This statement is an historical introduction to a discussion of Gargett's
article. Shreeve was clearly and simply talking about what happened
historically and was NOT expressing his beliefs here. He did that much later
(see below). We have already discussed what the reviewers said about Gargett's
article. Just because it supports your position doesn't mean that it is
correct. One reviewer went so far as to say:
"We have difficulty finding any scientific merit in this paper. Gargett
appears to have no direct familiarity with the sites he reviews, is selective
in the cases he covers, lacks historical perspective, and ignores important
discoveries that demolish his argument. Recent finds resulting from modern
excavation procedures at Saint-Cesaire and Kebara and earlier cases from Roc
du Marsal and Amud indicate the intentional burial of specimens posessing a
Neanderthal morphology. Gargett makes no mention of these, concentrating on
older finds more vulnerable to criticism by modern standards.""~David W.
Frayer and Antra Montet-White,,"Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2 Apr.
1989, p. 180
Having no scientific merit is the second worst charge one can level against a
scientific paper. Only the charge of fraud is worse. Scientists do not use
this terminology loosely.
And if you believe that Shreeve should be an authority, then why did you not
cite the last thing he said on the topic.
"I think the Neanderthals had natural spirits like those of modern peoples who
also live tight against nature. But where the modern's gosds might inhabit
the eland, the buffalo, or the blade of grass, the Neandertals' spirit was the
animal or the grass blade, the thing and its sould perceived as a single vital
force with no need to distinguish them with separate names." Neanderthal
Enigma,p. 341
Sounds like a religion to me and sounds like a religion to me and sounds like
Shreeve disagrees with what you say he believes.
>
>Shaman art is unambiguous. Neandertal "evidence" is questionable.
>
>Leakey agrees with me about the confluence of recent and sudden
> advancements.
>Quoting Randall White, Leakey lists the sudden, Upper Paleolithic
> appearance
>of:
>
>- Refined burials
The burials of the Upper Paleolithic are no more refined than the neanderthal.
Neanderthals tied the bodies up in a flexed position and so did the Upper
Paleolithic men.
>- Artistic expression
The anatomically modern Azilians made no art more complex than that produced
by the neanderthal (at least art that has survived.)
>- Technological innovation
>- Regional cultural differences
Neanderthals were a Regional, European culture which differed from the rest of
the world. In Asia, hand axes were never made.
>- Long distance contacts
This is based upon transport of flint for tools. Since Neanderthal lived in a
region which had abundant flint, expecting long distance carrying of flint is
like asking Newcastle, England if they want to import coal from Pittsburgh!
(see Steven L. Kuhn, "On Planning and Curated Technologies in the
Middle Paleolithic," Journal of Anthropological Research, 48:3(1992), pp 185-
214, p. 192)
The patterns of transport did not change over a long, long time.
"Contrary to assumptions by Binford, the vast majority of both Middle
and Upper Paleolithic assemblages are generally made up of local lithic
materials and Rigaud note that in the Dordogne Valley the lithic sources
exploited, the lithic exploitation territories and the transport patterns were
identical from 200,000-25,000 years B.P."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural
Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p.
116
This time period covers the change from neanderthal to modern man.
The long distance transporat of some items during neanderthal times is
extraordinary. Some objects were transported up to 300 km.(Chris Stringer and
Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson,
1993), p. 174)
"The Mousterian deposits of
Qafzeh provide another example of non-utilitarian transport of aesthetic items
since the few Glycymeris shells (a non-edible species) excavated there must
have been brought from at least 50 km away."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural
Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p.
123-124
>
>All in support of the sudden appearance of complex, articulate language,
> BTW.
"Given the previous arguments on the symbolic connotations of complex
technology, social organization, rituals and the use of coloring agents, there
is no compelling reason to believe that Neandertal language was fundamentally
less complex than fully sapient language, although it may not have been as
developed and probably had a different grammar. While the notion of a
constant progression in the evolution of language seems plausible, Mellars'
and Whallon's endorsement of a position that implicates extreme language
difference (e.g., lacking future referents) between Middle and Upper
Paleolithic populations seems unwarranted. Not only had the most
significant-indeed the only significant change in brain morphology related to
speech areas occurred millions of years earlier at the
Homo habilis level of evolution, but as Fremlen has so effectively point out
in response to the minimalist view of Neandertal laryngeal areas:
'...et seems emprebeble theth ther speech wes enedeqwete bekes ef the leck ef
the three vewels seggested. The kemplexete of speech depends en the
kensenents, net en the vewels, es ken be seen frem the generel
kemprehensebelete ef thes letter.'"~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of
Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 131
>
>The gulf between modern man and Neandertal is astounding. And recent.
>
><< And you don't have to pay attention to art older than 33,000 years ago if
>
>you don't want to. That is most assuredly your perogative.>>
>
>Shaman-art is recent. And what "art" there is before this is the subject of
>"philosophical" debate. What is art? No debate about shaman-art, though.
>
><<So what exactly is wrong with my philosophy? What do you think my
>philosophy is?>>
>
>You're straining to make weak data fit your theory, IMO.
That is not a philosophy Jim. What is wrong with my philosophy?
>
><< Birds don't make tools with which to make other tools.>>
>
>So? They make tools.
Nothing as complex as a flute or a stone tool requiring multiple manufacturing
steps from mining to flint core preparation to final production. Besides
Neanderthal stone tools were exceptionally complex.
"(3) sophisticated Levallois technologies in Lower Paleolithic
contexts (e.g., at Cagny la Garenne) that are, if anything, more cognitively
complex than the single-platform blade technologies that supposedly typify the
European Aurignacian;~G. A. Clark, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
36:4(1995), pp. 605-634, p. 617
And even modern people have difficulty making Levallois tools, the tools of
these supposedly ignorant people.
"Production of these Levallois flakes requires a high degree of precision,
intelligence and training. In my estimation, and in the estimation of other
flintknappers, even today, there are few students of lithic technology that
ever achieve a Neandertal's level of expertise in producing good Levallois
cores or flakes, while the number of contemporary flinknappers that have
successfully mastered the technique for producing good Levallois points
probably number less than a score. The production of a simple prismatic blade
is incomparably easier than the manufacture of a Levallois point. According
to John Shea, it is even easier to thin a North American biface than to
produce a Levallois point; an assessment with which the author fully
agrees."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of
Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 118
>
><<Birds don't make tools(instruments) with which to make music.>>
>
>So? They sing.
So do Dogs. But they don't make instruments either. Only mankind makes
instruments and neanderthal made multiple-holed flutes and whistles.
>
><<Birds don't make artistic images of objects.>>
>
>So? They decorate their homes.
Homo erectus made a Venus figurine. This is something qualitatively
different.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm