<<To relegate all evidence of human activity from times prior to 50 kyr, one
must ignore a lot of data.>>
This assumes, of course, that the data IS evidence of "human" activity! We
are once again in realm of interpretation and imagination. <<
Under the standard that you seem to be proposing, I am not sure that anything
would qualify as human activity. If the making of a spear 400,000 years ago
and the making of a tent-like shelter 300,000 years ago are not human
activity, then I must confess I know not what human activity is.
Jim wrote:
>>But a lot of it isn't controversial. The Neanderthal burials, for example,
are not in dispute. It is the MEANING of the burials. And they are nothing
like the ritualistic burials of modern man. Further, imagination and
interpretation are in dispute. What were the ibex horns on top of a nine-year
old Neanderthal at Teshik Tash? Icons? Or, as Jelinek believes, simply
digging tools that were discarded when the burial was complete?<<
I learned something today that explains a fact of the fossil record that I
had never understood before concerning the distribution of paleolithic
burials. Man Burials today are ritualistic at least the burials of
agricultural man. But, for hunter gatherer societies, the practices are much
much different. They do not always bury their dead, but often simply abandon
them. Unfortunately Jim, thist undermines your view. Bruce Dickson states,
"Seventh, *the scale and elaboration of the mortuary practices among food
collectors is determined by the degree of their sedentism, the nature of
their seasonal schedule, and whether or not they practice a delayed-return
form of subsistence.* Coon (1977:369-370 [The Hunting Peoples, New York
Penguin Books,1977]) provides a brief overview of the numerous ways developed
by hunting and gathering peoples for disposing of their dead. These methods
include SIMPLE EXPOSURE OR ABANDONMENT; the insertion of the corpse into
natural caves, crevasses, or hollow trees; cremation; and burial, either
directly in the earth or under rock slabs. Coon notes that 'however hunting
and gathering peoples dispose of bodies, they usually do so individually in
separate places, for graveyards are an artifact of sedentary life'(1977:370).
In the terms adopted here, Coon is speaking largely of the mortuary
practices of pedestrian foragers. Of such simple procedures for the treatment
and disposal of the dead, Woodburn says: 'They go beyond, but not very far
beyond, the directly practical requirements for getting rid of a rotting
corpse.' In his view, hunters and gatheres with simple procedures and
practices for dealing with the dead are generally also those with immediate
return economies, social organization, and values. Elaborate funeral rituals
and mortuary behavior are found only among those hunter-gatherers who have
delayed-return political economies.
"The appearance of Neanderthal burials in the Middle Paleolithic period
is generally seen as reflecting the development of a new level of
consciousness or the emergence of a belief in an afterlife; the apparent
increase in the number of burials during the Upper Paleolithic is often
interpreted as due to population increase. However, if Coon's generalization
can be extended back into prehistory, these burials-- especially when they
occur in groups-- may actually indicate a lengthened annual period of
sedentism or the development of a more predictable seasonal schedule, that
allowed groups to return regularly to favored locations. In additon, the
increasing elaborateness of the burials in the Upper Paleolithic may reflect
the emergence of more elaborate funeral beliefs and practices, which in turn
are correlated with the development of a greater emphasis on delayed-return
forms of socioeconomic behavior."
D. Bruce Dickson, _The Dawn of Belief_, Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
1990), p. 195-196
Thus the beginning of burial customs may actually represent a more prosperous
lifestyle rather than any increase in intelligence or anything else.
Conversely, are the modern hunter-gatherers who simply abandon the dead to
their fate, less human than we? If you say that the lack of burials by Homo
erectus, who did not bury their dead, is indicative of a non-human existence,
they it would seem reasonable to conclude the same for those moderns who
abandon their dead. They too must be less than human. Right?
My guess is that H. erectus lived a nomadic existence, leaving Aunt
Hilda where she dropped, just like modern hunter-gatherer societies whose
members are made in the image of God.
Jim wrote:
>>So there is no hard evidence for "human" activity very long ago. There are
stories and hopes, perhaps, but that's it.<<
Not so. There is evidence, forensic evidence on stone tools that 1.5 million
years ago there was some woodworking. Man is the only known being who uses
tools to make other tools. Man is also the only being who makes spears. We
are also the only beings who make complex stone tools. No ape can even do
that, even when they tried to teach one.
Tattersall writes:
>>"One interesting experiment performed by Toth, his Indiana University
colleague Kathy Schick, and a group of psychologists at the Yerkes Primate
Research Center concerned the ability of a living ape to make and use tools.
Noting that it had become fashionable to look upon the early bipeds--
roughly,anything prior to Homo ergaster-- as 'bipedal apes', Toth, Schick,
and colleagues tried to determine how far a bonobo ('pygmy chimpanzee') could
be trained to flake simple stone tools. Their subject, Kanzi, a star in
communication experiments, showed an immediate interest in having sharp
flakes available to cut cords that held a fruit-containing box closed. He
got the idea of striking flakes from a core, but even after many months of
training he was still nowhere near the skill level of the Oldowan toolmakers.
The latter clearly understood the major properties of the stones they worked
and selected the most effective points at which to strike an inevitably
irregular core. Not so Kanzi, who never mastered the idea of striking stone
at the optimum angle. His best products are rather like the 'eoliths' that
so confused early archaeologists: rocks randomly banged together and flaked
as they rolled along riverbeds. Toth and colleagues concluded from this that
the early hominid toolmakers ahd a much better cognitive understanding of
what toolmaking is all about than any modern ape is able to acquire. And
from that they hazarded that
in hominid prehistory there must have been a stage of stoneworking that
preceded the Oldowan, but that by its nature it would be difficult or
impossible for archaeologists to identify or to discriminate from the results
of natural forces. Still, these experiments give some idea of what one might
need to look for."~Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995), p.207
Schick and Toth write:
>> "The first day we started by showing him that stone tools are pretty
useful things: a stone flake could be used to cut a cord and open a box
containing a treat (of Kanzi's choice--a bunch of grapes, a piece of
watermelon, a cold juice drink, and so forth). By the end of the first day,
Kanzi was using flakes that we had made and cutting readily into box after
box, developing a true appreciation for stone tools. At the end of the
second day he had become an excellent judge of stone knives: given a choice
of five different pieces of stone to cut into his box, he could choose the
sharpest one nine times out of ten. He was also maiking casual attempst to
hit rocks togetrher to make a tool on his own."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas
Toth, Making Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p.
136
"Although Kanzi is still continuing to improve his tool-making
abilities, his present level of expertise is significantly below that seen in
the Oldowan hominids. His core forms are strikingly similar to the natural
eoliths produced by geological forces, which confused prehistorians around
the turn of the century. He still doesn't show the understanding of flaking
angles that Oldowan hominids had: Kanzi bashes and cruches the edges of cores
with his hammer stone rather than using highly controlled and forceful blows
that we can see in the early Stone Age artifacts. Recently throwing has
become his favorite technique."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making
Silent Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p. 139
"Moreover, Kanzi's progress so far as a tool maker suggests to us that early
Oldowan hominids may exhibit a much greater cognitive understanding of the
prinicples and mechanics of tool making than modern apes seem to be able to
develop. This indicates something important about our hard-wiring, the size
and compelxity of our brian and its connections to the motor control system,
at this stage in our evolution. We feel that these hominids probably had
surpassed modern apes and probably their australopithecine ancestors in their
ability to modify stones."~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making Silent
Stones Speak, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p. 139