>I'm a little uncomfortable with the mere assumption that, due to the
>relative absence of evidence of technological development, Neanderthals
>were somehow far removed intellectually from modern humans. It is easy
>to develop an argument from an absence of evidence because it is so
>difficult to develop an opposing evidence-based position. Suddenly a
>bone flute is found and somehow all of the old pre-suppositions are just
>cast aside.
>
and
>As previously stated, an obvious question that must be answered first
>is... "What defines genuine humanness?"... next, Do we know, or how can
>we determine, if Neanderthals possessed it?... and then, What do we mean
>by Adam, and are they then his descendents because they are human?
This is an excellent point. Everyone seems to want to define humanness
based upon the level of technological advancement. To me this is a very
fluid and subjective definition for humanity. There were Australian
Aborigines whose stone tool technological development was quite similar to
that of the middle paleolithic. Does this make them not human?
"In western Australia today there are aborigines who make very
crude-looking stone tools. But their wooden implements are very
elaborate, with fancy painting on bark, and beautiful spearthrowers and
shafts. They also have extremely complex social systems, cosmology, and
narrative traditions. If you were to dig up one of their sites a thousand
years from now, however, all you would see would be the clunky stone
tools. Does this mean those aborigines were technologically inferior?
Not at all. They were simply relying on perishable materials."~James R.
Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1995),
p. 249
If Neanderthal was using perishable material we would never know it.
Humanness can not depend upon non-perishable technology.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm