>I have looked the picture of this up in Morris, "The Human Animal",
>and it is incredibly crude and may just be a lump of rock that Homo
>erectus picked up. This is evidenced by it being the only one found
>for hundreds of thousands of years. If Homo erectus had started
>making stone replicas of women, then one would expect to find many of
>them (because they would be as durable as stone tools), in an
>ascending series of realism. Morris himself calls the Golan Venus
>"extremely crude":
>
The scoria pebble which has the form of a human female WAS a piece of rock
that Homo erectus picked up. But he then modified it. Scoria, the material
this figurine was made of is not common at the Berekhat Ram site. In fact,
the only scoria pebble found was the one that was modified by human hands to
create part of the figurine. L.A. Schepartz writes:
"Lower and Middle Paleolithic art is as rare as the earliest ornaments,
but the evidence is accumulating, both within and outside Europe. The
earliest known depiction of the human form is from the Acheulean site of
Berekhat Ram, Israel, and predates 230,000 BP. A female form was detailed by
altering the surface of a scoria pebble, which is the only piece of that
material recovered from the excavations. It shows exaggeration of the female
form, similar in that regard to Upper Paleolithic figurines from Europe.
Another early art object is a mammoth tooth carved into a plaque and covered
with red ochre from the Middle Paleolithic site of Tata in Hungary [dating to
approximately 100,000 BP.
. . .
"Davidson and Noble represent the opposite position, rejecting all claims of
symbolism before the Upper Paleolithic because the objects do not appear to
have non-utilitarian functions or display recognizable, repeated symbols in
the pre-Upper Paleolithic context. (It will be interesting to see how they
interpret the Acheulean human figurine from Berekhat Ram.)
~L. A. Schepartz, "Language and Modern Human Origins," Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology, 36:91-126(1993), p. 11
>"A recent discovery in the Middle East has now pushed that date back
>to three hundred thousand years...The newly found sculptural object
>the most ancient man-made image in the world - is a small stone
>figurine of a woman, unearthed at an archaeological site on the Golan
>Heights. It is EXTREMELY CRUDE, but the head is clearly separated
>from the body by an incised neck, and the arms are indicated by two
>vertical grooves, apparently cut by a sharp flint tool. It is a find
>that establishes the even greater antiquity of the human fascination
>with symbolic images." (Morris D., "The Human Animal: A Personal
>View of the Human Species", ISIS: Oxford UK, 1994, p192. My emphasis)
>
So big deal. So what if the object is "EXTREMELY CRUDE". Have you ever seen
the scupture and art made by my middle son? I would use a similar description
for what he makes, and he is fully human.
>Indeed, if this is the best that Homo erectus or Archaic Homo sapiens
>could so, then how could their putative ancestor, Homo habilis, have
>built an Ark 5.2 million years before?
>
Considering that Homo erectus was making wooden planks prior to 240,000 years
ago (maybe as old as 800,000 years ago, I would see little problem with boat
building. (see S. Belitszky et al, "A Middle Pleistocene Wooden Plank with
man-made Polish," Journal of Human Evolution, 1991, 20:349-353.) Evidence for
homo erectus woodworking goes back 1.5 million years in the form of scratches
characteristic of wood work found on stone tools from 1.5 million years ago.
(see ~Kathy D. Schick and Nicholas Toth, Making Silent Stones Speak, (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), p.160)
>In any event, it seems that Marshack has downgraded the significance
>of this "Golan Venus", because only a few months ago he was claiming
>that a 54,000 year old engraved flint which also found in the Golan
>Heights, was evidence that art began in the Middle East:
>
>"The creation of the first artistic images is usually credited to
>early Europeans, who some 33,000 years ago began carving vulvas and
>animals on rock and ivory in France and Germany. The discovery of
>this 54,000-year old, three inch wide engraved flint may change that
>perception. The flint was excavated near the Syrian town of
>Quneitra; in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights by Naama
>Goren-Inbar of Jerusalem's Hebrew University. Both Neanderthals and
>anatomically modern humans lived in the region when this image of
>four nested arcs were engraved-with another piece of flint And both
>were tool users and hunter-gatherers. But archeologist Alexander
>Marshack of Harvard's Peabody Museum says it's most likely the artist
>was a more modern human since known Neanderthal artifacts to date,
>aside from tools, have been limited to things like beads and worked
>ivory. Marshack doesn't know what the image represents. "When I
>looked at it for the first time, it looked like a rainbow with rain,
>but that's not what I'm saying it is," he says. "If I am correct,
>and this is an early depiction, then you have evidence that art did
>not begin in Europe. And if it was there in the Middle East, it was
>probably also in Africa and Australia and in Asia. Europe was not
>the beginning of everything." ("Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17,
>No. 7, July 1996, p26)
>
>The point is that if the Golan Venus at 330 kya found by Marshack was
>the beginning of art in the Middle East, why is Marshack now saying
>that an object found in the same area, that is *six* times younger
>was "evidence that art did not begin in Europe"?
>
Have you ever considered that Marshack is trying to communicate in the
Discover article with a JOURNALIST? There is also the fact that a scientific
paper is in preparation by Marshack and others. It is usually not kosher to
give scientific results to reporters before they appear in the journals. Last
year Marshack wrote:
"Peltz reported that it was clear that 'human hands had worked a
fragment of pyroclastic rock, namely an indurated tuff.' The illustrations and
arguments presented by Pelcin therefore do not apply. To complement my
microscopic analysis, Peltz and N. Goren-Inbar are preparing an analytical
paper on the geology of the site and the pyroclastic nature of the figurine.
Until publication of these analyses, the debate on possible pre-Upper
Paleolithic symboling may perhaps best be addressed not by suppositions at a
distance but through the microscopic analysis of a late Middle Paleolithic
incised composition from the site of Quneitra, Israel."~Alexander Marshack,
"On the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495.
Contrary to what you are seeming to imply, that Marshack is backing away from
the Venus, the Venus figurine is gaining a growing group of supporters.
Schepartz and Bednarik are a few among many. (Robert G. Bednarik, "Art
Origins", Anthropos, 89(1994):169-180, p. 170),
>GM>Secondly, the impressive number of circles which have been carved
>>into the site strikes me that this may have been a religious site.
>>The circles average 1.2 inches wide and were carved everywhere,
>>including 5 feet below the present soil level. Their shapes are
>>said to be nearly perfect. On the monolith, there were 3500 carved
>>circles and on another rock face a few feet away, 3,200 more circles
>>were found.
>
>One theory is that the cupules were used for navigation:
>
>"The cupules are the size of a 20 c coin and have been carved
>systematically, Dr Tacon said. "I believe that these were used for
>many reasons, including navigation," he said. Dr Tacon told of
>finding a chain of boulders covered in cupules leading on to another
>chain similarly marked. The cupules had been particularly used to
>show the pathways from one site to another', he said. " (Brook S.,
>"Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads", The Australian, Monday
>September 23, 1996, p4)
>
>But the fact is that no one really knows what the cupules were for,
>not even local aborigines:
>
>"...circular engravings cover the rock surfaces, giving the dimpled
>appearance of large red golf balls. Known as cupules, the markings
>are many and mysterious; some theorize that they once indicated
>pathways to water or food, but even the area's Aborigines aren't
>certain. The markings, they say, have always been here." (Blair T.,
>"Cradle Rocks", Time, October 7, 1996, p80)
>
Cupules are a staple of Neanderthal art also. They are also found in the
Acheulian of India. (see ~Robert G. Bednarik, "Art Origins", Anthropos,
89(1994):169-180, p. 170-171)
>See above. The experts think that the rock carvings were
>more likely navigational:
>
>"Carvings were also found at the mouth of holes and tunnels, pointing
>to the possibility that they revealed a path for travellers. `Both
>at the local level and at the larger level. there are indications of
>that.' Dr Tacon said. Similar carvings have been found in Arnhem
>Land, Kakadu National Park the Victoria River region and the
>Kimberley mountain range. Australia was a much more arid land at the
>time the carvings were made. The sea was much further away and a
>land bridge linked Australia to Papua New Guinea. Aboriginal tribes
>used the rivers as land routes to find food. `They had to travel
>much further for food resources and perhaps even for water,' Dr Tacon
>said." (Brook S., "Carvings may mark a pathway for nomads", The
>Australian, Monday September 23, 1996, p4)
>
In that case cupules are a form of writing which conveys information to a
fellow human. Since Neanderthals also made cupules at La Ferrassie which
dates to 70,000 years ago, would this imply that they had a form of written
communication 70,000 years ago? In this case, it would seem to make
Neanderthals fully human. You may be making my case for me.
>Another possibility is that it was for used trade:
>
>"Another important trade route commenced on the northwest coast
>of Western Australia...Ochre pigments, used regularly for body
>decorations and the painting of artifacts, were traded widely from a
>limited number of deposits." (Edwards R., Australian Aboriginal
>Culture", Australian National Commission for UNESCO, Australian
>Government Publishing Service: Canberra, second edition 1974
>reprint, p36)
>
[snip]
>But, having said that, I would have no problem if the carvings and
>artefacts turn out to be the 176,000 years old, and if the art was
>thought to be religious. I would however have a problem if the
>cave art was as developed as the European Cro-Magnon cave art. But
>it isn't:
>
While not yet generally accepted, there has been one report of an animal drawn
by a Homo erectus.
>"The simple design of the cupules indicated their extreme age, he [Dr
>Tacon] said. Later forms of rock art became more complex as tribes
>diversified and acquired different tools." (Brook S., "Carvings may
>mark a pathway for nomads", The Australian, Monday September 23,
>1996, p4)
>
>GM>Thirdly, if the earlier dates for the occupation of Australia hold
>>up, (dates from 116-176 thousand years ) then it would require that
>>archaic Homo Sapiens actually built ocean going boats! Throughout
>>the Pliocene and Pleistocene Australia and New Guinea have always
>>been separated from the Asian mainland by at the least, 65 km. but
>>most likely 80-100 km. This would require ocean voyages over the
>>horizon to a land which could not be seen from the old land.
>>Anthropologists do not believe that it is very probable that a man
>>and woman were able to float across on a log. (see Clive Gamble,
>>Timewalkers, p. 216). To have a being who is not an anatomically
>>modern human build boats would be a major discovery indeed.
>
>Agreed, it would be a "major discovery indeed" if "archaic Homo
>Sapiens actually built ocean going boats", but according to Glenn,
>Homo habilis built a three-decker ark, not "176 thousand years" ago,
>but 5500 thousand years ago!
>
It may have been erectus. Woodworking has been with us as long as Homo has
been on earth. According to the wear patterns on Neanderthal tools, they
were more often used to work wood than to do anything else! (Donald C.
Johanson, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, Ancestors, (New York: Villard
Books, 1994), p. 275)
>Of course it is possible that families of "archaic Homo Sapiens"
>(whose brain size averaged about 1200 cc - Hominid FAQ), may have had
>some primitive form of water transport (eg. a raft or dugout log)
>that was blown off course in a tropical storm.
Don't forget that some modern executives have brain sizes of around 100 cc!
John Lorber writes:
"Well over 500 CT scans were performed on patients, some of whom were
over 20 years of age. These included some who already occupied responsible
positions in life, including senior nurses, university graduates and members
of executive councils. Many were never suspected of having hydrocephalus,
although looking back on their past history this diagnosis could have been
made much earlier. They obviously had slow progressive hydrocephalus which
did not detectably interfere with their life style. By the time they had a CT
scan, some had such enormously dilated ventricles there was hardly any brain
left above the level of the tentorium. They retained the midbrain cerebellum
and pons but what was virtually missing was the part of the brain we attribute
to superior intelligence ; the centres for the fin control of movements and
the appreciation of visual and auditory stimuli.
"The systematic CT scan study showed there were many older children and
adults who had grossly dilated ventricles with very thin residual brain and
yet did not suffer from physical defects and had normal intelligence. Some
were outstandingly intelligent with IQs well above the 'bright normal' range.
I can only presume hydrocephalus with only moderately raised intracranial
pressure can slowly progress over many years to reach eventually extreme
degrees without ever causing symptoms. It is possible that specific functions
of the brain, such as the motor cortex, may be relocated elsewhere from early
infancy onwards or that we do not need such a large quantity of brain and only
need to use a very small part of it under normal circumstances."~John Lorber,
"Is your Brain really Necessary?", Nursing Mirror, April 30, 1981, p. 20
Brain size is not necessary in order for one to be intelligent and capable of
buidling boats.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm