Sigh, singing a traditiona people sing before they die]
>Of course, this is only my opinion of what constitutes the "genuine"
>scientific discussion. For others, perhaps, the moralistic and
>emotional consequences of some discovery are every bit as much a part
>of the genuine scientific discussion as the empirical and theoretical
>part.
The sides generally represent the extremes, anthropology is
argued from idealistic extremes. See above. The point I
should make to you is that MREH proponents have a problem
with the late, late, late scenarios of OoA extremist. The
OoA extremist have a problem with the MREH denial late flows
of gene and morphology from africa. There is very little
middle ground. Neither side wants to budge.
From this perspective there are the less well known
intermediates from the mostly out of africa theory which
allows late flow from africa and some interbreeding. I
prefer the flipside, an earlier flow from africa and almost
no or none interbreeding. By argueing from extremes
opponents set up assumptions to disregard the competitive
extreme. When this creates obvious internal inconsistencies
they fudge and deny.
For example OoA deny Thornes LM3 date more or less because
he is an ally of Wolpoff. They could consider the redating
without jumping on Thornes overall conclusions. The same is
true with LiuJiang. The MREH deny the molecular evidence
citing that all kinds of evidence for transitions in culture
and that humans are not superior; however they can accept
that molecular evidene in a more protracted and long drawn
out model.
One has to face the fact that from a position of MREH its
easier to Attack OoA if it takes a extremely late radiation
time, thus it is not in the clichs (I want my theory
vindicated) interest to reform OoA [Even though they are
forced now into that position] From an OoA point of veiw it
is not in their basic interest to consider that the timeline
of human expansion from africa is closer to the 'apparent'
morphological LCA of humans and neandertals. Because then
MREH can point and say look here that difference is a major
leg of the theory, that the MRCAs of humans is much later
than N/H morphological convergance. The reality is that the
morpholical convergence is not linear. Protoneandertals
evolved very slowly until they cross the mediterranean then
they evolved quickly. The mtDNA of Ns appear to have an
earlier MRCA with humans than Paabo suggested (consistent
with Paabo's pattern of prefering a fastern molecular
clock).
I think you will find the most objective analysis of the
PA information here and on the PaleoAnthro list.
Unfortunately these are not published; however we have been
known to come up with a few predictions here that are later
verified, ;^).
>Just like, for some, the supposed moral and political consequences of
>evolution (like Social Darwinism) were a legitimate part of the
>genuine scientific discussion over evolution. But I don't see it this
>way. Again, just my opinion.
You're talking to the choir. Here is how we do things when
we do them right. Read papers, grab data from papers,
compare them with other authors data. Look for errors in
those authors conclusions, come up with other conclusions.
Wait for new data. I don't speak for everyone here but I
don't idolize any author, I find error in all of the them.
I think the logical approach of paleoanthropologist is so
devoid of any good statistical analyses and actually the
notion of how finds fit into the 'big picture' statistically
it is mind boggling that any of their conclusions will be
shown to be correct. But none the less we are requirent on
paleontologist to farm the data and present it and this is
what has to be interpreted.
Alot of the trouble in OoA comes from the basic fact. An
expert by the Name of Sarich declared C/H LCA occurred 5
million years ago based on a believable but poorly
statistically conditioned arguement, and practically noone
in molecular anthropology has questioned his conclusion. The
reason is to question the conclusion it means that a
molecular anthropologist has to learn about comparative
morphological analysis and paleontology and spend hours
addressing the statistical probability that any given find
is 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, or even 50
million years from an molecular LCA of two species. In the
case of old/new world primates, new evidence suggest large
errors were made. But how do you go back and correct a large
body of work are condition on a given LCA time? Or to make
your work comparable you continue to use a faulty LCA,
continue not to confidence that LCA into the probability
profile derived from your data. Answer seems to be present a
half confidence 96% confidence interval and handwave about
the C/H LCA.
>> A few seasons or several millenia are the only
>> choices?
>
>I was engaging in a bit of hyberbole, accenting the extreme, to make a
>point. Of course they're not the only choices.
His point, don't lead yourself, expose the alternatives
before analyzing their likelihood.
>I didn't say it dropped out of the sky. I've already outlined my
>proposed mechanism as to how Hs groups were organized into tribes.
Proof?
>And I didn't say it was a matter of choice Hn's chose not to make.
>Precisely the reverse. They didn't have the choice because they
>lacked the cognitive ability, according to the the theory I've
>proposed.
Proof? You come to the conclusion because you assume humans
1. Chose their size
2. Neandertals couldn't
No premises in the arguement are provable.
Therefore conclusion is unconfirmable.
>> Absolutely. And this is what seems to get short shrift.
>> Did modern humans have a cognitive advantage, what
>> was it, what did it let them do and how would it show
>> up in the archaeological record? This is just too much
>> for some people...
>>
>> Rick Wagler
>
>Right. And I'm not saying that the evidence conclusively proves that
>Hs had a cognitive advantage over Hn. I'm saying that this is what
>the evidence I've heard about suggests to me, and so I assume it is
>correct.
What you have heard is biased and outdated.
>And just in case this assumption *is* correct, I'm proposing a theory
>by which such an assumed cognitive advantage could have been
>manifested on the ground, and how it could have resulted in Hn
>extinction.
Your are leading the data you want to examine with a
simpleminded theory, which you have been biased into the
thinking by wrongminded thinkers like Klien. Instead
consider all the data and then start thinking about the
possible conclusions.
Short list.
LiuJiang 113 kya
LM3 63 kya
PreMt.Toba Pebble culture 80 kya.
S/Q 130 kya
Blombos C 70 kya.
Fit these into your theory.
>And I agree. It's too much for some people to engage in, even as a
>thought-experiment. (That is: *If* Hs were able to think better in
>symbolic terms, *then* what do you think of this proposed theory of
>how that advantage could have resulted in Hn extinction?)
Deal with the above outlyers first, then deal with possible
errors in interpretation by Paabo and Klien then reformulate
theory.
Gisele Horvat
<pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>In the new world as Gisele has mention haplotype A which
>appears to be a recent arrival ...
Philip, we are still going to have to have a show down about this. :-)
>reaches into mesoamerica.
and South America.
Gisele
Spiznet
> ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message
>
> > say it is incorrect) but much research has been coming down against
> > it. Here are some specific references:
OK I have looked it over and realized that the paper is by Klein.
1) Klein has alot riding on downplaying Neanderthal "cognition", since
his entire theory of 50kya amHs "cognitive breakthru" stands or falls
PARTLY on earlier Neanderthal & amHs abilities (or lack thereof). His
theory is championed by the 50kya "language"/symbolic thought people.
2) There is a very weak attempt by Klein on page 1526 to try and
explain away the evidence of ~10kya co-habitation of geographic areas
by both H.n and amHs. He tries to use " the ever-present possibility
of minute, undetectable contamination with recent carbon" to discredit
late H.n dates in Russia, Croatia, and Spain.
3) He continues to support the FOXp2 language gene as a factor in
50kya amHs expansion. I am not so familiar with this, but it seems to
have lost favor.
4) A recent study disputed Klein's claim of "large" face for
Neanderthal (p1525-6) It is shown that actually amHs is the only
hominid with a "small" face. Check Skhul V (archaic amHs), etc.
5) He is throughout the article using sweeping generalizations and
belittling, leading language to make his claims. A scholar writing for
prmary literature would never be able to get away with this:
"Except for the French site just cited, there is little to suggest…";
and "The longest continuous debate in paleoanthropology is nearing
resolution…"
and "The Africans were anatomically much more modern than the
Neanderthals…"
and "Everywhere they lived, the Neanderthals were the immediate
predecessors of modern humans…" see (6) below for refutation of this)
and his "Unlike Upper Paleolithis Cro-Magnons, Middle Paleolithic
Neanderthals left little compelling evidence for art or jewelry."… is
like comparing apples with oranges. What about Upper Paleolithic
Neanderthals?
I have some more general observations based on reading d'Errico:
6) Neanderthals and amHs in Levant were also trading spaces for ~50kya
with equivalent technologies. If one were superior during those times,
it should have been resolved back 100kya. (maybe "cognitive threshold"
hadn't happened for amHs yet?)
7) "art sticks" are recorded for amHs pre-Europe (South Africa
(Blombos cave ochre, 70kya) and H.n (manganese dioxide "crayons")
pre-amHs. Also check into the details of the advanced Chatelperronian
H.n artifacts, that were produced before amHs contact.
(Also, what about Twin Rivers, Zambia finds of hominid-used art sticks
from 200kya. You've really got to read that d'Errico paper)
8) "Cognitive threshold", the way you are using it, is a sort of
tautology. These are the kinds of things you keep saying:
Me: What exactly is the threshold?
You:whatever it was that allowed amHs to drive H.n to extinction.
and
Me: How do we know there was a "cognitive threshold".
You: Neanderthals are extinct, aren't they?
*
plus
*
You: its not specifically exclusive amHs "language" or "art" or
"conciousness", its a "better" version of said language or art or
conciousness...
Evidence?? Be specific (2d perspective rather than stick figures?)
Also, d'Errico raises another interesting line of thought: what if it
was specifically the contact itself between the 2 "cultures"/species
that caused the mental breakthrough for both species?
We will probably never have to experience such a thing, but just
imagine finding an advanced civilization living aquatically or
underground in these modern times. It might be enough to destroy
and/or create quite a few religions!! Talk about "culture" shock!
> Thanks for the references. I'll look them up when I have a chance.
> You wouldn't happen to know if any of them are available online, would
> you?
>
Look upthread a bit.
<snip>
> > I suspect that everyone on this message board is staying off this
> > thread because they are too scarred from previous battles exactly
> > along these lines? some topics are too painful and emotionally
> > expensive to re-invest in? choke?
>
> Well, I don't mean to open old wounds.
I was sort of joking, but these topics *are* pretty important in the
field in general, s.a.p. & on Yahoo groups like paleoanthro and
paleoanthropology and palanthsci in particular, for example. Newbies
like you and me are the only ones that will lightly discuss without
years of the primary literature readings under our belts and
flameproof underware.
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>3) He continues to support the FOXp2 language gene as a factor in
>50kya amHs expansion. I am not so familiar with this, but it seems to
>have lost favor.
The MRCA of FOXP2 locus is well over 100 ky, not counting
calibrations issues.
>4) A recent study disputed Klein's claim of "large" face for
>Neanderthal (p1525-6) It is shown that actually amHs is the only
>hominid with a "small" face. Check Skhul V (archaic amHs), etc.
>
>5) He is throughout the article using sweeping generalizations and
>belittling, leading language to make his claims. A scholar writing for
>prmary literature would never be able to get away with this:
>"Except for the French site just cited, there is little to suggest…";
>and "The longest continuous debate in paleoanthropology is nearing
>resolution…"
>and "The Africans were anatomically much more modern than the
>Neanderthals…"
>and "Everywhere they lived, the Neanderthals were the immediate
>predecessors of modern humans…" see (6) below for refutation of this)
>and his "Unlike Upper Paleolithis Cro-Magnons, Middle Paleolithic
>Neanderthals left little compelling evidence for art or jewelry."… is
>like comparing apples with oranges. What about Upper Paleolithic
>Neanderthals?
>
>
>I have some more general observations based on reading d'Errico:
>
>6) Neanderthals and amHs in Levant were also trading spaces for ~50kya
>with equivalent technologies. If one were superior during those times,
>it should have been resolved back 100kya. (maybe "cognitive threshold"
>hadn't happened for amHs yet?)
possibly but I wonder if shkul hominids are what we think
they are or something else. I find it something that
australonegroid, LiuJiang match skull morphologies scattered
over africa and yet we have Bouri and Skhul perhaps earlier
in certain areas than expected with considerably archaic or
derived morphology. I stick my head out on this one, I don't
think bouri, shkul or the Morocan hominids are human in the
specific sense. This may have been a margin that kept humans
out of europe for some time. There is evidence that humans
traveled to the canary islands and it is possible they
hugged the coastline and settled uninhabited islands on the
margin of europe and in the mediterranean.
>7) "art sticks" are recorded for amHs pre-Europe (South Africa
>(Blombos cave ochre, 70kya) and H.n (manganese dioxide "crayons")
>pre-amHs. Also check into the details of the advanced Chatelperronian
>H.n artifacts, that were produced before amHs contact.
>
>(Also, what about Twin Rivers, Zambia finds of hominid-used art sticks
>from 200kya. You've really got to read that d'Errico paper)
Yep. Things do not 'suddenly appear' 50 kya.
Philip Deitiker
Yep.
Spiznet
PD Collected Thoughts:
<snip>
> Until they (scholars) show a strong relationship between
> the evolution of language genes in humans and the expansion
> of the human population, this remains controversial. Certain
> language theorist would like you to beleive that the
> expansion begins with FOX. . . gene, and even as I look at
> the genetic studies I see a small expansion followed by a
> bigger one, but aligning the onset of the small expansion
> with the MRCA of a language gene is not something that is
> possible at present, and these language theorist may have
> massaged their MRCA to coincide with where they think the
> expansion began.
<snip>
> I look at this differently. Based on what is known, I would
> argue that humans could come into an area with little
> culture and improvise quickly. This means that humans can
> survive in a 'culture-lite' scenario long enough to build
> sophisticated cultures. How language plays into their
> ability to reinvent the wheel is unknown.
><snip> Any coastal or riparian motif
> might have allowed them to reach into and area. So the human
> factor may have been as simple as a proficiency or
> facilities to make dugouts and to use them wherever
> possible. The ability to travel.
<snip>
> I would argue this. I think that humans have had access to
> europe for the period from 100-120 kya to 35 kya. however
> they did not appear to be immensely successful in europe
> until after 35 kya. Neandertal were a formidable competitor
> that kept humans out.
> Travel ability, ability to travel river systems and possibly
> trade or get new cultural skills, possibly bring skilled
> individuals that are in abundance in other places to
> pristine sites.
>
> Adventuresome, wanderlust . . . . . .
<snip>
> I think higher population can result from flux, not
> necessarily more intelligent but more exploitative of
> previously unexplotied or under exploited resources.
> The ability to exploit and hold areas least susceptable to
> recession as a result of climate change.
<snip>
> Q2. If the current data set was sufficient would it argue
> for cognative differences.
> A2. Not objectively, human culture appears to reflect
> population size, versus time, versus proximity to globally
> important trade routes. Neandertals may have been isolated
> from major material cultural trade routes or places where
> diverse cultures came together. There numbers may have been
> smaller because of breeding dynamics. And they may have
> lacked the facilities or opportunities to engage in maritime
> or riparian based travel and/or trading opportunities as
> humans.
<snip>
> The very origin of human may
> have undergone selection for broader range transport and
> trade, not as a matter of intelligence but survival. In this
> respect interspecies contact may have been less important
> than the perceived neccesity to travel and explore to find
> new food sources. Humans are loaded with ubiquitous
> behavioral diseases like manic depression, chronic anxioty,
> paranoid schizophrenic and every human group seemed to have
> its crazy man (medicine man)whatever. These mental illnesse
> variants may have driven humans outward against better sense
> and occasionally hit pay dirt, advantageous to the group.
> Not saying this is true but an alternative to the cognative
> superiority.
<snip>
>Culture and language evolve hand in hand (or hand and
> brain). Some of the areas used in handiness are shared in
> language. Early on there was alot of overlap in handiness
> and increase sophistry in communication. As each developed
> there were probably specializations in both articulated
> culture predispositions and verbal predispositions.
<snip>
>This theory put forth by Klien that language suddenly
> comes into existence is based on a very narrow definition of
> language. Most of what Klien proports will eventually be
> falsified as most of it has been brought to question based
> on critique and recent finds. Get rid of the notion that
> language is +/-, it is false. I was affiliated with a group
> in which we had a number of families with inherited language
> defects that lacked subtle skills. Probably as a result of
> loss of function of some 'language' gene.
>
PD,
these are great ideas, and I especially like the idea of the
crazyman/shaman as an evolutionary significant amHs construct! Of
course Neanderthal may have had shaman too, they just told the people
to stay home and eat more bear.
-Mark
Spiznet
> > (darth_versive) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> This is part two of my reply:
<snip>
> These are all behaviors that one might expect from a species able to
> develop and use culture in a modern human sense. It all fits into the
> "cognitive threshold" theory.
>
<snip>
> > >> 2) higher population even without better cultural organization
> > >
> > >This is for someone else to propose: Someone who can think of another
> > >mechanism whereby you can get a higher population without better
> > >cultural organization. It's a fundamental part of the theory that it
> > >was *precisely* the better cultural organization which was responsible
> > >for the higher population.
<snip>
> I'm not talking about average population density numbers, but the
> average size of organized groups. If a Hn band of 30 encounters a Hs
> tribe of 300, which is going to win out? Over a given territory, the
> average population density of Hs and Hn may have been exactly the
> same. For purposes of organized warfare, hunting, etc., the size of
> organized groups matters, not average population density, when one
> species is competing with another.
>
> > >Would you like to propose an alternative mechanism? Or cite one that
> > >has been proposed in the literature? I think the "bands into tribes"
> > >through better symbolic communication is a pretty good mechanism
> > >myself. I can't think of one that's any better. But I would love to
> > >discuss an alternative mechanism.
<snip>
> And like I said in part 1, the "cognitive threshold" event may have
> happened relatively late (50K years ago), after we left Africa, but
> before we got to Europe.
<snip>
> And you're right. We can't be absolutely clear about the mechanism,
> based on the evidence we now have. But I think the one I've proposed
> seems pretty reasonable. I think it fits not only the artifact
> evidence, but also what we know about how human hunter-gatherer tribes
> are organized, and how modern human culture operates.
>
> I think it's certainly worth further study, both by its sympathizers,
> and by critics who would look for ways to refute it. I wish them both
> luck. :)
<snip>
> It was the key to our survival as a species, and the lack of it was
> the primary cause of the extinction of Hn, according to the theory.
>
> If you don't understand this point, you're missing the essence of the
> theory.
>
> DV
DV-
How much do you know about this theory you keep citing. Is it only
from the 3 page article in Science, or are you holding out on us? Have
you read Klein? Do you know him or associates? And why are you in
singleminded pursuit of being "right" and not interested at all in
charting the paths by which you can be shown to be "right".
Is this your new proposed theory we are talking about now or Klein's
theory? If it is your theory, flesh it out more.
You say that bands could not organize into larger tribes without
language. But then, you accede that Neanderthal's and even the LCA
Hs/Hn could have had art, language and symbolic thought.
This means you have ceded that H.n had at least the mental if not
political/environmental capacity to have formed in tribes. (unless
organizing into tribes from bands is something that required an even
further tweak, long after language and symbolic thought came along...)
Later, you say it was "tribes" of amHs that beat "bands" of simpler
Neanderthal. The logic for this is lacking, since if large groups of
amHs were migrating, there would be many more variables than just
cognition at work.
Remember that iron weapons beat bronze weapons. Technological
advantage is a powerful thing, and it does not reflect cognitive
superiority, let alone cultural superiority.
-Mark
darth_versive
> "Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
<snip>
> Some people are committed to the point that "different" means that one was
> superior and the other inferior. If the truth be known, I would suggest
> that for at least 50ky or so (while HS and HN rubbed sholders in the middle
> east), it was pretty much a "push" with the HN being "superior" in the
> northern regions and HS having the advantage in the southern. Then
> "something", you say cultural and I happen to agree, happened and the
> advantage shifted towards HS. Not biological or physiological but cultural
> (technological?).
Ok. Let's assume (for the sake of argument), that the "cognitive
threshold" that I've been talking about, and have been assuming was
based upon biological differences in cognitive architecture, was in
fact *not* based on biological differences, but merely on cultural or
technological differences.
Let's further assume that the cultural event which happened was the
invention of shamanistic animist culture by HS, which HN didn't happen
to imitate (perhaps because they simply preferred their own cultural
traditions).
If this was the case, then similar arguments would apply regarding the
"bands cohering into tribes" mechanism that I've been using with
regard to the biologically-based cognitive threshold theory, the
difference being that it was a culturally-based cognitive threshold
instead, with the "technological breakthrough" being a new system of
cultural organization, based on mystical shamans, totem animals,
ritual dances, sacred jewelery and body art, and the like.
So, how does this sound as a modified hypothesis? I still prefer the
biologically-based cognitive threshold theory myself, but this one
might turn out to be more realistic, if at some point it's
demonstrated conclusively that HS and HN had the same
biologically-based cognitive abilities.
DV
darth_versive
<snip>
> DV-
>
> How much do you know about this theory you keep citing. Is it only
> from the 3 page article in Science, or are you holding out on us? Have
> you read Klein? Do you know him or associates? And why are you in
> singleminded pursuit of being "right" and not interested at all in
> charting the paths by which you can be shown to be "right".
>
> Is this your new proposed theory we are talking about now or Klein's
> theory? If it is your theory, flesh it out more.
>
> You say that bands could not organize into larger tribes without
> language. But then, you accede that Neanderthal's and even the LCA
> Hs/Hn could have had art, language and symbolic thought.
>
> This means you have ceded that H.n had at least the mental if not
> political/environmental capacity to have formed in tribes. (unless
> organizing into tribes from bands is something that required an even
> further tweak, long after language and symbolic thought came along...)
>
> Later, you say it was "tribes" of amHs that beat "bands" of simpler
> Neanderthal. The logic for this is lacking, since if large groups of
> amHs were migrating, there would be many more variables than just
> cognition at work.
>
> Remember that iron weapons beat bronze weapons. Technological
> advantage is a powerful thing, and it does not reflect cognitive
> superiority, let alone cultural superiority.
>
> -Mark
I don't know Klein. I think that the evidence cited in that _Science_
article, along with things I've seen in various documentaries, etc.,
are suggestive of the idea that Hs had a biologically-based cognitive
advantage over Hn. I don't know if this is correct or not. That's
why I've been asking if anyone has heard of a rebuttal to these ideas
in _Science_ or a similar prestigious, general science magazine (like
_Nature_, etc.).
I'm not "holding out" on you. But I've been interested in studying
modern human cognition for many years, and a lot of this stuff is
*way* outside the field of paleoanthropology (of which I'm pretty much
a beginner). But I do think that the study of modern human cognitive
architecture may be relevant to the issues of the competition between
Hs and Hn, and Hn extinction.
So that's why I'm bouncing this theory of mine off people who've
studied more paleoanthropology than I have. The theory is based on
evidence from people like Klien, evolutionary psychologists like
Pascal Boyer and D.S. Wilson, and the studies I've been doing on
modern human cognitive architecture. It's still very much a work in
progress.
As I replied to Richard Wagler:
"I'm not saying that the evidence conclusively proves that
Hs had a cognitive advantage over Hn. I'm saying that this is what
the evidence I've heard about suggests to me, and so I assume it is
correct.
And just in case this assumption *is* correct, I'm proposing a theory
by which such an assumed cognitive advantage could have been
manifested on the ground, and how it could have resulted in Hn
extinction."
I've said repeatedly that this theory involves a *differential*
capacity, not an all-or-nothing capacity. Therefore, I readily
concede, as you've noted, than Hn might well have had some capacity
for language, art, symbolic thinking, and the like. And perhaps some
level of organization of bands into tribes as well. All the theory
proposed is that Hs did it better, and crossed some cognitive
threshold that Hn didn't, was better able to use culture in the modern
human sense, was able to form a much tighter level of social
organization, and that this was decisive in our survival and their
extinction.
Also, I didn't exactly say that bands couldn't organize into tribes
without language (implying that language is a sufficient condition for
this type of organization). I said that even *with* language, I
*still* think that they couldn't organize into tribes very well
without the level of capacity for symbolic thinking that would allow
them to grasp such things as animistic myths, rituals, and the like.
Therefore, even if Hn *did* have a language of sorts, but didn't have
the ability for symbolic thinking that would allow them to comprehend
these complex concepts, I don't think that they would have been able
to make the leap of getting bands to organize into coherent tribes.
Or at least at the same level of coherence that we see in shamanistic
animist hunter-gatherer tribes today. And this would have made a
critical difference back then.
Finally, I do agree that I'm trying to make the theory as "right" as I
possibly can, given my assumptions about the evidence. But I'm not
"singleminded" about this. This theory is just a tangential,
improvised thing. My main focus is on modern human cognitive theory.
I don't agree with your characterization that I'm "not interested at
all in charting the paths by which [I] can be shown to be 'right'."
But if that's how you see it, you have a right to your opinion.
DV
darth_versive
<snip>
Thanks for a very long and very articulate post.
Like I've said, I'm no expert in genetics or paleoanthropology or
archaeology. Your hypothesis about Hn being cognitively equivalent to
Hs, with the reason we eventually outcompeted them being our
ancestors' previous travels and cultural "cross-fertilization" due to
a "wanderlust" instinct, while Hn mainly just stayed put and therefore
fell behind culturally, is certainly a legitimate one.
But it could also have been our greater capacity for symbolic thinking
which gave us a better capacity to develop culture, which gave us that
tendency to wander and "cross-fertilize."
I'm just relying on what I read in the major, general scientific
journals like _Science_ and _Nature_, and on various documentaries I
see. If the ideas presented in these are biased and outdated, it
depends on people like you, who are so much better informed than I am,
to set the record straight by publishing rebuttals in these journals,
so that those like me who rely on them to give us the "mainstream"
view, can be set straight. I don't have the background to plung into
the specialized journals--where the experts of each camp battle things
out--and figure out who's right and who's wrong.
Like I said, I assume that a given position is correct, and I'm
proposing a theory based on that assumption. I'm sorry if you feel
that this is the wrong thing to do, but based on what I understand,
the theory I've proposed makes sense to me.
DV
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>Like I said, I assume that a given position is correct, and I'm
>proposing a theory based on that assumption. I'm sorry if you feel
>that this is the wrong thing to do, but based on what I understand,
>the theory I've proposed makes sense to me.
Its premature. The current trend in the data is that
contemporary humans and Neandertals where so culturally
close in capacity, based on the archeological record its
hard to judge one better than the other. I think as africa
and south asian studies develop this trend may change in
favor of humans. But as we stand right now, the only thing
that marks humans as different is the rate they distributed
themselves globally.
Spiznet
> ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message news:<
> > Is this your new proposed theory we are talking about now or Klein's
> > theory? If it is your theory, flesh it out more.
> >
> > You say that bands could not organize into larger tribes without
> > language. But then, you accede that Neanderthal's and even the LCA
> > Hs/Hn could have had art, language and symbolic thought.
> >
> > This means you have ceded that H.n had at least the mental if not
> > political/environmental capacity to have formed in tribes. (unless
> > organizing into tribes from bands is something that required an even
> > further tweak, long after language and symbolic thought came along...)
> >
<snip>
> > -Mark
>
> I don't know Klein. I think that the evidence cited in that _Science_
> article, along with things I've seen in various documentaries, etc.,
> are suggestive of the idea that Hs had a biologically-based cognitive
> advantage over Hn. I don't know if this is correct or not. That's
> why I've been asking if anyone has heard of a rebuttal to these ideas
> in _Science_ or a similar prestigious, general science magazine (like
> _Nature_, etc.).
>
<snip>
> Finally, I do agree that I'm trying to make the theory as "right" as I
> possibly can, given my assumptions about the evidence. But I'm not
> "singleminded" about this. This theory is just a tangential,
> improvised thing. My main focus is on modern human cognitive theory.
> I don't agree with your characterization that I'm "not interested at
> all in charting the paths by which [I] can be shown to be 'right'."
> But if that's how you see it, you have a right to your opinion.
>
> DV
DV-
I , to would like to explore this cognition issue more.
I see the focus on Hn as a distraction at this point. At the beginning
of the thread (or before) we threw around the idea that there was a
major conceptual advance at 50K related to the AMH in Europe. The
evidence doesn't look convincing for this.
We also pointed to some meaningful benchmarks: language, symbolic
thought, artwork, tribal communities, mythology, totem animals, etc.
None of this shows up as being uniquely AMH. Sorry.
But this doesn't mean we have to give up. We would have to go back
farther, to the LCA (1mya-300kya) H.s/H.n, or perhaps to the jump out
of H.e.
The shift to symbolic thought, etc. is a major one. We may not expect
to see archaeological evidence for it. So lets move on:
How did the 6mya LCA get bipedal, then move to 2.5 toolmaker with 2x
brain, then have a brain size explosion by 1mya? These are legitimate
questions that may have something to do with bands to tribes,
language, totem animals, etc.
Are you more interested in Neanderthal or in cognition?
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>We also pointed to some meaningful benchmarks: language, symbolic
>thought, artwork, tribal communities, mythology, totem animals, etc.
>None of this shows up as being uniquely AMH. Sorry.
>
>But this doesn't mean we have to give up. We would have to go back
>farther, to the LCA (1mya-300kya) H.s/H.n, or perhaps to the jump out
>of H.e.
There are the tranformations of H.e. ~ 2 mya that made H.e.
global, between >2.0 and 1.8 there were substantive size
increases in erectoids, apparently.
The other transformation is within protohomo, the dating on
H/N is questionable, could be much earlier. The timing of
shifts in homo sapiens are more likely within the 200 to 145
kya range than the 50 kya range. It is possible however that
after expansion began there were other shifts, between 160
and 120 kya. Beyond this humans are becoming globalize and
selective genes that are particularly human require
increasingly 'genetic replacement' component to spread
universally in humans.
Bob Keeter
news:<aTc0b.648$yQ3...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > Some people are committed to the point that "different" means that one
was
> > superior and the other inferior. If the truth be known, I would suggest
> > that for at least 50ky or so (while HS and HN rubbed sholders in the
middle
> > east), it was pretty much a "push" with the HN being "superior" in the
> > northern regions and HS having the advantage in the southern. Then
> > "something", you say cultural and I happen to agree, happened and the
> > advantage shifted towards HS. Not biological or physiological but
cultural
> > (technological?).
>
> Ok. Let's assume (for the sake of argument), that the "cognitive
> threshold" that I've been talking about, and have been assuming was
> based upon biological differences in cognitive architecture, was in
> fact *not* based on biological differences, but merely on cultural or
> technological differences.
Probably a very good assumption, but that is just IMHO.
> Let's further assume that the cultural event which happened was the
> invention of shamanistic animist culture by HS, which HN didn't happen
> to imitate (perhaps because they simply preferred their own cultural
> traditions).
Maybe not as good of a assumption, but it would help to explain the "larger
groups" ideas. Given equal technologies, in a fight, real or notional, the
side with the biggest warparties (or biggest group if "inventors and
thinkers") ends up on the top of the heap more often than not, so. . . . . .
proceed.
> If this was the case, then similar arguments would apply regarding the
> "bands cohering into tribes" mechanism that I've been using with
> regard to the biologically-based cognitive threshold theory, the
> difference being that it was a culturally-based cognitive threshold
> instead, with the "technological breakthrough" being a new system of
> cultural organization, based on mystical shamans, totem animals,
> ritual dances, sacred jewelery and body art, and the like.
Let me put some different words to it and you tell me if its close to what
you were thinking. There is sort of a "critical mass" perhaps for
intellectual interaction. In groups of 5 or 6 (family groups?) the
opportunity for interaction is less than in groups of 50 or 60 (multiple
family groups in tribes or whatever). In technical management classes they
sometimes talk about "critical mass" for brainstorming sessions, i.e. two or
three just dont generate the synergy of six or seven. Maybe something here!
8-) Now toss in your shamanistic idea, and this could be the "glue" that
holds together that larger group of less-related family groups in the tribe!
Yep, could be. . . .
> So, how does this sound as a modified hypothesis? I still prefer the
> biologically-based cognitive threshold theory myself, but this one
> might turn out to be more realistic, if at some point it's
> demonstrated conclusively that HS and HN had the same
> biologically-based cognitive abilities.
Dont say "same" say "equivalent". There is no doubt in my mind that an HN
probalby had a very different view of life and a different way of going
about living that life, but different is good enough so long as both ways
survive. AND dont forget that for a long time, HN and HS DID survive in
parallel. Suddenly the rules of the game changed, and HS had a decided
advantage. Could it be tribal "critical mass" that in turn fostered a
series of comparitively rapid technological advances that sprang HS "out of
the pile-up" with the all-powerful "advantage"?
Maybe. Just dont know how one could prove that kind of hypothesis from any
of the evidence that would have survived 30-50ky.
Regards
bk
Ross Macfarlane
DV, you should have a read of Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs & Steel for
another perspective on these ideas. It doesn't touch on Neanderthals
at all; it covers the period since the end of the Ice Age ~11KYA, &
presents an explanation for the eventual cultural dominance of Europe
& Asia in the modern world.
Cornerstone is that the cause was not cognitive / biological, because
we are all anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, but geographic /
cultural. Key factor is the east-west orientation of Eurasian land
mass meaning agricultural innovations could spread widely in either
direction because of common latitudes / climates, so cultural advances
were shared & overall peoples advanced relatively quickly.
Flip side is Africa & the Americas, where the main land masses are
oriented north-south. Result: wheat was first cultivated in the
Fertile Crescent (i.e. Iraq) very early (~10KYA) & spread to Europe,
north Africa & Asia over subsequent millenia, but never made it to
southern Africa until carried by the Boers in the 19th Century. Why?
Wheat won't grow in the tropics.
Diamond points out that wheat, barley & oats all derive from the
Fertile Crescent, & rice from China. Pigs, cattle, sheep, & chickens
were all domesticated first in Eurasia as well. Between them, these 7
food sources are I think represent well over half of all the caloric
intake of the world today...
Ross Macfarlane
darth_versive
<snip>
> DV-
>
> I , to would like to explore this cognition issue more.
>
> I see the focus on Hn as a distraction at this point.
Yes. You may be right. We could go around in circles for a long time
and never get anywhere. Especially since, like I said, it's not a
field I have much expertise in.
<snip>
> Are you more interested in Neanderthal or in cognition?
>
> -Mark
I'm more interested in cognition.
Maybe we could focus for awhile on shamanistic animist hunter-gatherer
culture, and especially on the role of art, myth and ritual etc. in
their social organization and in the motivation of their behavior.
This phenomenon is, after all, at the heart of the mechanism which I
propose distinguished the particular behavior patterns of Hs and Hn,
which I propose were relevant to Hs survival and Hn extinction, within
the context of the theory I'm proposing.
DV
darth_versive
> > > Some people are committed to the point that "different" means that one
Yes! This is exactly it! The shamanistic idea is the "glue."
Without it, you have less cohesion among the less-related family
groups. With it, you have some sort of "meta-group" identity. (A
"tribal" identity, which transcends the various bands, but which also
includes them, since the bands are the constituent parts of the
tribe.)
> > So, how does this sound as a modified hypothesis? I still prefer the
> > biologically-based cognitive threshold theory myself, but this one
> > might turn out to be more realistic, if at some point it's
> > demonstrated conclusively that HS and HN had the same
> > biologically-based cognitive abilities.
>
> Dont say "same" say "equivalent".
Ok. "Equivalent" works for me.
> There is no doubt in my mind that an HN
> probalby had a very different view of life and a different way of going
> about living that life, but different is good enough so long as both ways
> survive. AND dont forget that for a long time, HN and HS DID survive in
> parallel. Suddenly the rules of the game changed, and HS had a decided
> advantage. Could it be tribal "critical mass" that in turn fostered a
> series of comparitively rapid technological advances that sprang HS "out of
> the pile-up" with the all-powerful "advantage"?
Yes! Again, this is exactly what I meant. Once you have the tribal
"critical mass," all sorts of other things follow (trade networks,
inter-cultural "cross-fertilization," rapid technological advance,
etc.) A whole synergy begins to develop. The advantages pile up so
fast that HN can't keep up.
> Maybe. Just dont know how one could prove that kind of hypothesis from any
> of the evidence that would have survived 30-50ky.
Maybe by focusing more on studying modern shamanistic animist tribal
societies with this "critical mass" theory in mind, we can come up
with predictions of what sorts of things we might find in the
archaeological record if it were true, and then look for these. One
tends not to find things if there's no reason to look for them.
But this is a question for the specialists to figure out. I'm just
proposing a broad, general hypothesis. If the idea has merit, let
*them* clean up the mess and work out the details! :)
DV
darth_versive
I disagree. The hypothesis may turn out to be wrong, but it's not
"premature". I don't think it's premature to flesh out a
"contingency" hypothesis now, just in case a particular assumption
might turn out to be correct. It would save time later in that case.
If it turns out that this assumption (a better capacity for symbolic
thinking by Hs) turns out to be incorrect, all that has been wasted is
some time by those who held to that assumption and chose to work on
this hypothesis (probably a very small number of people). But if it
turns out to be correct, then valuable time would have been gained for
a much larger group within the scientific community who would then
become interested in the topic, since the "contingency" hypothesis
would already be on the shelf, ready to go (or at least in a more
advanced state of development than it would otherwise have been in).
Has it been conclusively proven that Hs and Hn were cognitively
equivalent? I don't think so. So it seems to me that those who are
working on a contingency hypothesis--fleshing out and discussing the
possible mechanisms by which such a thing may have occurred on the
ground--are not being premature, but are being prudent.
Many military contingency plans are worked out for possible situations
that may seem unlikely today. Is it premature to work on them? I
don't think so. It may turn out that many of them are a waste of
time, but those few that end up being needed and are on the shelf, or
in a more advanced state of development, make up for this. Would it
be imprudent to *not* work on them? I'd say yes.
Incidentally, there's also nothing wrong with fleshing out contingency
hypotheses based on the assumption that Hs and Hn were cognitively
*equivalent*. Along these lines, I think it might be useful to expand
a bit on things like the idea in your own hypothesis, involving a
"wanderlust" instinct or tendency within Hs that led it to travel and
develop cultural cross-fertilization. How did this function? Was it
genetic or cultural? If it turns out this assumption of cognitive
equivalency turns out to be correct, work along these lines will turn
out to be time well spent.
This is even more the case if, as you say, the "current trend in the
data is that contemporary humans and Neandertals where so culturally
close in capacity, based on the archeological record its hard to judge
one better than the other."
DV
darth_versive
> DV, you should have a read of Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs & Steel for
> another perspective on these ideas. It doesn't touch on Neanderthals
> at all; it covers the period since the end of the Ice Age ~11KYA, &
> presents an explanation for the eventual cultural dominance of Europe
> & Asia in the modern world.
>
> Cornerstone is that the cause was not cognitive / biological, because
> we are all anatomically modern Homo Sapiens, but geographic /
> cultural. Key factor is the east-west orientation of Eurasian land
> mass meaning agricultural innovations could spread widely in either
> direction because of common latitudes / climates, so cultural advances
> were shared & overall peoples advanced relatively quickly.
No need for me to have read Diamond to get this point. I already
accept the view that competition between Hs cultures/civilizations are
based not on cognitive/biological factors but on geographic/cultural
factors (plus things like disease resistance, which are biological,
but not cognitive/biological).
Why would you have thought otherwise? My hypothesis of Hs/Hn
competition is based on an assumption of cognitive/biological
differences because they are two species. For one species, this
wouldn't apply.
DV
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>I disagree. The hypothesis may turn out to be wrong, but it's not
>"premature". I don't think it's premature to flesh out a
>"contingency" hypothesis now, just in case a particular assumption
>might turn out to be correct. It would save time later in that case.
The you start trying to lead the data with a conclusion.
>If it turns out that this assumption (a better capacity for symbolic
>thinking by Hs) turns out to be incorrect, all that has been wasted is
>some time by those who held to that assumption and chose to work on
>this hypothesis (probably a very small number of people).
Unfortunately in PA, they have lead the data for years with
premature hypothesis, only to create great skisms when the
mountain of data argues the hypothesis is incorrect. Don't
get your ego tied up in a hypothesis that does not have a
substantial basis to begin with otherwise you become like
Brace.
'If they weren't human what were they' thinking about
Neandertals.
> But if it
>turns out to be correct, then valuable time would have been gained for
>a much larger group within the scientific community who would then
>become interested in the topic, since the "contingency" hypothesis
>would already be on the shelf, ready to go (or at least in a more
>advanced state of development than it would otherwise have been in).
More time has been lost by lead hypothesis than gained by
proposting hypothesis that are verified. This is not true
with all feilds of science, but it is true in PA. How much
time is wasted in this group discussing 'ape-theories',
alot. How many of these ape-theories have a snow-balls
chance in hell of being correct, none.
>Has it been conclusively proven that Hs and Hn were cognitively
>equivalent? I don't think so. So it seems to me that those who are
>working on a contingency hypothesis--fleshing out and discussing the
>possible mechanisms by which such a thing may have occurred on the
>ground--are not being premature, but are being prudent.
You don't understand how science works. Science argues.
Premise
1. Neandertals had culture
2. Humans had culture
Null hypothesis
Neandertal culture and human culturally equivalent in terms
of sophistication.
Apply data. Look for evidence that most human sites
contemporary to neandertal had more sophiticated
technologies.
Current conclusion. THere is no significant increase in the
sophistry of human sites relative to neandertals.
Neandertals and humans had differnent cultures, but there is
little convincing evidence that Neandertal culture was
inferior.
End of discussion. Anything else you try to do without
convincing data to the otherwise is leading the argument and
will filter how you interpret future data. See discussion
with Lee Olsen. He comes to the conclusion that Neandertals
dissappeared before humans and then he selects only the
dates from sites that verifies this and denies the validity
of all other dates.
>Many military contingency plans are worked out for possible situations
>that may seem unlikely today. Is it premature to work on them? I
>don't think so.
This is science, in science we look to past histories of
errors. Anthropology is extremely lead by conclusions based
on a small sample of finds, as new finds come in fewer are
will to conclude they know, until finally most back off and
argue that more research needs to be done.
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>No need for me to have read Diamond to get this point. I already
>accept the view that competition between Hs cultures/civilizations are
>based not on cognitive/biological factors but on geographic/cultural
>factors (plus things like disease resistance, which are biological,
>but not cognitive/biological).
>
>Why would you have thought otherwise? My hypothesis of Hs/Hn
>competition is based on an assumption of cognitive/biological
>differences because they are two species. For one species, this
>wouldn't apply.
You have already started to lead your argument [DV falling
in pit or past scientific blundering]
Spiznet
> > Are you more interested in Neanderthal or in cognition?
> I'm more interested in cognition.
> Maybe we could focus for awhile on shamanistic animist hunter-gatherer
> culture, and especially on the role of art, myth and ritual etc. in
> their social organization and in the motivation of their behavior.
> DV
Sounds good to me.
Here are some points of interest:
TOOLS TIMEFRAME:
origin of Oldowan tool making (2.5 mya)
origin of Acheulean (hand-axe) tool making (1.5mya)
origin of Mousterean tool making ( 0.5mya)
(these numbers are probably off)
MILESTONES:
bipedalism
use of defensive weapons
use of offensive (hunting) weapons
origin of symbolic thought
control of fire
origin of language
origin of burial rituals
origin of organized groups larger than family bands
origins of mythologizing
origin of art
loss of hair
origin of clothing
ALSO:
H.erectus radiation 2mya OoA1
H.sapiens radiation 0.1mya OoA2
This is an extremely simplistic approach that I am taking, but its
something anyone can do:
fit the pieces together and defend your position. I am thinking that
even if Klein is wrong and language/art/mythology didn't happen all at
once at 50kya, they still are intimately related and may have fallen
like dominos at some earlier time, say 1mya (or 2mya???)
Did H.e have language ever? before or after OoA1? Fire?
Is language required for bands >> tribes?
-Mark
darth_versive
Yes. Your listing of these points of interest, which helps to set the
stage for the overall discussion by providing a chronology, is
certainly useful as background information. And while a discussion of
the *origin* of such things in the distant past as you've listed above
may be appropriate to provide context and constraints upon hypotheses,
the focal point of my interest in this matter is on a more operational
level, using data on contemporary analogues of these ancient cultures.
Using the present, that is, to help give us some insights into the
past.
What I had in mind by a discussion of "cognition" was more along the
lines of a structural and functional approach to cognition at the
subjective level, by examining the experiences, and the material,
institutional, ideological and behavioral environment, of shamanistic
animist tribal culture.
For some background into how I see this issue, see my 8/20 reply to
Bob Keeter in this thread:
This will give you a basic outline of what I meant by my statement
above:
darth_versive
Ok. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that I'm leading the
data, and that the data which I am assuming to be correct is
incorrect, and that my hypothesis is totally worthless.
Let's also assume that this sort of thing happens a lot in PA, perhaps
due to the paucity of data available for the "burning questions"
people want answered, and the also due to the natural tendency of
people to want to make sense of things right away, even if they don't
have all the data they need to do so. Let's also assume that such
behavior creates great "schisms" when people become "attached" to
their hypotheses and won't let go of them when new, solid data
refuting these hypotheses becomes available.
Let's also assume that this phenomenon *does* waste a lot of time and
effort within science, or at least, within some circles on the margins
of science. So what? I think that a lot of bad theories floating
around, far from "gumming up" the scientific works, actually sometimes
makes science work better. For example, I think that pseudoscientific
formulations like creationism or the
"pyramids-built-by-ancient-astronauts" "theory" actually *stimulates*
scientific thinking and creativity in those who are already
scientifically-minded. Same for the various "ape-theories" in PA,
perhaps.
I would maintain that maybe it's *you* who doesn't know how science
works. Because it seems to me that this is how science often *does*
work. It's messy, but it seems to get the job done, eventually. At
least this is my interpretation of how science works from my reading
of the history of science. Maybe your interpretation of this history
is different from mine. In that case, I guess we'll have to agree to
disagree.
The way I see it, if people didn't sometimes "lead the data," science
wouldn't have progressed as fast as it has. I agree that in an ideal
world, everyone is always totally objective and open-minded and always
base their views only on the data then available, which they never
misinterpret, and they never have to make leaps of intuition and
imagination, since they are always completely logical beings and never
get "ahead of the data."
But this isn't the type of world that *I* see around us, and it isn't
the type of human nature that *I've* observed. And it isn't the type
of science that *I've* read about in the history books.
So I'm afraid that I don't see the phenomenon of "leading the data" in
such dark, sinister terms as you do. In fact, I think that science
would greatly suffer without it. Many people said that Einstein "led
the data" too, you know. And maybe he did, to some extent. Whoever
first thought up the theory of "continental drift" may have led the
data, and ditto for the person who first thought that an asteroid
impact led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would we have been
better off or worse off if they had kept their mouths shut?
Don't let your own ideals about how you think science *should* work
blind you to the reality of how science *does* work. Sometimes it
works just the way you think it should. But then again, sometimes it
doesn't. And that is sometimes for the best, in my view.
So feel free to continue to lecture me about how I "don't understand
how science works" if you want to. If you are correct, I'm not likely
to change my ways (being a closed-minded idiot and all, who stubbornly
clings to false notions about science that I've been brainwashed into
believing). And if you are incorrect, I'm not likely to change my
ways either (perhaps understanding science better than you do). I
find discussions about the philosophy of science interesting and
stimulating, and if you can take the frustration of trying to reason
with such a hard-headed dunce as me, with little prospect of making
progress enlightening me, I can take the challenge of thinking over
your points, as much as I might disagree with them.
DV
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>I would maintain that maybe it's *you* who doesn't know how science
>works.
See that statement right there would identify you as a kook.
> Because it seems to me that this is how science often *does*
>work.
Science works by a process of objective peer review, its
when the peer review process is overrun by vested interest
that data ends up being lead by conclusions. Given the fact
for several years I was an assistant editor and reviewed a
great many papers, I would say I know alot more about the
process than you will ever know. What you propose will end
up in the rejection drawer of the filing cabinet unless you
get objectively obtained supporting data, and a whole lot of
it.
> It's messy, but it seems to get the job done, eventually.
Wrong, it delays science and waste resources. When all this
work was being done in europe, how much was being supported
in africa. It was easier for them to dig fossils in their
own backyard and come up with ALL-IMPORTANT but later
falsified theories from their own back yard.
> At
>least this is my interpretation of how science works from my reading
>of the history of science. Maybe your interpretation of this history
>is different from mine. In that case, I guess we'll have to agree to
>disagree.
Because your an outsider taking your opinion from coffee
table science magazines. Nature and Science have some of the
worst peer review and have published some of the worst
papers. If you are truly interested in nuts and bolts
science you need to look at Journal of Human Evolution,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Molecular Biology
and Evolution and many other journals where the trudging
work goes on outside of the limelight and specter of popular
science. This is why your conclusions are 5 or 10 years in
the past and why you are following popular writers who have
been debunked.
This group does not look at one or 2 papers, we examine
10s of papers per year and if you are a member of molecular
anthropology and paleoanthropology, we tend to look at 100s
per year.
>The way I see it, if people didn't sometimes "lead the data," science
>wouldn't have progressed as fast as it has.
progressed backwards. Remember Piltdown Man.
> I agree that in an ideal
>world, everyone is always totally objective and open-minded and always
>base their views only on the data then available, which they never
>misinterpret, and they never have to make leaps of intuition and
>imagination, since they are always completely logical beings and never
>get "ahead of the data."
They know where to look for the conclusions they want and
other sites which are far more relevant are either not
investigated or the results are sidelined. Until Wilson and
Stoneking published their results, investigate how much work
was done on Rhodesian Man (a.k.a Broken Hill 1, Kabwe 1).
How much discussion has gone on concerning Moroccan
hominids? Other than the fossils in lake Chad how much work
has gone on outside of the rift valley and how much of that
work has focused on the pleistocene. Instead authors like to
work in their own backyard, like the portuguese work on LV
and come to conclusions that make it look as if their
backyard work is important.
>But this isn't the type of world that *I* see around us, and it isn't
>the type of human nature that *I've* observed. And it isn't the type
>of science that *I've* read about in the history books.
Its the type of science that has lead to the complete
refutation of most PA theories and a complete revolution in
the PA work every 20 years.
>So I'm afraid that I don't see the phenomenon of "leading the data" in
>such dark, sinister terms as you do.
Then you probably shouldn't be thinking about science and
instead think about flavors of ice cream people may like.
> In fact, I think that science
>would greatly suffer without it.
Wrong.
>Many people said that Einstein "led
>the data" too, you know.
I know of no one that said this.
> And maybe he did, to some extent.
Comparing yourself with Einstein is one of the point
grabbers for the Net Loon Index.
> Whoever
>first thought up the theory of "continental drift" may have led the
>data,
They were lead by the data.
> and ditto for the person who first thought that an asteroid
>impact led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would we have been
>better off or worse off if they had kept their mouths shut?
Citations.
>Don't let your own ideals about how you think science *should* work
>blind you to the reality of how science *does* work. Sometimes it
>works just the way you think it should. But then again, sometimes it
>doesn't. And that is sometimes for the best, in my view.
>So feel free to continue to lecture me about how I "don't understand
>how science works" if you want to. If you are correct, I'm not likely
>to change my ways (being a closed-minded idiot and all, who stubbornly
>clings to false notions about science that I've been brainwashed into
>believing). And if you are incorrect, I'm not likely to change my
>ways either (perhaps understanding science better than you do). I
>find discussions about the philosophy of science interesting and
>stimulating, and if you can take the frustration of trying to reason
>with such a hard-headed dunce as me, with little prospect of making
>progress enlightening me, I can take the challenge of thinking over
>your points, as much as I might disagree with them.
No but your above response gives me a chance to apply the
NetLoon Index.
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html
The Net-Loon Index for UseNet Science Newsgroups and Science
Mailing Lists
(A test that you can run to check the mental state of a
discussion-group contributor).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledgements and Credits: My inspiration for the
Net-Loon Index comes from an earlier iteration of a method
of scoring net-loons (the "Crackpot Index", authored by John
Baez, moderator of sci.physics.research). Therefore, much of
the credit for this index should go to him. The "character
traits" found in this score-card differ in more than a few
ways from those in John's "Crackpot Index". For instance,
Baez' original index was geared primarily toward posts made
in physics newsgroups. In contrast, the new Net-Loon Index
is oriented toward science posts in general, and should be
applicable to any sci.* newsgroup or mailing list. In
addition, the Net-loon Index has a "ratings" section at the
bottom of the score-card to help the user facilitate the
final determination of a poster's mental/psychological
state. Character traits that I copied from John Baez'
"Crackpot Index" have an " * " after them. Thanks to Lorenzo
Love for alerting me to Baez' index. This new scorecard is
presented with no copy restrictions. You are free to copy,
alter, re-write, customize, and disseminate the Net-loon
Index as you wish.
Krusty thought it would be a good idea if I wrote this
disclaimer. Disclaimer: I am not a mental health worker, and
I know nothing about diagnosing mental diseases, so please
take the ratings (at the bottom of this page) with a large
grain of salt! :-)
THE TEST
The poster to be tested is given a negative starting credit
of (-)100 points.
1) Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary
as Darwin's/Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's
/etc.'s hypothesis (pick any famous dead scientist), but the
poster cannot provide any concrete testable predictions of
their own hypothesis (+ 20 points).*
[Check]
2) Refuses to get involved in discussion threads that do not
discuss their own hypothesis. (+ 20 points).
[Check]
3) Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads
that are discussing other topics. (+ 40 points).
4) Claims to be an expert or a "specialist" on the subject
but will not give their credentials when asked. (+ 40
points).
[Check] Claims to be an expert on how science works.
5) Claims that their hypothesis is too complex for
some/many/most people to understand. (+ 20 points).
6) Makes a statement that is widely known to be a
misrepresentation of a researcher's published conclusion. (+
30 points).
7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
(+10 points per statement)*
[Check]
8) When asked, they subsequently cannot (or will not)
provide a published reference that backs up their statement
in #6 or #7. (+ 40 points).*
9) Over-use of big words (when a simpler word would have
sufficed). (+ 5 points/word).
10) They create their own custom definitions for extant
words or concepts. (+ 40 points).
11) They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon
that could be (or is) described in a simpler way. (+40
points).
[Check]
12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without
content). (+10 points per statement)*
13) Statement that is logically inconsistent. (+10 points
per statement)*
14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's
previous work on the subject. (+ 40 points).
[check]
15) Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about
how misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the
professional scientific community is. (+ 40 points).
16) Consistently uses quotes from only one
book/paper/article/TV-show as the sole external support for
their theory. (+ 20 points).
[Check]
17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that
contradicts his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).
[Check]
18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information,
provided by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that
disproves (or is strong evidence against) their hypothesis.
(+ 30 points).*
19) They persistently claim that their hypothesis is a new
idea, even after being presented with overwhelming proof (in
the form of published references) that show that it is not a
new idea. (+30 points).
20) Commonly contradicts himself/herself from post to post
(or alters his/her position while denying that he/she has
done so). (+ 30 points).
21) Claims that their hypothesis will explain every aspect
(or nearly every aspect) of possibly unrelated multiple
subjects/phenomena. (+20 points)
22) Claims that the professional science community is trying
to silence him/her because the professional science
community is trying to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).*
23) Uses a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment. (+20 points)*
24) Favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo; claims that
the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..(+40
points)*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = 200
NOTE: There are two scoring schemes. The first scheme is for
short single posts, and because of this, the scheme is much
more "rigorously applied". The second scoring scheme is for
very long posts or for a long document on a web page. Where
at all possible, using a very long post/lengthy web document
will give a much more accurate score than would using a
short post. It is not advisable to maintain a cumulative
score on multiple posts, as this technique would, when
applied in excess, eventually diagnose everybody as a
Net-loon! (after all, everybody writes goofy things on
occasion!)
:-)
SCORING (in cases where the poster has made numerous short
responses to someone else, all within in a single post):
-100 - (-)80 points......Probably a normal individual.
-80 - (-70)......Either extremely unknowledgeable or is a
borderline crackpot/net-loon.
Above -70.....A Crackpot/Net-Loon. Delusional.
SCORING(in cases where the poster has written a significant
amount of words in a single post, such as a very lengthy
post, or a lengthy document on a web page):
-100 - (-)30 points.........Probably a normal individual.
-30 - +50 points..........Probably normal, but is not
knowledgeable.
Read their posts with some skepticism.
+50 - +80 points.... Borderline crackpot/net-loon. Person is
either
extremely ignorant, or is consciously giving out
mis-information
(person probably has some delusional aspects). Definately an
unreliable
source of information.
+80 - +480 points......A Crackpot/Net-Loon. Delusional.
Score = 200-100 = +100
>I would maintain that maybe it's *you* who doesn't know how science
>works.
I would maintain that you are positioning yourself by your
opinions defensive of a McGinnian approach to science as a
NetLoon.
Lorenzo I beat you to this one. heh-heh.
firstjois
: On 21 Aug 2003 11:04:17 -0700, darth_...@yahoo.com
: (darth_versive) wrote:
:
. If you are correct, I'm not likely
: >to change my ways (being a closed-minded idiot and all, who stubbornly
: >clings to false notions about science that I've been brainwashed into
: >believing).
Darth, honesty is the best policy. And I admire that in a person.
Jois
darth_versive
Excuse me? Professor? I think you may have scored my test wrong.
I'd like a recount! :)
> 4) Claims to be an expert or a "specialist" on the subject
> but will not give their credentials when asked. (+ 40
> points).
>
> [Check] Claims to be an expert on how science works.
I said: "At least this is my interpretation of how science works from
my reading of the history of science. Maybe your interpretation of
this history is different from mine. In that case, I guess we'll have
to agree to disagree."
I really don't remember that I said that "I'm an expert on how science
works."
Citations, please? ;)
(Subtract 40 points)
1) Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary
as Darwin's/Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's
/etc.'s hypothesis (pick any famous dead scientist), but the
poster cannot provide any concrete testable predictions of
their own hypothesis (+ 20 points).*
>
> [Check]
I also don't remember saying my hypothesis was this revolutionary, or
even revolutionary at all. If I remember correctly, I said it was a
"contingency" hypothesis, to be fleshed out "just in case a particular
assumption might turn out to be correct." That is, "fleshing out and
discussing the possible mechanisms by which such a thing may have
occurred on the ground."
Whether such a hypothesis might turn out to be revolutionary or not, I
couldn't say. But I certainly never *stated* it to be such (or if I
did: Citations, please?) ;)
(Subtract 20 points)
Unless I've made a math error (not claiming to be an expert
mathematician so as not to rake up more points), that puts my score at
+40. (Probably normal, but is not knowledgeable. Read their posts
with some skepticism.)
Like I said, I'm only a beginner in this field, and I'm not claiming
expertise. So I agree that everyone should read my posts with
skepticism. After all, what I said was: "But I've been interested in
studying modern human cognition for many years, and a lot of this
stuff is *way* outside the field of paleoanthropology (of which I'm
pretty much a beginner). But I do think that the study of modern
human cognitive architecture may be relevant to the issues of the
competition between Hs and Hn, and Hn extinction. So that's why I'm
bouncing this theory of mine off people who've studied more
paleoanthropology than I have. The theory is based on evidence from
people like Klien, evolutionary psychologists like Pascal Boyer and
D.S. Wilson, and the studies I've been doing on modern human cognitive
architecture. It's still very much a work in progress." (Oops!
Another scoring error! "16) Consistently uses quotes from only one
book/paper/article/TV-show as the sole external support for their
theory. (+ 20 points) [Check]". Guess that puts me at +20.)
I find it especially interesting how you counted points for my
admission of this lack of expertise, PLUS counted points for claiming
to an *expert* in the subject, even though you conveniently switched
fields here, to make being an expert on "how science works" the
applicable subject, rather than paleoanthropology, which would be the
plain reading of the intent of the test. But even here, you were
mistaken, since I never claimed to be an expert on how science works,
I was just giving my opinion on how science works. They're not the
same thing.
Anyway, I wish you good luck in all your endeavors! I can see that
we're probably not going to get anywhere by discussing this hypothesis
further (and if you think I'm a kook, I can't really understand why
you'd waste your time).
DV
Jim McGinn
> > I would maintain that maybe it's *you* who doesn't
> > know how science works.
>
> See that statement right there would identify you
> as a kook.
I'd say it identifies him as an objective observer.
>
> > Because it seems to me that this is how science often *does*
> > work.
>
> Science works by a process of objective peer review,
The purpose of peer review is to avoid bias.
> when the peer review process is overrun by vested interest
> that data ends up being lead by conclusions.
Yeah, it's so that people that make the following jackass
comments don't dictate the course of investigation:
"How much time is wasted in this group discussing
'ape-theories', alot. How many of these ape-theories
have a snow-balls chance in hell of being correct,
none."
> Given the fact
> for several years I was an assistant editor and reviewed a
> great many papers,
Yes, Phil, we know. You invented the peer review process.
I think he's entitled to his opinion. I don't happen
to agree with it, but why not dispute his thinking on
the basis of its content and avoid the political
assassination techniques which only make him look good
in comparison.
> > In fact, I think that science
> > would greatly suffer without it.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Many people said that Einstein "led
> > the data" too, you know.
>
> I know of no one that said this.
>
> > And maybe he did, to some extent.
>
> Comparing yourself with Einstein is one of the point
> grabbers for the Net Loon Index.
He didn't compare himself to Einstein.
>
> > Whoever
> >first thought up the theory of "continental drift" may have led the
> >data,
>
> They were lead by the data.
>
> > and ditto for the person who first thought that an asteroid
> >impact led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would we have been
> >better off or worse off if they had kept their mouths shut?
>
> Citations.
>
>
> >Don't let your own ideals about how you think science *should* work
> >blind you to the reality of how science *does* work.
Well stated.
Sometimes it
> >works just the way you think it should. But then again, sometimes it
> >doesn't. And that is sometimes for the best, in my view.
>
> >So feel free to continue to lecture me about how I "don't understand
> >how science works" if you want to.
No need for the invitation, Phil is always happy to blather on about
how he knows science better than anybody else.
Eric Stevens
>No need for the invitation, Phil is always happy to blather on about
>how he knows science better than anybody else.
I get the impression that in his mind the way science works is the way
Phil works.
Eric Stevens
Spiznet
> > >works.
> >
> > See that statement right there would identify you as a kook.
> >
> Anyway, I wish you good luck in all your endeavors! I can see that
> we're probably not going to get anywhere by discussing this hypothesis
> further (and if you think I'm a kook, I can't really understand why
> you'd waste your time).
Now your just not being logical.
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>I said: "At least this is my interpretation of how science works from
>my reading of the history of science. Maybe your interpretation of
>this history is different from mine. In that case, I guess we'll have
>to agree to disagree."
>
>I really don't remember that I said that "I'm an expert on how science
>works."
>
>Citations, please? ;)
You inferred that you knew more about how science worked
than I do, I am in science and I have played a substantive
role in the publishing process. I would say that if you
claim to know more than I then you are claiming to be an
expert
Add back 40 points.
>1) Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary
>as Darwin's/Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's
>/etc.'s hypothesis (pick any famous dead scientist), but the
>poster cannot provide any concrete testable predictions of
>their own hypothesis (+ 20 points).*
>>
>> [Check]
>
>I also don't remember saying my hypothesis was this revolutionary, or
>even revolutionary at all. If I remember correctly, I said it was a
>"contingency" hypothesis, to be fleshed out "just in case a particular
>assumption might turn out to be correct." That is, "fleshing out and
>discussing the possible mechanisms by which such a thing may have
>occurred on the ground."
You compared your leading hypothesis as something Einstein
did. You threw out a few other high profile names.
Name dropping is a typical sign of a sci.* net loon.
Add back 20 pts.
>Whether such a hypothesis might turn out to be revolutionary or not, I
>couldn't say. But I certainly never *stated* it to be such (or if I
>did: Citations, please?) ;)
>
>(Subtract 20 points)
>
>Unless I've made a math error (not claiming to be an expert
>mathematician so as not to rake up more points), that puts my score at
>+40. (Probably normal, but is not knowledgeable. Read their posts
>with some skepticism.)
>
>Like I said, I'm only a beginner in this field, and I'm not claiming
>expertise.
Then ask simple questions and listen for the answers, stop
proposing theories until you've read enough primary
literature to know what is plausible, implausible and what
is so unstudied is difficult to tell anything.
> So I agree that everyone should read my posts with
>skepticism. After all, what I said was: "But I've been interested in
>studying modern human cognition for many years, and a lot of this
>stuff is *way* outside the field of paleoanthropology (of which I'm
>pretty much a beginner). But I do think that the study of modern
>human cognitive architecture may be relevant to the issues of the
>competition between Hs and Hn, and Hn extinction. So that's why I'm
>bouncing this theory of mine off people who've studied more
>paleoanthropology than I have. The theory is based on evidence from
>people like Klien, evolutionary psychologists like Pascal Boyer and
>D.S. Wilson, and the studies I've been doing on modern human cognitive
>architecture. It's still very much a work in progress." (Oops!
>Another scoring error!
"16) Consistently uses quotes from only one
>book/paper/article/TV-show as the sole external support for their
>theory. (+ 20 points) [Check]". Guess that puts me at +20.)
Quoting Klein. Relying on Nature and Science as
representative of all the literature in the field also
qualifies. And in particular relying on a review, not on
primary literature.
A few hints.
Primary literature- frequently refereed often by 2 peers.
Reviews (2ndary) - infrequently refereed for content.
Refereeing amounts to a head nod. That's because reviews are
often solicited by the journal.
Books (tertiary)- editor is generally in close
relationship with all authors. Almost never edited for
content.
Popular Science/Journalism- Authors tend to select from the
most popular or interesting but more than often the most
unreliable sources of information.
When we talk about having more than one source in a science
group we are talking about having more then one primary
literature reference. Reviews, Books, PR and the like count
about the same level as TV or whatever. Overtime in this
group, after you have read a few more primary pieces you
will learn to look at reviews and other non-primary sources
of information with great skepticism.
You think that I disagree with you hypothesis. I don't,
however I need to point out that whether or not I disagree
with a hypothesis is immaterial because I might agree with
that hypothesis for irrational reasons, which is why I
suspect you favor it. It may be true that certain cognitive
changes inflected during the period shortly after the first
african expansion. The problem is that archaeology is so
imbalanced with respect to where humans migrated from to
where humans migrated to there is no way to reconcile what
is known at the moment with a mechanism by which aurignacian
and gravettian tools evolved since in many instance tool
culture just appears at the same time humans appear. If they
existed someplace else earlier we don't know where that
place is. The same is true with symbolic artistry such as in
cromagnon. As a result to argue a threshold or transition is
to argue that one has enough information to define a time
when humans were not behaving in someway (anywhere) and at
some later time we can see that they were.
Now I could say here
Phil is going to make a prediction.
My prediction is that humans could go into an area with
next to nothing, given time invent a whole bunch of new
useful tools and run the other hominids out of the way.
That in order for them to do this the creative and logical
processing areas of the brain had to be better than
Neandertals. But that prediction is likened to a National
Enquirer prediction, entertaining but not much use as a
foundation.
Ross Macfarlane
Don't remember judging what your thoughts were; just suggested you
read a very good book...
Ross Macfarlane
Jim McGinn
> I have played a substantive
> role in the publishing process.
Citations please.
Jim
Jim McGinn
Like I always say, when it comes to science Phil is
one hell of a good typist.
Jim
Spiznet
> ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message news:<cb2e44af.0308...@posting.google.com>...
> > darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
> > > ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message
>
> > > > Are you more interested in Neanderthal or in cognition?
> > > I'm more interested in cognition.
> > > Maybe we could focus for awhile on shamanistic animist hunter-gatherer
> > > culture, and especially on the role of art, myth and ritual etc. in
> > > their social organization and in the motivation of their behavior.
> > > DV
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> > Here are some points of interest:
<long snip>
> What I had in mind by a discussion of "cognition" was more along the
> lines of a structural and functional approach to cognition at the
> subjective level, by examining the experiences, and the material,
> institutional, ideological and behavioral environment, of shamanistic
> animist tribal culture.
> DV
Ok, you first.
-Mark
Spiznet
> Phil is going to make a prediction.
> My prediction is that humans could go into an area with
> next to nothing, given time invent a whole bunch of new
> useful tools and run the other hominids out of the way.
> That in order for them to do this the creative and logical
> processing areas of the brain had to be better than
> Neandertals. But that prediction is likened to a National
> Enquirer prediction, entertaining but not much use as a
> foundation.
Plus, the points DV wants to discuss: the origins & evolution of
symbolic thought/language/religion/art do not originate from 40K
Europe so this is not the era to focusing on.
darth_versive
Sorry. That may have been a little too much. :)
But when somebody accuses you of being a kook, how can you then have a
logical discussion with them?
DV
darth_versive
And I appreciate a good zinger!
Good job! :)
DV
Philip Deitiker
news:8e0e3045.03082...@posting.google.com:
> But when somebody accuses you of being a kook, how can you then have a
> logical discussion with them?
I was warning you that to continue to force yourself down a certain path
would land you in kook land (as it appeared to me that you were doing). I
should point out that historically the discussion with MrMcGinn began about
the same way, but when we started dissecting his points, he became more
defensive and started grabbing more of those 24 ways to land in kookdome.
He did not get the 'McGinnian Death Spiral' Named after him for picking
daisies in the park. I recommend highly that you don't put yourself or your
ego in a position investing alot of emotional energy in a thought process
which might be easily discredited, otherwise you will end up grabbing from
the magical 24 in order to defend you ego/theory from its inevitable doom.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Spiznet
> ma...@spiznet.com (Spiznet) wrote in message news:<cb2e44af.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
> > > Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I would maintain that maybe it's *you* who doesn't know how science
> > > > >works.
> > > >
> > > > See that statement right there would identify you as a kook.
> > > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Anyway, I wish you good luck in all your endeavors! I can see that
> > > we're probably not going to get anywhere by discussing this hypothesis
> > > further (and if you think I'm a kook, I can't really understand why
> > > you'd waste your time).
> >
> > Now your just not being logical.
> > -Mark
>
> Sorry. That may have been a little too much. :)
>
Anyway, glad to see you're rehabilitated.
Jim McGinn
attract people whose talents and instinct are political
rather than rational.
The controversial nature of human evolution tends to
attract people whose talents and instinct are political
rather than rational.
The controversial nature of the internet tends to attract
people whose talents and instinct are political rather
than rational.
Put these three together and what do you get: Deitiker.
darth_versive
Ok. I think a good place to start is with a line of thought Bob
Keeter and I were discussing in the post I cited in my last post to
you:
That is, the idea of a tribal "critical mass," which is held together
by the "shamanistic idea" as the "glue," and how this gives members of
the various bands a sort of "meta-group" identity, which both
transcends the band, and also includes it.
DV
darth_versive
Sorry. I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. I had
assumed you were making the point that my assuming a
cognitive/biological disparity between Hs and Hn was a stretch, since
Hs/Hs interactions were shown to be based on geographical/cultural
factors. And so, it would be more reasonable to use the hypothesis of
geographical/cultural factors to explain Hs/Hn interactions as well.
And that I was unaware of the ideas in the book you were citing. And
that maybe if I read the book, I would realize that the
geographical/cultural approach to Hs/Hn interaction would be a better
one than my "pet" theory of a cognitive advantage by Hs over Hn based
on biology.
And so, I put your remarks in the context of the ongoing argument I've
been having on this point.
Again, I apologize. Since evidently your post was unrelated to this,
and was just intended to inform me of an interesting book, I
misunderstood.
In fact, I *have* heard about the ideas in this book. I don't
remember if it was through I review I'd read or some article on the
subject, but they strike me as quite interesting. And it makes sense
how ideas could be transmitted much more readily between cultures of
similar latitudes, and since the Europe/Asia geography has much more
room in the east/west axis than that of the lower-latitude Americas,
this could help explain a lot.
DV
Spiznet
> > > > > Maybe we could focus for awhile on shamanistic animist hunter-gatherer
> > > > > culture, and especially on the role of art, myth and ritual etc. in
> > > > > their social organization and in the motivation of their behavior.
> > > > > DV
> >
> > > What I had in mind by a discussion of "cognition" was more along the
> > > lines of a structural and functional approach to cognition at the
> > > subjective level, by examining the experiences, and the material,
> > > institutional, ideological and behavioral environment, of shamanistic
> > > animist tribal culture.
> > > DV
> >
> Ok. I think a good place to start is with a line of thought Bob
> Keeter and I were discussing in the post I cited in my last post to
> you:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3785524094d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8e0e3045.0308200824.44854e70%40posting.google.com&rnum=39
>
> That is, the idea of a tribal "critical mass," which is held together
> by the "shamanistic idea" as the "glue," and how this gives members of
> the various bands a sort of "meta-group" identity, which both
> transcends the band, and also includes it.
> DV
OK: 5 family groups without shaman, 50 with shaman.
(you are already assuming language/symbolic thought/religion)
Go on...
-Mark
Ross Macfarlane
>
> assumed you were making the point that my assuming a
> cognitive/biological disparity between Hs and Hn was a stretch, since
> Hs/Hs interactions were shown to be based on geographical/cultural
> factors. And so, it would be more reasonable to use the hypothesis of
> geographical/cultural factors to explain Hs/Hn interactions as well.
> And that I was unaware of the ideas in the book you were citing. And
> that maybe if I read the book, I would realize that the
> geographical/cultural approach to Hs/Hn interaction would be a better
> one than my "pet" theory of a cognitive advantage by Hs over Hn based
> on biology.
>
> And so, I put your remarks in the context of the ongoing argument I've
> been having on this point.
>
> Again, I apologize. Since evidently your post was unrelated to this,
> and was just intended to inform me of an interesting book, I
> misunderstood.
>
> In fact, I *have* heard about the ideas in this book. I don't
> remember if it was through I review I'd read or some article on the
> subject, but they strike me as quite interesting. And it makes sense
> how ideas could be transmitted much more readily between cultures of
> similar latitudes, and since the Europe/Asia geography has much more
> room in the east/west axis than that of the lower-latitude Americas,
> this could help explain a lot.
>
disparity between AMHS & HN, based on the evident "leap" in HS
technology in Europe ca. 50KYA. The evidence in my view does not
support a cognitive leap because anatomically modern Homo sapiens were
already in Australia & by implication east Asia, but the technological
leap is not evident there.
Diamond's hypotheses could be seen as a model for technological
advancement disconnected from evolutionary change, because he clearly
rejects a difference in cognitive abilities leading to the differences
in technological advancement in the past 10KYA. In other words, he
does not consider Europeans smarter than the indigenes of Australia or
anywhere else, but looks for geographic explanations.
I view neanderthals as a distinct species with a separate evolutionary
history to HS, & probably not interfertile (unlike e.g. Australian
aborigines or whoever). However I don't accept that any technological
advantage that HS had over HN in Europe 50-30KYA is evidence of a
cognitive advantage. It could easily be explained by accidents of
geography, just as Diamond finds to be the explanation over the past
10KYA. Neanderthals' long isolation in Ice Age Europe could have led
to technological conservatism, as it did in Australia in the same time
period...
Ross Macfarlane
darth_versive
I'm not committed to any particular point in time where this cognitive
disparity may have taken place. I mentioned the 50KYA possibility
merely because that's what Klein had speculated about in his article.
I have no idea when it may have occurred. So any evidence against the
50KYA point in time is fine with me. And I suppose that it's also
possible that a cognitive "leap" *could* have taken place 50KYA in
Africa or Europe in a sub-population, and just took some time to
spread within the HS population as a whole. I'm not sure if this is
possible or not, given the degree (or lack thereof) of genetic
isolation among HS sub-populations, but if true, this would be
consistent with the observation of AMHs being in Australia before this
point in time, and also with the observation that there was not a
technological leap until much later. Or again, maybe the "cognitive
leap" goes back much further, but the "technological leap" depended on
something like the cultural "cross-fertilization" due to HS groups
travelling around, due to some type of "wanderlust" instinct, which PD
speculated about earlier in this thread. When this "wanderlust"
instinct may have developed is also unknown. That is, maybe the
biological factor was a necessary but not sufficient condition, and
required the cultural cross-fertilization factor to get things really
rolling.
I don't know. At this point, it's all highly speculative. Which is
why I call it a "contingency" hypothesis; it's contingent on certain
assumptions which may or may not be correct, but for which the
evidence is inconclusive or lacking. But since they're still
reasonable assumptions, or at least not completely beyond the pale of
scientifically-legitimate possibilities, I think that they might merit
more thought and discussion, and as more evidence comes to light,
we'll be able to refine or eliminate some of these assumptions. For
now, I think it just makes for interesting discussion. Which is what
we're here for, isn't it?
> Diamond's hypotheses could be seen as a model for technological
> advancement disconnected from evolutionary change, because he clearly
> rejects a difference in cognitive abilities leading to the differences
> in technological advancement in the past 10KYA. In other words, he
> does not consider Europeans smarter than the indigenes of Australia or
> anywhere else, but looks for geographic explanations.
I agree with this view in general (that is, that all HS had the same
cognitive abilities). Except in the case I outlined above, that of a
"cognitive leap" that took some time to work its way through the whole
HS population. But by 10KYA, I would imagine that this would have had
plenty of time to occur, if this is the way it actually happened, and
if the "cognitive event" was about 50KYA (and it's all still highly
speculative, I admit). So from this 10KYA point onward (and very
likely from even much further back), I'd agree that it was all about
technological/cultural differences (in which geography plays a major
role), not cognitive/biological differences.
> I view neanderthals as a distinct species with a separate evolutionary
> history to HS, & probably not interfertile (unlike e.g. Australian
> aborigines or whoever). However I don't accept that any technological
> advantage that HS had over HN in Europe 50-30KYA is evidence of a
> cognitive advantage. It could easily be explained by accidents of
> geography, just as Diamond finds to be the explanation over the past
> 10KYA. Neanderthals' long isolation in Ice Age Europe could have led
> to technological conservatism, as it did in Australia in the same time
> period...
>
> Ross Macfarlane
Yes. You could be right about this too. There are a number of
possibilities. See the thread where I'm discussing another
possibility (a particular accident of technology, which perhaps is
related to an accident of geography) with Bob Keeter:
in which cognitive equivalency between HS and HN is assumed.
So I'm open to a variety of "contingency" hypotheses (or "somewhat
speculative" hypotheses, if you prefer).
DV
darth_versive
Well, as you can see, the discussion hasn't progressed very far. Do
you have any problems with it so far? I don't want to try and build
some huge edifice on top of these assumptions if you have a
well-founded objection to something in the foundation. If there were
something wrong with my basic assumptions, and these were pointed out
only later, I'd have to go back and tear the whole structure down and
start over.
So if you have any problems so far, now's the time to speak up! ;)
DV
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>> OK: 5 family groups without shaman, 50 with shaman.
>> (you are already assuming language/symbolic thought/religion)
>> Go on...
>>
>> -Mark
>
>Well, as you can see, the discussion hasn't progressed very far. Do
>you have any problems with it so far? I don't want to try and build
>some huge edifice on top of these assumptions if you have a
>well-founded objection to something in the foundation. If there were
>something wrong with my basic assumptions, and these were pointed out
>only later, I'd have to go back and tear the whole structure down and
>start over.
>
>So if you have any problems so far, now's the time to speak up! ;)
Proof that Neandertals did not have religious 'shamans'.
Proof that Neandertals or any other hominid could not create
the same structure.
Spiznet
> >> OK: 5 family groups without shaman, 50 with shaman.
> >> (you are already assuming language/symbolic thought/religion)
> >> Go on...
> >> -Mark
> >
> >Well, as you can see, the discussion hasn't progressed very far. Do
> >you have any problems with it so far? I don't want to try and build
> >some huge edifice on top of these assumptions if you have a
> >well-founded objection to something in the foundation.
Lets review where we are:
We are starting from a small 20-50 individual (5-10 adult males)
band-based hominid social organization and trying to build it into a
larger more complex one: so we need some mechanism by which rival
bands would gain a lasting "kinship" or "mythology" or "common
language" with other bands.
> > If there were
> >something wrong with my basic assumptions, and these were pointed out
> >only later, I'd have to go back and tear the whole structure down and
> >start over.
So what they're only words don't get to attached to them.
> >So if you have any problems so far, now's the time to speak up! ;)
>
> Proof that Neandertals did not have religious 'shamans'.
> Proof that Neandertals or any other hominid could not create
> the same structure.
> PD
Even Klein admits Neanderthal burial rituals (infamous Science
article) so the stage we are at is before this. Maybe 1mya, 2mya or
3mya ? ? ?
The problem as I see it is the ability of one individual to get
another to do something for a long period of time, longer than they
would need to do to satisfy a personal hunger or desire. It seems to
be a major distinction between humans and animals.
For instance, chimp organization is decentralized, the leader stops
others from doing some things, and does whatever he wants, but does he
really get others to do things? And will they keep on doing them after
he leaves?
Some kind of picture or goal-state or reward has to be in the mind of
the doer of these longterm, "work" activities as motivation.
DV, start pulling some weight on this one and don't feel like you have
to start at 3mya- just say what's on you mind- come up with some
concepts!
-Mark
To jump ahead,
Lee Olsen
snip
> The you start trying to lead the data with a conclusion.
Leading the data is applying statistical rape to soft evidence and
arriving at a preposterous conclusion.
snip
> End of discussion. Anything else you try to do without
> convincing data to the otherwise is leading the argument and
> will filter how you interpret future data. See discussion
> with Lee Olsen. He comes to the conclusion that Neandertals
> dissappeared before humans and then he selects only the
> dates from sites that verifies this and denies the validity
> of all other dates.
Philip Deitiker says: *the more recent the date the more accurate it
is.*
35 +/- 50 (SI-4705) ROFL
The whole world is waiting anxiously for you to preform your
statistical rape on these late Paleo dates. The world wants to know
just when you predict the Paleo era actually ended.
2830 +/- 115
2880 +/- 175
2130+/-230
3380 +/-420
26,610 +/- 300
8,719 +/-392
10,435+/-260
4220 +/-500
4130 +/-100
3970 +/-85
3780 +/-85
3555+/-65
3305 +/-135
3210 +/-90
3010 +/-110
80 +/- 50
2810 +/- 60
2455 +/- 60
3005 +/- 40
3405 +/- 45
910 +/- 100
340 +/- 75
3105 +/- 70
945 +/- 85
185 +/-75
7886 +/- 115 (AA-1223)
5,215 +/-90
Pettitt and Blakeslee are correct and you are wrong.
darth_versive
Actually, Klein says the opposite in that infamous Science article:
"Their [Neanderthal] graves contain nothing to suggest burial ritual
or ceremony."
Also note the beginning of this part of the thread: this whole
discussion with Bob Keeter on "tribalism and shamanism" is based on
the assumption of cognitive *equivalence* between Hs and Hn, not
cognitive disparity. That means this invention of shamanistic animism
by Hs is assumed to be purely cultural rather than based on any
cognitive/biological disparity. So the mechanism for its origin may
be something like what PD proposed, namely, the result of long travels
by Hs groups, based on some kind of "wanderlust" instinct he
speculated about.
Just so we're clear that this is a different "contingency" hypothesis,
not part of the other one, which involved a cognitive disparity
between Hs and Hn.
> The problem as I see it is the ability of one individual to get
> another to do something for a long period of time, longer than they
> would need to do to satisfy a personal hunger or desire. It seems to
> be a major distinction between humans and animals.
Yes. This is why the "shamanistic" idea was proposed as the "glue"
holding these bands into tribes. And not just the "shamanistic" idea
in isolation. The whole animistic worldview, and the rituals that go
along with it, and the social institutions and laws and customs
"legitimized" by it, and the various narratives involving the roles of
various individuals and classes of individuals in the cosmos and in
society, would all be involved in motivating people to act in this
way.
> For instance, chimp organization is decentralized, the leader stops
> others from doing some things, and does whatever he wants, but does he
> really get others to do things? And will they keep on doing them after
> he leaves?
No. Not after he leaves. The chimps will do as they please. But
after the *shaman* leaves the immediate vicinity, there's still the
institutions, laws, customs, etc. in place to keep people acting in
accordance witht the ideas of the animistic worldview. And also there
are those people who hold various positions of authority below the
shaman which uphold this system of thought and behavior. And even the
shaman himself does not have absolute arbitrary authority to do as he
pleases and order whatever he wants, but he is himself constrained to
act in certain ways that are consistent with "shamanism," or else he
risks his own position of authority.
> Some kind of picture or goal-state or reward has to be in the mind of
> the doer of these longterm, "work" activities as motivation.
Exactly.
> DV, start pulling some weight on this one and don't feel like you have
> to start at 3mya- just say what's on you mind- come up with some
> concepts!
Well, I think I've done a little bit of that in this post here.
Do you have any comments or objections to what I've said in this post?
DV
Philip Deitiker
(darth_versive) wrote:
>Actually, Klein says the opposite in that infamous Science article:
>"Their [Neanderthal] graves contain nothing to suggest burial ritual
>or ceremony."
Why you probably shouldn't take Klien worth a grain of salt.
Philip Deitiker
Olsen) wrote:
The indonesian pebble tool culture (mesolithic) was assigned
to erectoids until it was found in association with homo
sapiens. That culture dissappears in asia >16 kya and
reappears in the new world 14 kya. Therefore the paleolithic
or mesolithic only have valid points of onset, there is no
legitimate means to bound them. We could have a nuclear war
and 10 years from now the paleolithic may undergo a nascent
onset.
Lee Olsen
>
> The indonesian pebble tool culture (mesolithic) was assigned
But not by using C14, rather by assumptions about tools. This
assignment was made in the 1960s in a very poorly studied area, so
it's really unfair to judge the archaeologists back then with 20/20
hindsight (where were mtDNA studies in 1960?).
> to erectoids until it was found in association with homo
> sapiens.
And still out of range of C-14.
>That culture dissappears in asia >16 kya and
> reappears in the new world 14 kya.
If you are talking about new world via South America pebble
industries, I see plenty of controversy, so it's a little early to use
those for evidence.
>Therefore the paleolithic
> or mesolithic only have valid points of onset, there is no
> legitimate means to bound them. We could have a nuclear war
> and 10 years from now the paleolithic may undergo a nascent
> onset.
Nuclear war? Something else to contaminate C-14 results!
Spiznet
Back in May I actually thought it was a helpful overview until I had
read another 800 pages of primary literature and other overviews.
People are always going to disagree over interpretation of evidence,
but that one was just sloppy & selfserving.
----
Anyway, we are back at 6-3 mya or somesuch. The question I brought up
in the beginning of the thread should be addressed, because it will
affect the outcomes: Dimorphism in A'piths indicating social
structure.
Is the pre-tribe hominid band organized like Gorilla, chimp, baboons,
or something else? Or is it some kind of grouping of monogamous family
units (as is briefly and without argument raised in the article.)
The reason I bring this up is due to the group dynamic: If the
grouping is based on monogamous couples and families, then I suppose
that the band could grow as big as there were resources would allow.
What are the upper limits of these?
Eventually, could a tribe be a breakup of a super-large band that
explodes into new environments, or is it just a tightening of trading
relationships fostered between separate bands, etc.
Apparently there are built in logistical limits to the band sizes of
other primates. What if in a resource rich environment (such as
tropical rainforest/forest/woodland) there was no such limit with
apith or homo.
(I'm really flying blind here and should look up some basic research
but if it gets DV going on something, I'll take the flak...)
-Mark
Philip Deitiker
Olsen) wrote:
>Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote
>
>>
>> The indonesian pebble tool culture (mesolithic) was assigned
>
>But not by using C14, rather by assumptions about tools. This
>assignment was made in the 1960s in a very poorly studied area, so
>it's really unfair to judge the archaeologists back then with 20/20
>hindsight (where were mtDNA studies in 1960?).
Doesn't matter, there is no set demarkation between the
paleolith, mesolith and neolith.
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>Philip Deitiker <pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message news:<n50ikvonrmlriussd...@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Aug 2003 09:20:07 -0700, darth_...@yahoo.com
>> (darth_versive) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Actually, Klein says the opposite in that infamous Science article:
>> >"Their [Neanderthal] graves contain nothing to suggest burial ritual
>> >or ceremony."
>>
>> Why you probably shouldn't take Klien worth a grain of salt.
>
>Back in May I actually thought it was a helpful overview until I had
>read another 800 pages of primary literature and other overviews.
>People are always going to disagree over interpretation of evidence,
>but that one was just sloppy & selfserving.
>----
>
>Anyway, we are back at 6-3 mya or somesuch. The question I brought up
>in the beginning of the thread should be addressed, because it will
>affect the outcomes: Dimorphism in A'piths indicating social
>structure.
>
>Is the pre-tribe hominid band organized like Gorilla, chimp, baboons,
>or something else? Or is it some kind of grouping of monogamous family
>units (as is briefly and without argument raised in the article.)
>
I don't know if any A'pith we have identified is in-line
with Homo, so I thing the question is moot at this point in
time.
Lee Olsen
That's a generalization that has no meaning. Any way, what does that
have to do with anomalous C-14 dates and the statistical treatment of
them?
Paste back in "Anything else you try to do without convincing data to
the otherwise is leading the argument and will filter how you
interpret future data. See discussion with Lee Olsen. He comes to the
conclusion that Neandertals dissappeared before humans and then he
selects only the dates from sites that verifies this and denies the
validity of all other dates.
You do not want to concede the fact that there are blocks of bogus
C-14 dates during the Upper transition, just as there are during the
Paleo era. A Mousterian date of 16,180 +/- 670 in France is just as
ridiculous as a Paleo date of 35 +/- 50 (SI-4705) from New England. If
you want to lead the evidence by using C-14 dates that can't be
independently verified, then that's your business.
Your statement "The indonesian pebble tool culture (mesolithic) was
assigned to erectoids until it was found in association with homo
sapiens" simply proves my point. If or when the day comes that a
Neandertal skeleton is found in undisputable context with the
Aurignacian or a Hss skeleton found in association with a Mousterian
industry at the transition, then interaction between the two groups
can be demonstrated.
Same with Paleo C-14 dates such as this one, 35 +/- 50 (SI-4705) and
40+ others. To validate the possibility that these dates might be
correct, an undisputed Paleo industry must be found above a Woodland
(or some such) industry at a stratified site of good context.
Independent verification is needed to support dates that are so far
out of the mean as to be ridiculous. And using them in any statistical
way is leading the evidence.
Philip Deitiker
Olsen) did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>That's a generalization that has no meaning.
Maybe that is because the demarkations have no precise
boundaries.
darth_versive
> > On 24 Aug 2003 09:20:07 -0700, darth_...@yahoo.com
> > (darth_versive) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Actually, Klein says the opposite in that infamous Science article:
> > >"Their [Neanderthal] graves contain nothing to suggest burial ritual
> > >or ceremony."
> >
> > Why you probably shouldn't take Klien worth a grain of salt.
>
> Back in May I actually thought it was a helpful overview until I had
> read another 800 pages of primary literature and other overviews.
> People are always going to disagree over interpretation of evidence,
> but that one was just sloppy & selfserving.
> ----
>
> Anyway, we are back at 6-3 mya or somesuch. The question I brought up
> in the beginning of the thread should be addressed, because it will
> affect the outcomes: Dimorphism in A'piths indicating social
> structure.
>
> Is the pre-tribe hominid band organized like Gorilla, chimp, baboons,
> or something else? Or is it some kind of grouping of monogamous family
> units (as is briefly and without argument raised in the article.)
>
> The reason I bring this up is due to the group dynamic: If the
> grouping is based on monogamous couples and families, then I suppose
> that the band could grow as big as there were resources would allow.
> What are the upper limits of these?
Maybe as the kinship relationships become more distant among members
of a band, the group organization breaks down. So this might set an
upper limit on band size. (Just speculation, though.) I'm not sure
how the issue of promiscuous or dominant-male harem mating vs.
monogamous family units would affect this group dynamic. Maybe it
would result in larger band sizes in the case of monogamous family
units (there being more definite kinship lines, etc.), but there would
*still* be the issue of the breakdown of group identity with more
distant kinship relationships even here, wouldn't there?
> Eventually, could a tribe be a breakup of a super-large band that
> explodes into new environments, or is it just a tightening of trading
> relationships fostered between separate bands, etc.
Well, if the band is huge, and the tribe is small, then this latest
contingency hypothesis of mine is nonsense, because then shamanistic
animism, far from allowing *larger* group sizes and a more
tightly-organized social structure, would actually result in *smaller*
group sizes and a more loosely-organized social structures. That is,
the individuals that held to shamanistic animism would end up being
*less* united than the individuals that belonged to a super-large band
of monogamous couples and families: shamanistic animism would then be
a source of division, rather than a source of unity.
But this just doesn't make sense to me (not saying that the "large
band" idea is necessarily incorrect just because it doesn't make sense
to me). It seems to me that all the seeming rigmarole involved in the
whole animistic worldview must have performed *some* function that
aided in the survival of the whole group, or else why has it persisted
for so long? At least, this is my thinking on the matter.
So, I still think that the "small band" premise makes more sense than
the "large band" premise.
> Apparently there are built in logistical limits to the band sizes of
> other primates. What if in a resource rich environment (such as
> tropical rainforest/forest/woodland) there was no such limit with
> apith or homo.
Maybe it had something to do with communication skills, or else maybe
with the ideas being communicated. (I've already mentioned the idea
that maybe as kinship relationships become more distant, group unity
might break down, setting an upper limit to band sizes.) I can see
how the ideas involved with building a "tribal" identity, if this were
involved with shamanistic animism, could work, but I'm not so clear on
what ideas were involved in building the smaller "band" identity
(assuming the "small-band, big-tribe" scenario, that is).
> (I'm really flying blind here and should look up some basic research
> but if it gets DV going on something, I'll take the flak...)
>
> -Mark
I don't know much about the literature involving the group dynamics of
primate bands (like I keep saying, I'm pretty much a beginner when it
comes to primatology or paleoanthropology etc.). With chimps, as you
said above, the leader has a lot of influence. Maybe in small bands
of H. erectus or H. ergaster, etc. the same was true. What does the
literature say on the group dynamics of these species? Is there
enough evidence to make educated guesses?
DV
Lee Olsen
What's the matter Philip, constipated on that wad of C-14 Paleo's that
you can't pass?
When did Monte Carlo say Paleo was over? Oh, day after tomorrow.
Philip Deitiker
Olsen) did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>What's the matter Philip, constipated on that wad of C-14 Paleo's that
>you can't pass?
.....
>7886 +/- 115 (AA-1223)
>5,215 +/-90
>
>When did Monte Carlo say Paleo was over? Oh, day after tomorrow.
You know I could walk into a shop in Nuevo Laredo and pick
up single face and a few bifacial tools not to different
from the ones document in bosian basin. If crudely knapped
stone spear heads are indicators of the paleolithic, then
send me your address and the next time I'm in Laredo I ship
you have dozen or so. Paleolithic tools are only lazy man's
neolithic (obviously tourista's don't know the difference so
anyone can get away with it).
I'm sure if we were to carbon date the straw basket's they
are in you would have a nice tight distribution.
What do you prefer, calcite stones, obsidian, flint?
Spiznet
No I'm not saying large band /small tribe:
I'm saying that the pre-tribe band could have gotten so large that it
exploded back into smaller more manageable band sizes, yet the members
maintaining a "connectedness" from the experience in the larger band.
This as a way of explaining the origin of tribe (composed of many
bands).
Another explanation is a common cause realized between separate bands,
forcing them to work together, etc. forged the meta-band "tribe".
I would certainly feel better about all this vast speculation that I
am doing if I could come to logic of whether language
precedes/simultaneous/later than the tribe social construct.
...Also, whether either of these (tribe and language) were necessarly
in place before the first tools @2.5mya.
DV, getting back to your shaman/ritual issue:
I believe that religion in its original form is education.
People are hunting/gathering: their religious training & secret
rituals are not pie-in -the-sky conceptual "myths" and "fairytales".
It's information: making the person more adept at interacting with his
environment. The information may be "encoded" but it is educating the
individual on how to survive and thrive in his environment, in this
case primarily the world of nature.
As societies developed, the religions became the repository of the
collective knowledge of settled civilizations, too. Priests,
priestesses, knowledge and wisdom. There were no colleges back then...
(really OT for s.a.p. yo)
-Mark
darth_versive
<snip>
> > > Eventually, could a tribe be a breakup of a super-large band that
> > > explodes into new environments, or is it just a tightening of trading
> > > relationships fostered between separate bands, etc.
> >
> > Well, if the band is huge, and the tribe is small, then this latest
> > contingency hypothesis of mine is nonsense, because then shamanistic
> > animism, far from allowing *larger* group sizes and a more
> > tightly-organized social structure, would actually result in *smaller*
> > group sizes and a more loosely-organized social structures. That is,
> > the individuals that held to shamanistic animism would end up being
> > *less* united than the individuals that belonged to a super-large band
> > of monogamous couples and families: shamanistic animism would then be
> > a source of division, rather than a source of unity.
>
> No I'm not saying large band /small tribe:
>
> I'm saying that the pre-tribe band could have gotten so large that it
> exploded back into smaller more manageable band sizes, yet the members
> maintaining a "connectedness" from the experience in the larger band.
> This as a way of explaining the origin of tribe (composed of many
> bands).
But then you'd have to explain the "transition state" of the pre-tribe
large-size band, since it must have been stable for a least a while
before it exploded back into more managable band sizes. And if it was
stable for a while, why not stable over the long term? To borrow yet
another term from chemistry, it would have been "meta-stable." Yet
what was the mechanism for the formation of this meta-stable state in
the first place?
With the small-band gradually coalescing into tribes as shamanistic
animism was gradually being invented over the generations, you don't
have this knotty problem. The small band was stable over a long
period of time, and then when shamanistic animism became developed to
a certain extent, the bands began cohering more and more into a stable
tribal structure.
This process makes more sense to me. The mechanism for this seems
simple and straightforward. And the mindset of a stable
"tribal-identity" culture is something we can see even today in
various parts of the world. Has there ever been any observation of
this "meta-stable" "transition state" of the large-size pre-tribe
organizational structure?
That is, with the "band-into-tribe" hypothesis, we have to infer some
mechanism to get from one observed state (primate bands) to another
observed state (human shamanistic animist tribes). But with the
"large-size band exploding into smaller bands" hypothesis, we have to
infer not only some mechanism to get to the large-size band, but we
also have to infer some unobserved organizational structure for the
large-size band itself, if we want to build a contingency hypothesis
for the large-size band exploding into smaller, more manageable-sized
bands which then formed the tribe. And this is just too speculative,
even for me!
That is, at least with the hypothesis I proposed, only the coherence
mechanism has to be inferred:
(band-----> inferred coherence mechanism ------->tribe) with both
ends of the chain being something that has been observed.
With your hypothesis, we have to infer much more:
(band-----> inferred mechanism for formation of large-size band
-----> inferred structure of large-size band ------> inferred
mechanism for explosion of large-size band into more manageable
smaller bands ------> inferred mechanism for transition from smaller
bands to tribes -----> tribes).
> Another explanation is a common cause realized between separate bands,
> forcing them to work together, etc. forged the meta-band "tribe".
Yes. This is the role of shamanistic animism in my hypothesis. It
gives them a "common cause" in a common worldview, based on common
narratives involving the way the cosmos works, the role of the tribe
and the bands in that cosmos, and the role of the individual in the
structure of this society.
This isn't "another explanation." It's the explanation inherent in
the hypothesis of "bands into tribes" by means of shamanistic animism,
and the meta-band "tribal" identity which such a worldview entails.
This is what I've been talking about from the start.
> I would certainly feel better about all this vast speculation that I
> am doing if I could come to logic of whether language
> precedes/simultaneous/later than the tribe social construct.
Well, that would be getting dangerously close to the idea of symbolic
thinking and how it affects language skills, and I thought you wanted
to avoid the "cognitive/biological threshold" idea for now.
But putting this aside, I would say that, at a minimum, you'd have to
have the basic mythological narratives in order to convey the "nuts
and bolts" of the animistic worldview, and so I'd then say that
language skills of some sort would be required before we get to the
"tribe social construct" stage.
So the answer, in my view, is that language precedes the tribe social
construct. Whether it precedes the *band* social construct is another
matter. Here, it might depend on how you define "language." I think
I said way up the thread somewhere that I thought that maybe something
as simple as facial expressions and hand gestures might be sufficient
"language" for developing a band-type organizational structure.
> ...Also, whether either of these (tribe and language) were necessarly
> in place before the first tools @2.5mya.
I tend to see the tribal structure as developing quite late (maybe
between 100kya and 50kya or even later). But that's just speculation
on my part. Tools go way back, though. I don't remember exact dates.
But if you say 2.5mya, I'll go with that.
> DV, getting back to your shaman/ritual issue:
>
> I believe that religion in its original form is education.
>
> People are hunting/gathering: their religious training & secret
> rituals are not pie-in -the-sky conceptual "myths" and "fairytales".
> It's information: making the person more adept at interacting with his
> environment. The information may be "encoded" but it is educating the
> individual on how to survive and thrive in his environment, in this
> case primarily the world of nature.
>
> As societies developed, the religions became the repository of the
> collective knowledge of settled civilizations, too. Priests,
> priestesses, knowledge and wisdom. There were no colleges back then...
>
> (really OT for s.a.p. yo)
>
> -Mark
Well, if you want to describe it in these terms, then we can say that
the key point in the development of the kind of shamanistic animist
religion that I'm talking about, which could have led to bands
cohering into tribes, occurred when this form of "education" started
involving the transcendent spirit world, and not just how people
interact with their physical environment. That is, when narratives
were developed which involved these "otherworldly" entities, which
both inter-penetrated and influenced the everyday world of ordinary
experience. We can see the same type of narratives being employed
today in modern tribal, animist cultures in various parts of the
world.
This is the point where "education" took a decidely strange turn. And
it's been strange in this way ever since for those in this type of
culture.
And, FYI, I don't really see this as OT for s.a.p. If we're inferring
a certain cultural phenomenon that may have affected the history of
our species, then discussing whatever strange beliefs and rituals
(strange to us in our modern world, that is) that may have been a part
of this cultural phenomenon seems right *on* topic to me.
And yes, it's definitely all about survival, and how people back then
became more adept at interacting with their environment.
DV
Spiznet
>
> > > > Eventually, could a tribe be a breakup of a super-large band that
> > > > explodes into new environments, or is it just a tightening of trading
> > > > relationships fostered between separate bands, etc.
> > >
> > > Well, if the band is huge, and the tribe is small, then this latest
> > > contingency hypothesis of mine is nonsense, because then shamanistic
> >
> > No I'm not saying large band /small tribe:
> >
> > I'm saying that the pre-tribe band could have gotten so large that it
> > exploded back into smaller more manageable band sizes, yet the members
> > maintaining a "connectedness" from the experience in the larger band.
> > This as a way of explaining the origin of tribe (composed of many
> > bands).
>
> But then you'd have to explain the "transition state" of the pre-tribe
> large-size band, since it must have been stable for a least a while
> before it exploded back into more managable band sizes. And if it was
> stable for a while, why not stable over the long term? To borrow yet
> another term from chemistry, it would have been "meta-stable." Yet
> what was the mechanism for the formation of this meta-stable state in
> the first place?
Well this is trying to explain the origin of the shamanism, or are you
assuming that shamanism developed independantly of tribalism.
>
> With the small-band gradually coalescing into tribes as shamanistic
> animism was gradually being invented over the generations, you don't
> have this knotty problem. The small band was stable over a long
> period of time, and then when shamanistic animism became developed to
> a certain extent, the bands began cohering more and more into a stable
> tribal structure.
You give no reason for the origin of shamanism.
>
<snip>
> That is, with the "band-into-tribe" hypothesis, we have to infer some
> mechanism to get from one observed state (primate bands) to another
> observed state (human shamanistic animist tribes). But with the
> "large-size band exploding into smaller bands" hypothesis, we have to
> infer not only some mechanism to get to the large-size band, but we
> also have to infer some unobserved organizational structure for the
> large-size band itself, if we want to build a contingency hypothesis
> for the large-size band exploding into smaller, more manageable-sized
> bands which then formed the tribe. And this is just too speculative,
> even for me!
>
> That is, at least with the hypothesis I proposed, only the coherence
> mechanism has to be inferred:
>
> (band-----> inferred coherence mechanism ------->tribe) with both
> ends of the chain being something that has been observed.
but what caused the "mechanism"
> > Another explanation is a common cause realized between separate bands,
> > forcing them to work together, etc. forged the meta-band "tribe".
>
> Yes. This is the role of shamanistic animism in my hypothesis. It
> gives them a "common cause" in a common worldview, based on common
> narratives involving the way the cosmos works, the role of the tribe
> and the bands in that cosmos, and the role of the individual in the
> structure of this society.
>
> This isn't "another explanation." It's the explanation inherent in
> the hypothesis of "bands into tribes" by means of shamanistic animism,
> and the meta-band "tribal" identity which such a worldview entails.
> This is what I've been talking about from the start.
>
> > I would certainly feel better about all this vast speculation that I
> > am doing if I could come to logic of whether language
> > precedes/simultaneous/later than the tribe social construct.
>
> Well, that would be getting dangerously close to the idea of symbolic
> thinking and how it affects language skills, and I thought you wanted
> to avoid the "cognitive/biological threshold" idea for now.
>
You are mistaken. We are obviously speaking about the threshold, we
are talking about it happening 1-3mya. It has nothing to do with
Neanderthal, but it did happen. And we need to discuss it if any point
to the discussion.
> But putting this aside, I would say that, at a minimum, you'd have to
> have the basic mythological narratives in order to convey the "nuts
> and bolts" of the animistic worldview, and so I'd then say that
> language skills of some sort would be required before we get to the
> "tribe social construct" stage.
>
> So the answer, in my view, is that language precedes the tribe social
> construct. Whether it precedes the *band* social construct is another
> matter. Here, it might depend on how you define "language." I think
> I said way up the thread somewhere that I thought that maybe something
> as simple as facial expressions and hand gestures might be sufficient
> "language" for developing a band-type organizational structure.
>
Human language does not precede band structure. Chimps have bands.
> > ...Also, whether either of these (tribe and language) were necessarly
> > in place before the first tools @2.5mya.
>
> I tend to see the tribal structure as developing quite late (maybe
> between 100kya and 50kya or even later). But that's just speculation
> on my part. Tools go way back, though. I don't remember exact dates.
> But if you say 2.5mya, I'll go with that.
>
OK, so for you:
language developed on its own,
tools developed on their own,
tribes developed with the help of shamanism (which developed on its
own).
Apparently there is not much relationship between these issues for
cognition.
Sorry.
-Mark