what was/is the length and breadth and depth of Homo n's horizon of communication?
Thank you for your kindness John. The entire time I was reading your post I thought you would expect me to reply on Jaynes.
To reply though, we don't know for certain. Behaviors can be determined, as can patterns of thinking, etc. But then we have to deduce from the evidence. That's not simple.
HN entered the modern world stage early in the 20th century. We're all familiar with his early representation as an ugly brutish Troglodite, incapable of any communication except grunts. And horribly violent. Not to mention that in the first half of the 20th century he was regarded as German. It doesn't get any worse than that.....at that time.
But not to worry, we live in modern times, and everybody knows differently......except we are humans. We shouldn't forget that the vast majority of voters today will vote the same way their great-grandparents did. And they will spout the same old incredibly stupid arguments that are now 85+ years old.
So now, back to being able to deduce certain things. Two scientists can look at the same evidence and completely disagree. Totally.
So where does that leave us poor slobs who rely on scientific purity of thought? The facts are that Cro-magnon man is an obvious step up in evolution, but that was not originally known. People thought they had always been contemporaneus. And the beautiful Cro-magnon defeated the Huns. And the early 20th century prejudice remains incredibly strong, although people will deny it. As more and more details become irrefutable about Neanderthal, you find a gush of scientific papers that give begrudging ascent to a fact but with some sort of childish agenda that translates into "Yeah, but it wasn't very good and HS did it better". That's ok. It's a victory for freethinkers.
I especially got a kick out of the paper a while back that admitted that Neanderthal had speech, but was also saying - "but he sounded like a girl". You really have to keep a sense of humor in the Neanderthal debates.
Finally John, your question cannot be definitively answered. There's lots of evidence, but as always it's contested. One step at a time. Now, if you're asking my personal opinion, I'm gonna have to pass.
I know you're keeping up with the Clovis First issue too. Lot's of similarities. Lucky for them pre-clovis is so easy to prove. That evidence is everywhere - and yet there are papers still being written anti pre-clovis. It's an amazing scientifc world.
