On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:18:37, Glenn Morton wrote:
>GM>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.
SJ>Glenn needs to re-read his own source! :-) The whole point of
>Marshack's argument is that the Golan Venus is not "scoria" but
>"pyroclastic rock":
GM>Why do I bother? Stephen, scoria IS pyroclastic rock! The
>Dictionary of Geological Terms C.M. Rice 1963, says,
>
>Scoria. 1. An irregular, rough, clinker-like more or less vesicular fragment
>of lava, thrown out in an explosive eruption or formed by the breaking up of
>the first cooled crust of a lava flow." p. 363-364
>
>Pyroclastic: Fragmental volcanic rock p. 329
>
>It would be appreciated if you would take the time to understand
>what it is that others are saying before coming up with this silly
>stuff.
Glenn is just nit-picking! :-) I was aware that "scoria IS pyroclastic
rock". Marshack's (and my) point was that *the Golan Venus is not "scoria"
but is [a different type of] "pyroclastic rock", "namely an indurated
tuff".
GM>I really don't want to sound harsh but the above is illustrative
>of much of what you do.
I have long ceased to worry if Glenn "sounds harsh" - it is his
problem, not mine. Others have rebuked Glenn in the past for his
rude and angry tone, and I will continue to leave it up to them.
Glenn makes a big point about Christians needing to be meet a higher
standard of honesty in apologetics, but I would have thought it is
equally important that they meet a higher standard in patience and
kindness (1Cor 13:4). When Glenn descends to personal denigration,
as he often does, then I suspect that things are not going well for
his argument! :-)
SJ>"In his note on the Berekhat Ram figurine, excavated from a late
>Acheulian level and dated at ca. 230,000 B.P. CA 3 5: 674-75),
>Pelcin argues that the figurine is scoria, as it was generically
>described in the initial publication. He documents the fact that scoria
>can acquire odd shapes and natural grooving and therefore
>recommends that the Berekhat Ram figurine be subjected to
>microscopic analysis. I performed such microscopic analysis in the
>summer of 1994 and am preparing the results for publication. When I
>presented the results to Sergio Peltz of the Geological Survey of
>Israel Jerusalem, a specialist in scoria and the pyroclastic materials of
>Israel, he examined the figurine and reported (personal
>communication, October 23, 1994) that "the material of the figurine
>was part of the matrix of a welded scoria deposit, but specifically the
>figurine is not a scoria." (Marshack A., "On the `Geological'
>Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current Anthropology,
>36:3, June, 1995, p495)
GM>[sigh] Stephen, The article that Marshack is referring to is one
>by Andrew Pelcin, "A Geological Explanation for the Berekhat Ram
>Figurine" Current Anthropology Dec. 1994, pp674-675
Yes. I have the article too! :-)
GM>Pelcin had not examined the object personally, but made the
>suggestion that since it was scoria, the figurine might be the
>chance-formed shape of a volcanic eruption. Marshack examined the
>actual object and discovered that there was evidence that the shape
>of the scoria had been altered by digging part of the scoria away to
>enhance the female form. This is the reason he says that the
>figurine is not a scoria. Marshack is distinguishing between the
>actual figure and the process which formed it.
Yes. The article says (or at least implies) that too. My point was
that it required "microscopic analysis" to decide whether it was
natural groving or human enhancement. It is clear therefore that the
"art-work" (if it indeed is so) must be pretty primitive, if it can't
be readily distinguished from natural processes. I read a book on
anthropology by Renfrew at a bookstore which discusses the Berekhat
Ram object. It pointedly calls it a "figurine" (ie. in quotation
marks). It says that microscopic analysis by Marshack revealed the
head was outlined by a flint tool, but it could not be established
that the arms were. I have no problem if it was a figurine, but it
seems to me that it could have been anything.
GM>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I would urge Reflectorites to look at the photo of this claimed
>work of art and judge for themselves. I have no problem if this is
a work of art, but Glenn should have! :-) It is *very* crude and if
>it is an example of the art that early man was capable of producting
>330 kya, it is a complete refutation of Glenn's view that early man
>was capable of building a 3-decker Ark 5,500 kya.
GM>I have admitted on numerous occasions that this is a crude piece
>of art. So what? Chimpanzees do not engage in any form of art.
I will ignore the references to "Chimpanzees" as a red herring! :-)
I have many times stated that "early man" (ie. those species in
the genus Homo) were human (but not fully human).
But the "so what" is that Glenn's 5.5 mya H. habilis Noah theory
requires a level of *human* technical expertise 5.2 million years
*before* this "crude piece of art" was made. Marshack's argument is
that this was the very *beginning* of human art and represented the
earliest evidence of "shift in symboling capacity" (ie. a *mental*
ability). Glenn's theory is that Noah's descendants lost their
technological knowledge for 5 million years after the Flood. Leaving
aside the question why they did not regain it faster than they
presumably acquired it in the first place, the Golan Venus if it
turns out to be a human artefact, is good evidence of the emergence
of *mental ability*, namely "symboling capacity", it is *not* good
evidence of the regaining of long-lost technological knowledge.
I repeat: "...if it is an example of the art that early man was
capable of producting 330 kya, it is a complete refutation of
Glenn's view that early man was capable of building a 3-decker Ark
5,500 kya".
GM>[snip]
>GM>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.
SJ>No doubt, but presumably this "small stone figurine of a woman"
>was the best that an *adult* could do, 330 kya.
GM>And who said it was made by an adult?
We are discussing grooves cut in hard rock with flint tools. We are
discussing possible figurines of a woman's body - it is called the
"Golan Venus", remember? :-) This is hardly likely to the work of
children.
GM>And who said it was the best that they could do? Do you have
>knowledge of this that other people don't have? I know lots of
>modern ADULTS who are ashamed of how poorly they sculpt and draw.
>Their art, while extremely crude is not the best that humans can
>produce, but theirs, some day might be the only examples PRESERVED.
For Glenn's argument to survive he has to presumably assume that either:
1. none of the early art was done by adults; or 2. it was not the best
that they could do (the best not being preserved). On that basis he
could argue that they were all Leonardo da Vincis and Michaelangelos,
but only their work as children and their worst work as adults was
preserved? Give me a break! :-)
GM>Does this make them sub-human? Get real Stephen.
Another red-herring? I said *nothing* about thse early artists being
"sub-human". And I will leave it to others to judge who needs to
"Get real"! :-)
GM>[snip]
>
>GM>Last year Marshack wrote:
>
>"Peltz reported that it was clear that 'human hands had worked a
>ragment 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.
SJ>Actually Marshack wrote this in *1994*. The article is headed:
>
>"ALEXANDER MARSHACK Peabody Museum, Harvard
>University, Cambridge, Mass. 02I38, U.S.A. 19 XII 94"
>
>His Discovery remark was in *1996*, and must (in the absence of any
>corrections) be regarded as his most recent thought on the subject.
GM>I do not have the Discover that you speak of but from what you
>write, Marshack didn't even mention the Berekhat Ram figurine. How
>can a lack of mention be considered his most recent thought on the
>issue?
It is rather obvious. If Marshack still thought the Berekhat Ram
object dated 330 kya was the earliest evidence of art, he would
hardly ignore it in favour of something only 54 kya that he claims
is "evidence that art did not begin in Europe....".
In your quote above, Marshack points away from his Berekhat Ram
object to an "incised composition from the site of Quneitra,
Israel.". The Discovery article is about that new object. Here is
the entire short article:
====================================================================
Early Etchings
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. My emphasis)
====================================================================
GM>[snip]
SJ>But in any event Glenn has (perhaps unconsciously) seized on my
>mention of "brain size" as a red-herring, to distract attention from
>his major difficulty. According to him, if "archaic Homo Sapiens
>actually built ocean going boats" it "would be a major discovery".
>But the point is that Glenn's 5.5 mya H. habilis/erectus Adam theory
>requires that the *ancestor* of "archaic Homo Sapiens', namely "Homo
>habilis" (or erectus) "built a three-decker ark, not "176 thousand
>years" ago, but 5500 thousand years ago". I repeat *5500 THOUSAND
>years ago*. That is more than THIRTY TIMES as long ago!
GM>Well, the earliest documented ocean crossing of early man occurred
>PRIOR to 730,000 years ago (I know stephen, you will say "that is a
>far cry from 5.5 MYR).
Yes. That is *indeed* "a far cry from 5.5 MYR"! :-) In fact "5.5
MYR" is about 7.5 times as long as "730,000 years ago". The more
evidence Glenn posts about the abilities of early man, the worse it
gets for his 5.5 mya Homo habilis Adam theory. What Glenn really
needs is evidence of human technology and art 5,500,000 years ago.
GM>The ocean between the Indonesian island of
>Flores and the rest of Flores is much deeper than 600 feet. At no
>time during the past 800,000 years was the ocean that low.
On wonders how they can be so sure of that?
GM>Yet Homo erectus is found, dating at 800,000 years on that
>island. Somehow, he crossed the ocean. (Let me save you the
>calculation: 5.5 myr is 6.8 times older than 800,000)
Actually its nearer 6.9 (6.875). Glenn has posted the problem - what
is his solution?
GM>(for reference see ~P.Y. Sondaar, et al., "Middle Pleistocene
>faunal turnover and Colonization of Flores(Indonesia) by Homo
>erectus," Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences. Paris
>319:1255-1262, p. 1261)
This is interesting. Recently I posted:
"And Mike Morwood, an archaeologist with the University of New
England at Armidale, will report soon that archaic humans, Homo
erectus, had voyaged to Flores Island in Indonesia more than 730,000
years ago." "Settler clues in cores", "The West Australian",
Saturday November 16, 1996, p34)
Was Morwood a collaborator with Sondaar?
GM>The interesting thing is that H. erectus had to cross TWO
>stretches of ocean to reach Flores. The deep sea separates Bali
>from Lombok and then another separates Sumbawa from Flores.
Assuming H. erectus came from Africa via Asia, and there was no land
bridges, he would have at least *six* "stretches of ocean to
reach Flores":
1. Malasia - Sumatra
2. Sumatra - Java
3. Java - Bali
4. Bali - Lombok
5. Lombok - Sumbawa
6. Sumbawa - Flores
GM>Did H. erectus have a boat? We KNOW he worked with wood.
I see no reason why H. erectus or archaic H. sapiens had learnt to
use hollowed out logs for floating on. Logs float, animals ride on
them and even children play on them. If man was ever going to start
water travel, the Indonesian islands would be an obvious place to
start. There would be an obvious benefit to crossing water, ie. game
on islands, fish, etc. It would not take much brainpower to eventually
realise that one could get across stretches of water using hollowed out
logs or logs tied together to make rafts.
But like everything Glenn posts, this too argues against his 5.5 mya
H. habilis Noah theory. If Homo habilis could build a three-decker
Ark 5.5 million years ago, it should be no surprise that his
descendants, 4.8 million years later should be able to build a dugout
canoe! :-) The only surprise is that it took them so long to recover
the technological ability they allegedly lost after the Flood.
Presumably, then it took them at least as long to acquire the ability
in the first place? So Glenn's theory would seem to require early man
to be building primitive boats and making objects d'art 5.5 + 4.8 =
10.3 mya? But according to the genetic evidence, that is well before
the alleged chimp-Homo split:
"...the measurement of amino acid differences between humans and
living African great apes (gorillas and chimpanzees) led to the most
surprising result of all. We are virtually identical for genes that have
been studied, despite our pronounced morphological divergence. The
average difference in amino acid sequences between humans and
African apes is less than one percent (0.8 percent to be precise)-
corresponding to a mere five million years since divergence from a
common ancestor on the molecular clock. Allowing for the slop,
Allan Wilson and Vincent Sarich, the Berkeley scientists who
uncovered this anomaly, will accept six million years, but not much
more..." (Gould S.J., "Our Greatest Evolutionary Step", "The Panda's
Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980, p109).
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------